Hi TOK List,

 

  In the language game (i.e., the descriptive metaphysical language system that defines the key concepts and categories and grammar) of the Unified Framework, there are three different domains of mental process.

 

  Mind1 refers to a neurocognitive functionalist view of animal/brain/mental behavioral processes. In short, it characterizes the brain as a neuro-cybernetic computational/information processing system that plays a central and controlling role in the complex adaptive dynamic overt animal actions see from a third person exterior epistemological perspective. Furthermore, Behavioral Investment Theory, provides the metatheoretical frame for describing and explaining Mind1 (or the set of mental behaviors).

 

  Mind2 is the domain of subjective phenomenology. It is only directly epistemologically accessible via the first person perspectival/perceptual/witnessing point of view from the inside. Mind2 also goes by experiential consciousness. As this blog notes, is the home of “two hard problems”. One is the epistemological problem that the interior POV can never be seen directly from an exterior POV. And it refers to the mechanism problem of how the activity of the brain actually gives rise to the first person POV.

 

  Mind3 is the domain of self-conscious justification in humans. Epistemologically, it is intersubjective. It is what allows us all, as human persons, to read this email and connect around it.

 

Central to the Unified Framework is the claim that there has been no good language system for delineating Mind, Behavior, and Science, and related terms like consciousness.

 

If you want to hear a good example of how confusing things can get regarding consciousness, listen to the first 30 min or so of this podcast. In it, Donald Hoffman discusses his new view of consciousness. He does a nice job of articulating the huge gap in our understanding between Mind1 (i.e., cognitive neuroscience) and Mind2 (conscious phenomenology). He, however, sees the gap as so fundamental and confusing that he completely upends a commonsense naturalistic view of science and instead proclaims that consciousness, rather than physics, space, time, energy or matter is fundamental.

 

From a Unified Framework perspective, Hoffman does get a couple of pieces about consciousness (Mind2) correct. However, his descriptive metaphysical system for the whole falls flat and is hopelessly confused. The ToK theory of knowledge is much clearer and has much fewer problematic claims.

 

If we had the right descriptive metaphysical system, we could save much time avoid chasing down the false rabbit holes, like Hoffman is doing.

Best,
Gregg