Post #1802282

2026-04-28 09:10 UTC

@frankreiff I'm familiar with those and that's definitely a really interesting comparison to draw and does suggest human explanations aren't quite as solid as we'd like to think... I'm not sure I follow completely though. Can you explain why would you say that it suggests explanations for humans would always work the same way even when we aren't talking about a case where the information simply isn't available as is the case in these split brain experiments. @chaucerburnt @sinbad

Replies (2)

@frankreiff@mastodon.social 2026-04-28 10:01

@ikuturso @chaucerburnt @sinbad Koch’s book suggests that “consciousness” is simply an evolved post-hoc process that rationalizes what the body and the unconscious mind have already done.. to provide a vend-able illusion of self that helps market ourselves socially aka “Reliable hunter, strong but loyal”. Libet shows that decisions are taken before they become conscious.. and we have no access to that process. So we confabulate why we did something based on the “output” just like Claude Code.

Open ##1802283
@frankreiff@mastodon.social 2026-04-28 10:05

@ikuturso @chaucerburnt @sinbad Just like Claude Code, we can externalize our decision making process to some extent. Tell ourselves what we are doing or write it down before we do it. Then we can go back and try to find out what went wrong.. but we rarely do that and the way that we choose isn’t even accessible to us. There’s some fascinating examples for instance with sleep walkers making breakfast while the prefrontal cortex is switched off.

Open ##1802290