Twitter | Pretraživanje | |
Ian Phillips
Philosopher of mind & psychology. BDP of Philosophy and Brain Sciences & Psych & Brain Sciences.
138
Tweetovi
226
Pratim
502
Osobe koje vas prate
Tweetovi
Ian Phillips 4. velj
Odgovor korisniku/ci @Ellagio
Pretty cool, isn't it? As for chickens, I'd be v surprised if they were capable of doing anything like this. Parrots and crows are the brainy birds. Rook pie definitely off my menu!
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Ian Phillips 3. velj
Odgovor korisniku/ci @ibphillips
The parrots are trained to exchange metal tokens for food through a hole. But what if the hole is covered so they can't exchange the tokens? As the video shows, they seem to spontaneously pass the tokens to their neighbours if they can use them.😀
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Ian Phillips 3. velj
Just came across this lovely study from Désirée Brucks and Auguste von Bayern showing African grey parrots voluntarily and spontaneously helping each other get food
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Ian Phillips 31. sij
Odgovor korisniku/ci @AidanMcGlynn @alabalawhiskey
“Je me presse de rire de tout, de peur d'être obligé d'en pleurer.”
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Ian Phillips 30. sij
Odgovor korisniku/ci @hakwanlau @MatthiasMichel_
Thanks Hakwan! That's v interesting re. contrast adjustment. And I def agree we shouldn't write off bias for understanding consciousness. But if effect is only shown to be on bias you can easily see why some will deny that results show PFC involved in consciousness.
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Ian Phillips 30. sij
Odgovor korisniku/ci @MatthiasMichel_ @hakwanlau
That was what I was thinking too.
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Ian Phillips 30. sij
Odgovor korisniku/ci @hakwanlau @MatthiasMichel_
Am I right that these results are consistent w/ effect on contrast threshold exclusively resulting from response bias? AFAICT threshold is measured by % correct, and when they look explicitly at sensitivity they find no significant correlation between lesions and A’ (only Beta').
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Ian Phillips 30. sij
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Ian Phillips proslijedio/la je tweet
Experimental Philos 29. sij
New paper from philosopher Hanna Pickard argues that experimental philosophy research on causation and counterfactuals can help us understand what goes so wrong in people's ordinary judgments about rape
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Ian Phillips 29. sij
Odgovor korisniku/ci @hakwanlau @m_the_cohen i 2 ostali
Totally agree. Boredom isn't the fundamental issue. Issue is whether cognition is fully occupied with task. There is space between being busy with a task and being completely cognitively consumed by it.
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Ian Phillips 29. sij
Odgovor korisniku/ci @hakwanlau @m_the_cohen i 2 ostali
My "rightly" was aimed at the Kapoor et al. paper. In Odegaard et al. you consider the worry that "an overtrained animal may still be preparing a report". But even if Mante et al. address that, cognition includes more than report prep. so decoding could still reflect that, no?
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Ian Phillips 29. sij
Odgovor korisniku/ci @johnschwenkler @VictorLamme i 3 ostali
Or at least even if there is a thinner concept of POV, there is a thicker notion (along the lines you suggest) which Nagel is invoking. A nice question whether we can really cash that notion out without invoking awareness.
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Ian Phillips proslijedio/la je tweet
Chaz Firestone 29. sij
Ned Block () vs Ian Phillips () & Jorge Morales () on "no-cognition" paradigms in ! 1. Ned 2. Ian&Jorge 3. Ned Intellectual fireworks exchanged by good friends :)
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Ian Phillips 29. sij
Impressive stuff. But from a quick look it seems they only deal with "volitional motor report" as a confound not other cognitive processes. So will rightly complain we need a no cognition paradigm.
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Ian Phillips 28. sij
If Nagel's main aim is to connect consciousness w/ having a POV, and if seeing involves having a visual POV on the world, you can reconcile what it's like talk with a fully 1st-order, seeing = conscious seeing view. (If ego = subject, not sure about doing away with that though!)
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Ian Phillips proslijedio/la je tweet
Moby Dick 27. sij
many strange things were hinted in reference to this wild affair
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Ian Phillips proslijedio/la je tweet
Ned Block 26. sij
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Ian Phillips 26. sij
👇 Always a pleasure to engage with and a new one to do so with the fantastic .
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Ian Phillips 22. sij
Fascinating new paper from and Hanna Pickard just out in on how memory sampling connects "chasing the first high" to use and relapse in addiction.
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Ian Phillips 7. sij
Odgovor korisniku/ci @NeuroYogacara
At least according to Matthew Walker in Why We Sleep the "natural" biphasic pattern is 6-7hrs at night and then a decent postprandial nap in the afternoon (just when most talks are scheduled!). He seems to suggest that two sleeps in the night was a fad.
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"