On to part II. I like Lisa’s challenge at 18 min. Asking for evidence of locating emotions in the brain. I’m not saying she’s right, but that’s what I have been asking for all this time.
What did you think of the discussion at 28 min? Where they talk about the biological aspects of feelings?
Still working through it. I had to chainsaw a log out of a frozen swamp today. It wasn’t in the plan but I forgot about it and came across it and couldn’t let it go to waste.
Added on 2/27/24
(Youtube is doing reverse timestamps now)
-41mins (so 55 or thereabouts) Lisa flatly states that Mark doesn’t have evidence that qualifies as meeting a burden of proof.
57 (my timestamp flipped back) Lisa mentions the “hard problem”, which neither of like the way Chalmers formulates, but I still think it’s a problem. Then she goes on to “parrot” Stuart Firestein, author of “Ignorance”, and talks about having an open mind. At 1 hour (response to a question) One of the best succinct descriptions of that I’ve heard. 1:01 she gives an example scientists NOT having an open mind in the face of evidence.
@1:17 she says the “my whole life is a lie” category of statements. She’s talking about “natural kinds”, something she has said does not exist throughout the 3 hours, but only applying it to kinds of emotions. At this point, to explain that, she says the Periodic Table of Elements aren’t “natural kinds”. That’s some kind of new definition of what things are that I haven’t heard before.
This leads to a heated discussion about the brain figures out the world, including how babies are essentially blind at birth because their brains haven’t worked out how to analyze the data coming in through the eyes. “The circuitry is not there without learning”. Lisa refuses to accept firm boundaries and Mark keeps pushing it. She says it’s a claim, not evidential. He points to Yach’s encyclopedia, I didn’t get a specific reference.