"The Blind Spot" (2024): A Critical and Reconstructive Review with Timothy Jackson

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
10:36 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

Пікірлер: 15

  • @sudabdjadjgasdajdk3120
    @sudabdjadjgasdajdk31202 күн бұрын

    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.

  • @jameskaplin502
    @jameskaplin502Күн бұрын

    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. .

  • @philiptryon4280
    @philiptryon42802 күн бұрын

    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.

  • @DaveTielung
    @DaveTielung15 сағат бұрын

    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.

  • @dezatron
    @dezatron2 күн бұрын

    Looking forward to another chat between the two of you!

  • @JohnDewey-n8k
    @JohnDewey-n8k2 күн бұрын

    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 KZread works and you mentioned "Your Project"...can you direct me to what that might be ? And, my name is Jon Dewey.

  • @Footnotes2Plato

    @Footnotes2Plato

    2 күн бұрын

    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.

  • @FlavioLanfranconi
    @FlavioLanfranconi2 күн бұрын

    @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?

  • @FlavioLanfranconi

    @FlavioLanfranconi

    2 күн бұрын

    Or purpose etc...

  • @Footnotes2Plato

    @Footnotes2Plato

    2 күн бұрын

    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.

  • @FlavioLanfranconi

    @FlavioLanfranconi

    Күн бұрын

    @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

  • @alykathryn
    @alykathryn2 күн бұрын

    There but for the grace of God go I

  • @Money-Fastest-Plan
    @Money-Fastest-PlanКүн бұрын

    I finally found this inspiring video! Subscribed, and I'm ready to conquer my aspirations! ˎ "Each challenge conquered brings you closer to your goals."