I think that if you don’t have a phylogenetically (history of species) and ontogenetically (development of individual) sensible approach to consciousness, how it evolved, and how it develops… then you are shouting at ghosts.
This is the most cogent and satisfying account I’ve found:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36937548/
Hope it’s ok to share sus dropbox link?
[edit] There is a whiff of ableism when the authors discuss extensions of their model to “developmentally delayed” children. I think they are mistaken here; and I don’t think this mistake undermines the core argument.
In other words, I think it’s easy to take the core argument and use it in a neurodiversity affirming (even celebrating!) way.
But just a heads up that most folks here interested in science and philosophy, I imagine, will delight in 97% of this, and cringe / get pissed off at 3%.
At least that’s my reading.
Yes! Mine is like “big question” stuff. Philosophy, religion, psychology, etc.
There’s an inexhaustible amount of ideas to explore, so there is some variability. But as much as I read, I have not read fiction in like 20 years. No other hobbies, etc.
Luckily I found my way to psychology so I can practice in that area (mainly with struggles I have been through from the inside-out) and even provide “consultation,” i.e. getting paid to have a willingly captive audience listen to me info-dump about my special interest.
Mu hu ha ha ha.