It was a really cool workshop, I learned a lot. And it was cool to have you folks in CZ!

Hi Adrian, actually you are on the schedule today from 5:35 to 5:55 PM CET.

And what Andrew said: if pretty much anything is a "computation" then yes, GNWT is "computational". As for Putnam's list of conditions, I got lost at (4). :-D

But vision science does not care about whether the contents thus computed are conscious or not. And what makes them conscious does not seem to be computational on any available account. (Pred. coding looks sufficiently "computational" but it is unclear whether it is a theory of c.)

Same for RPT: recurrence works on contents to make them conscious - no computation involved. In contrast, work in vision science indicates the brain really does compute to determine what its seeing, hearing etc.

I'd be fine with "computational" if there was a computational process that transformed unconscious contents into conscious ones. But eg GNWT involves just a distribution of sensory and other contents from the workspace to the specialized modules. I find it very unnatural to call this "computation".

Thanks! I'm with a kid, will respond later...

@apotochnik.bsky.social makes the important point that the Vienna Circle had also a conception of the public role of their philosophy. Some great pictures and quotes on the slides. Is this material published, Angela? I wish I was taking screenshots. Thank you for a fantastic talk!