Richard Brown on higher order thought theories of consciousness | Thing in itself w/ Ashar Khan

Richard Brown is a philosopher at the City University of New York. His work is focused on the philosophy of mind, consciousness studies, and the foundations of cognitive science and he has done significant work on higher order thought theories of consciousness.
0:00 intro
4:14 studying consciousness
12:11 higher order thought theories
15:37 variants of HOT theories (relational and representational)
25:30 where do higher order mental states come from?
32:33 HOROR theory (higher order representation of a representation)
36:40 mismatch cases and empirical support
53:45 exploring vs identifying
56:00 panpsychism
1:09:59 global workspace theory and IIT
1:21:48 the consciousness studies field
1:28:15 animal consciousness
1:43:30 infant consciousness
1:46:56 emotions
1:59:20 well being
2:08:39 phenomenal consciousness
2:10:57 being interdisciplinary
Social
Twitter: / thinginitself__
Instagram: / thinginitself.pod
Facebook: / 100088163125850
Podcast
Spotify: open.spotify.com/show/0dUBLTl...
Google: www.google.com/podcasts?feed=...
Apple: podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast...
Amazon: music.amazon.ca/podcasts/9c6c...

[@PinyataSpirit]

last hour is really good

[@WilFehrle]

What a brilliant discussion. I have profound regard for a person with so much knowledge, with a real understanding of what lines of reasoning from a large array of different fields are articulating, to draw connections, and to flow seamlessly through a chain of thoughts while constructing a point. From Dr . Brown's gestures I got the sense of a huge matrix of of concepts and information, which from his depth of knowledge and humility he can openly explore and inter-relate in a fascinating, credible and enjoyable manner. Thanks for this experience.

[@Thinginitselfpodcast]

Thank you! I’m glad you liked it.

[@christopherhamilton3621]

The water argument is really bad & misleading/distracting. We know quite categorically that it’s H2O and have known this for some time. Am I missing something?

[@real_pattern]

yes, what you are missing is that there is not a clear, categorical one-to-one mapping between chemical and ordinary language kinds. the use of kind terms in chemistry is often context-sensitive and in cases where chemists want to ensure no ambiguity, they use a very complex and nuanced set of kind terms, none of which could be reasonably associated with the ordinary language kind term "water" alone.
since we can't just turn to chemistry to find a single chemical kind that can be used to determine the extension of "water", there isn't any strict sense in which water is H2O, because exactly what water is depends on the context in which "water" is uttered.
see kane b's video 'water is not H2O'.