I like McConnell’s.

I think it is for sure the best that’s sold in sizes larger than a pint.

And to be clear, the above wasn’t meant as a criticism—just genuinely curious if you’re committed to that claim. I worry it is mostly a debate about terminology

Did you get to pick the title? I don't see anything in the main text where you make the claim "The brain is not a machine", which is found in the title. I don't really care how we define the word "machine," but this issue has been coming up in discussions of enactivism and mechanistic phil sci

I have paper in progress laying out my own views on simulation theory and anti-localizationist accounts of brain function (which I presented on at the SPAN @socphilneuro.bsky.social l‬ meeting in May). If anyone wants to see a draft, just let me know! /3

The central issue is fleshing out the notion of simulation in the simulation theory (ST) of mentalizing, and how well it deals with more complex accounts of how mental functions relate to neural structures. I argue that Yousefi Heris's approach abandons what distinguishes ST from theory theory. /2

I get that sentiment. but it really feels wrong to me to let students get good grades for turning in AI written papers. Writing their papers in Google Docs doesn't require any extra work on their part, but the version history at least provides something to go in cases where you suspect AI was used

It was so excellent!! Thanks for your leadership in putting together such an awesome conference

It might just be that we’ve been doing this research long enough that we’re running out of names to easily demarcate all the relevant research programs. “4E” lumps together a bunch of thing and doesn’t even include “ecological”. “radical” is getting added to “embodied” and “enactive”…

Guess I should have read the Bruenig review before chiming in. No idea why they contrasted an abundance agenda with social welfare and other egalitarian ideals. I think this framing might be more of Thompson’s influence. It does seem like a mistake to make abundance a solitary policy goal

I can put that on my CV now right? Recognizing quotes from papers has to be a marketable skill…

But they also really care about scientific/technological innovation, and the welfare benefits they bring.

I think they’re saying there are certain beneficial outcomes for people that really do involve building/creating stuff, and just moving money around doesn’t create those benefits for people. Housing and energy infrastructure are their main building stuff examples.

I’ve heard especially Ezra talk about their view in the following way: liberal politicians have often simply touted their successes in terms of the amount of money devoted to a project, instead of the beneficial outcomes they’ve achieved—and that requires significant systemic changes

Is that the blindfold test paper?

would students interested in say philosophy of cognitive science be a good fit for this program? Or is more general philosophy of science topics be the main target?