"The Blind Spot" (2024): A Critical and Reconstructive Review with Timothy Jackson
Вставка
- Опубліковано 25 чер 2024
- Tim and I discuss the core chapters from Frank, Gleiser, and Thompson's new book "The Blind Spot: Why Science Cannot Ignore Human Experience" (MIT Press, 2024): www.penguinrandomhouse.com/bo...
Read my other reviews of this book:
open.substack.com/pub/footnot...
open.substack.com/pub/footnot...
Timestamps:
0:10 The contemporary urban life-world
10:34 In defense of "direct experience"
19:26 Life is a surprise to physics?
35:45 Real time vs. Clock time
42:13 Organization precedes Evolution?
1:04:27 Organicism includes mechanism; beyond evolution by survivability and cosmic teloi
1:28:47 Kantian residues in the autopoietic account of "outside"
1:43:55 Criticisms of Bayesian Brain/Predictive Processing accounts of consciousness
2:03:24 Model-centrism and misplaced concreteness
2:14:36 Is pure experience pre-conceptual? Whitehead's conceptual prehensions...
2:24:50 A new approach in neuroscience: Neurophenomenology
Thank you for the video. Such a blessing for me to watch here from Indonesia 🇮🇩... Looking forward for your next conversation. I hope you guys talk about Simindon and if it is possible relate it with Yuk Huis's idea on cosmotehnics.
Thank you for the discussion today. Personally, I appreciate the access you provide to Philosophical ideas and talks which raises my being.
It appears that along with a Technology acceleration there is an equal but somewhat unrecognized acceleration of understanding "Human Being" .
One question: I am somewhat new to watching your UA-cam works and you mentioned "Your Project"...can you direct me to what that might be ?
And, my name is Jon Dewey.
You’ll see a number of other videos on my channel of Tim and I discussing the intersections of process philosophy and other approaches like the free energy principle. We are working toward publishing something together on these topics.
I remember first coming into contact with machine learning with a machine that sorted checks and was astonished and one day I woke up and the technology was called Artificial Intelligence. instead of machine learning In listening to this dialogue it struck me to reimagine the name of this process and called it mechanical recapitulated intelligence since the machines are evolving. .
Living in Oakland with my aunts family and the homeless crisis here is horrific. (originally from San Jose which doesn't feel as bad because the size) Walk at least 700ft in any direction out of the neighborhood and witness the most desolate poverty I've ever seen, yet people here find it totally normal. It gives the term "liberal guilt" a new meaning. Never gone through with lending a hand at the shelter but if I say here anylonger I just might. Thank you for mentioning how your experience in the city effected you.
Enjoyed the conversation, especially the parts about physics, machines band organisms. In recognizing the significance of legacy, lineage and the likelihood that the laws of physics are evolving it seems that you are tiptoeing closer and closer to Sheldrakes suggestion of morphic resonance.
Looking forward to another chat between the two of you!
@Footnotes2Plato
I wonder:
If I were to say:
"Science can only ever "see" mechanism.!"
In the sense, that the scientific method can only work on countable/measurable quantities and therefore "a priory" excludes any possibility of an account of final, theoleological cause, or even a description of "function"....
What would be your response?
Or purpose etc...
I agree that scientific materialism can only ever see mechanisms. Its method is analysis, but it forgets its methodological choice and imagines that the world really is just a pile of parts. But there can be other kinds of science, other methodological choices. There can be organic or synthetic science capable of seeing wholes, and of recognizing that parts are always relative to the wholes to which they belong. The point is not to oppose synthetic science to analysis, as if the reductive method is not also an important part of the alchemical repertoire! The point is that coherent analysis itself depends upon a prior intuition of the way it all hangs together. Otherwise, with only analysis, we fall into the trap of imagining that reality has a finite resolution.
@Footnotes2Plato
Thank you, that you took the time for a response! I think I very much agree...
I'd love to explore this, and some more questions/ideas regarding ... "whiteheadian-methaphysical pysics" in some form or another with you... (I'm a physicist (phd, at the moment: teacher) from Switzerland who took your course on Göthe and Whitehead from Schumacher College three years ago and my father was a Professor of Philosophy at the University of Zürich, so i got some Philosophy-Interest rubed off at me, i suppose...)
I would love to be able to offer some tiny insights towards the building of a coherent way of talking about the world that heals any gap...
If there is a chance you'd be interested I would be very happy if you would consider contacting me at:
flavio.lanfranconi@gmail.com OR
processing.reality@gmail.com
There but for the grace of God go I
It seems to me that his critique is bound in binary views of reality, that he fails to understand that the book is written by three authors with different views and knowledge of the subject, that it is not meant to be fully coherent, and that he doesn't understand, that to describe a reality that "can't be described fully with words", "that can't be fully formalized", that "the map is not the land", must necessarily be paradoxical. It's like he hasn't thought about how the "dead matter of physics can posses agency and have goals".
His arguments "two sides of the same coin" has no explanatory power and he doesn't argue why that is, and he claims that one has to be static in time, ie without time, again without any explanation to why that is. I'd hoped for a more nuanced and wise conversation about the subject; I feel like you were just letting him off the hook too easy. I'd have challenged him with the works and views of McGillchrist, Penrose, Hameroff & Levin.
To be honest, he sounds like a bewildered student that has yet to mature. Half way through now, and I just can't stand listening to him.
I fervently hope to remain a bewildered student. “Maturity” is the death of thought.