The Introspective Peepshow: Consciousness and the ‘Dreaded Unknown Unknowns’
by rsbakker
Aphorism of the Day: That it feels so unnatural to conceive ourselves as natural is itself a decisive expression of our nature.
.
This is a paper I finished a couple of months back, my latest attempt to ease those with a more ‘analytic’ mindset into the upside-down madness of my views. It definitely requires a thorough rewrite, so if you see any problems, or have any questions, or simply see a more elegant way of getting from A to B, please sound off. As for the fixation with ‘show’ in my titles, I haven’t the foggiest!
Oh, yes, the Abstract:
“Evidence from the cognitive sciences increasingly suggests that introspection is unreliable – in some cases spectacularly so – in a number of respects, even though both philosophers and the ‘folk’ almost universally assume the complete opposite. This draft represents an attempt to explain this ‘introspective paradox’ in terms of the ‘unknown unknown,’ the curious way the absence of explicit information pertaining to the reliability of introspectively accessed information leads to the implicit assumption of reliability. The brain is not only blind to its inner workings, it’s blind to this blindness, and therefore assumes that it sees everything there is to see. In a sense, we are all ‘natural anosognosiacs,’ a fact that could very well explain why we find the consciousness we think we have so difficult to explain.”
More generally I want to apologize for neglecting the comments of late. Routine is my lifeblood, and I’m just getting things back online after a particularly ‘noro-chaotic’ holiday. The more boring my life is, the more excited I become.
Three Pound Brain 
Though I haven’t had a chance to check out the paper yet, I did want to post this, as SMBC frequently reminds me of TPB and BBT. Ok, enough acronyms!
http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2859#comic
Hilarious. I need to add SMBC to my favorites.
unrelated, but I wanted to flag n+7 a tool that replaces nouns with the next noun in the dictionary (for n+1) and n+7 would be the seventh next. It’s sort of an interesting way at collapsing and expanding language, and hilarious and fascinating all at the same time. We think our writing is so unique, and yet meaning can be extracted from text in which all the subjects have been replaced.
Here’s a favorite quote of mine from The Darkness that Comes Before:
Often, in his soul’s eye, she was inexplicably thin and wild, buffeted by rain and winds, obscured by the swaying of forest branches. This woman, who had once lifted her hand to the sun, holding it so that for him its light lay cupped in her palm, and telling him that truth was air, was sky, and could only be claimed, never touched by the limbs and fingers of a man. He couldn’t tell her how profoundly her musings affected him, that they thrashed like living things in the wells of his soul and gathered stones about them.
Here’s N+3
Often, in his soundtrack’s eyeful, she was inexplicably thin and wildlife, buffeted by raindrop and windfalls, obscured by the swaying of foreword brandies. This wombat, who had once lifted her handbook to the sunbonnet, holiday it so that for him its lighting lay cupped in her pamphlet, and temperament him that tsarina was air-conditioner, was skylight, and could only be claimed, never touched by the limericks and fingerprints of a manager. He couldn’t tell her how profoundly her musings affected him, that they thrashed like load thinkers in the wells of his soundtrack and gathered stools about them.
And N+7
Often, in his south’s eye-opener, she was inexplicably thin and wimp, buffeted by raisin and window-dressers, obscured by the swaying of forgery brassieres. This woodcutter, who had once lifted her handful to the sundry, holocaust it so that for him its light-year lay cupped in her panatella, and temple him that tuber was airgun, was slacker, and could only be claimed, never touched by the limps and firs of a mandible. He couldn’t tell her how profoundly her musings affected him, that they thrashed like lob thistles in the wells of his south and gathered stopgaps about them.
http://www.spoonbill.org/n+7/
Scott,
Enjoyed the paper,
I have only read a little of Carruthers and Shwitzgebel, but feel more confident generally in your take towards these things, though I am sure I have learned something from them and they are generally working towards similar conclusions. I also share your belief about the Nietzschean misdirections (including Nietzschean misdirections) over philosophy’s history.
I think, as much of your writing is humble about, that the story is stupidly complicated. Surely the informatic neglect that you highlight, along with Kahneman, Metzinger, Dennett, Rosenberg, et al, is a major player in much of this confusion. Contrarily, I also believe that some of that introspection is at least at times getting things “right,” or the structures of such is telling our selves something useful about our selves. Furthermore, there is now going to be brain/minds that introspect after seeing fMRI images and also have knowledge of certain biases that are engaged in that introspection; that is, they are in a little better shape than Descartes, for example. Certainly, informatic neglect will still effect them to a great degree, but it seems those brain/minds may be limiting or at least changing the nature of such. The situation may not be completely irreconcilable.
Though, radical that I am, I think much of our Philosophy will be decimated or overthrown and rethought. Certainly our manifest image of human beings will be rewrought. Hopefully, as we understand our selves and institutions and relationships in a better light, we can ask more pertinent questions about the shape and outcomes of such.
I’m up to about page seven. ‘Mind reading’ is basicaly ‘theory of mind’? I just stumbled over the term.
Getting up to the bit where the Anton syndrome quote is changed over to a philosopher. From my perspective, I’m not sure how that’s supposed to be internalised? And in as much as there isn’t a way to internalise it, it wont. I mean, it doesn’t even work out at a scientific enquiry level “You can’t see anything” “Well, is there some kind of experiment I can still run?” “*no further info* You can’t see anything”. Some kind of theoretical or virtual way of still making enquiries (ie, even if they don’t accept the concept to any degree now, part of the essay involves imagining a described virtual position to imagine engaging this philoso-anton’s syndrome by).
Also in general the issue of people not having a method by which they can be wrong – and equally, whether the essay has a method by which it can be wrong. Sometimes a meet of potentially wrong minds to potentially wrong minds can happen. But it’s more about undermining ones own claims.
Now I written that and my cache is emptied out, will read a bit more…
Oh, and there’s one thing that strikes me about unk unks – what about unknown unknown unknowns? I know, it sounds silly, but exactly – why not a third dimension of unknown? Why does it seem redundant? Is it purely that it is, or is it part of the architecture of the mind that it seems so?
Unknown unknowns are a lack of information pertaining to a lack of information. We know there is the possibility that we lack information pertaining to our lack of information–we have a kind of knowledge of unknown unknowns, since we have framed the concept of unk unks in the first place. We look at the past and can point out unk unks, as Donald Rumsfeld did. They are unenclosed, free-floating holes. Once they come into our awareness they cease to be unk unks *for us*–they become enclosed on some level; we only know unk unks for others, for us in the past. I feel like I am almost vomiting onto the page. I guess the point is that for us, now, unk unks are always unknown. Not sure if that made sense.
Finally found some time to read – albeit, in class: is this intended as a precursor to the Last Magic Show or supplementary?
You should add this to Essays?