A good theory of consciousness is one that predicts behavior that is unexplained by other current theories of consciousness. Einstein's General Theory was given credence because it predicted the bending of light.

What do current theories of consciousness predict that is outside common intuition about the nature of consciousness?
Many theories of consciousness are elegant, but do they predict anything out of the ordinary?
A theory of consciousness must be expressed in a formulation, consists of interpretations that are valid and predict something unexpected.
A bad theory of consciousness has ambiguous interpretations and predicts nothing out of the ordinary.
What is missing in theories of consciousness, (see: global neural workspace and higher-order theory) is an explanation of the mechanism of inference. Missing is HOW a subconscious thought leads to conscious thought.
Dennet in his inversion of reasoning alludes to the idea that it thought itself is an emergent phenomena analogous to evolution also being an emergent phenomena. Of course there are a lot of details that goes into an emergent phenomena.
We do know from Deep Learning how to create intuition. Which is commonly thought of as a System 1 (hence unconscious) process. However, you still have to tie the reflective cognition (System 2) with System 1. A lot of this is glossed over in consciousness theories.
So, going with the same analogy of General Relativity of the bending of light due to gravity, a theory of consciousness must explain why these lines appear to bend when they do not:
Because a theory of consciousness must also be a theory of perception.
@threadreaderapp unroll

More from Carlos E. Perez

More from For later read

@snip96581187 @Daoyu15 @lab_leak @walkaboutrick @ydeigin @Ayjchan @franciscodeasis @TheSeeker268 @angie_rasmussen Clearly, because as I have been saying for 8 months now, DTRA and DARPA have been using Ecohealth and UC Davis to collect novel pathogens for gain of function work back in the USA. I have documented this in many threads which I will post here just to annoy everyone.

@Daoyu15 @lab_leak @walkaboutrick @ydeigin @Ayjchan @franciscodeasis @TheSeeker268 @angie_rasmussen


@Daoyu15 @lab_leak @walkaboutrick @ydeigin @Ayjchan @franciscodeasis @TheSeeker268 @angie_rasmussen


@Daoyu15 @lab_leak @walkaboutrick @ydeigin @Ayjchan @franciscodeasis @TheSeeker268 @angie_rasmussen


@Daoyu15 @lab_leak @walkaboutrick @ydeigin @Ayjchan @franciscodeasis @TheSeeker268 @angie_rasmussen
the whole point of Dunks was you could go cop them at VIM whenever you wanted for $65. this shit is like having to enter a raffle to buy milk.


like seriously why not make a ton more of them if they're gonna be so sought-after? they land at outlets? so? nike still makes money off that.

the only reason to keep making them so limited is that they KNOW all that matters is the profit on the flip and if they were readily available FEWER people would want them, not more

the whole system is super broken, but it's just gonna go the way it goes, because at this point it all caters to the secondary market. the only reason Nike can sell Jordan 1s for $200 is because the people buying them can flip them for $500

adjusted for inflation, a $65 AJ1 in 1985 is like $160—and modern-day AJ1s are made from cheaper materials in factories staffed by cheaper workers. they don't HAVE to be $200 retail. but the secondary market nuked the whole concept of what sneakers are "worth"

You May Also Like