Créez, enrichissez et mettez à jour vos fiches produits automatiquement grâce à des intégrations avec les bases fournisseurs, l’IA ou les plateformes de gestion de catalogue.
Créez, enrichissez et mettez à jour vos fiches produits automatiquement grâce à des intégrations avec les bases fournisseurs, l’IA ou les plateformes de gestion de catalogue.
{
"meta": {
"instanceId": "408f9fb9940c3cb18ffdef0e0150fe342d6e655c3a9fac21f0f644e8bedabcd9",
"templateCredsSetupCompleted": true
},
"nodes": [
{
"id": "b2c3ff9d-936e-4c3c-b3da-84b44f12b6f0",
"name": "When clicking "Execute Workflow"",
"type": "n8n-nodes-base.manualTrigger",
"position": [
-980,
500
],
"parameters": {},
"typeVersion": 1
},
{
"id": "8ddbbd62-a49b-44d9-b8db-d710c2cc7f07",
"name": "Sticky Note",
"type": "n8n-nodes-base.stickyNote",
"position": [
-560,
360
],
"parameters": {
"width": 456,
"height": 638,
"content": "## Chunk the transcript into several parts, and refine-summarize it "
},
"typeVersion": 1
},
{
"id": "007400f1-97b8-4b31-a126-f9b76ffabc65",
"name": "Sticky Note1",
"type": "n8n-nodes-base.stickyNote",
"position": [
-80,
360
],
"parameters": {
"width": 615.8516011477997,
"height": 443.66706715913415,
"content": "## Generate Questions and Topics from the summary and make sure the response follows required schema."
},
"typeVersion": 1
},
{
"id": "7e27d8fa-a21c-4690-bf84-6366695d49b6",
"name": "Sticky Note3",
"type": "n8n-nodes-base.stickyNote",
"position": [
560,
360
],
"parameters": {
"width": 479,
"height": 508,
"content": "## Ask Agent to research and explain each topic using Wikipediann"
},
"typeVersion": 1
},
{
"id": "e6cef3c3-0811-49dc-9706-f98befeadfc0",
"name": "Sticky Note4",
"type": "n8n-nodes-base.stickyNote",
"position": [
1080,
360
],
"parameters": {
"width": 452,
"height": 351,
"content": "## Format as HTML and send via Gmail"
},
"typeVersion": 1
},
{
"id": "cb911db1-d2af-4d2b-9338-3804f89d6de2",
"name": "Default Data Loader",
"type": "@n8n/n8n-nodes-langchain.documentDefaultDataLoader",
"position": [
-380,
722.5
],
"parameters": {
"options": {}
},
"typeVersion": 1
},
{
"id": "20e60d3a-bc0d-4918-b0bc-53dea0b31e15",
"name": "OpenAI Chat Model",
"type": "@n8n/n8n-nodes-langchain.lmChatOpenAi",
"position": [
-500,
720
],
"parameters": {
"model": {
"__rl": true,
"mode": "list",
"value": "gpt-4o-mini"
},
"options": {}
},
"credentials": {
"openAiApi": {
"id": "8gccIjcuf3gvaoEr",
"name": "OpenAi account"
}
},
"typeVersion": 1.2
},
{
"id": "e6d03a52-ba51-4661-a3ff-647bffe1dc4a",
"name": "AI Agent",
"type": "@n8n/n8n-nodes-langchain.agent",
"position": [
680,
500
],
"parameters": {
"text": "=Question: {{ $json.question }}nWhy: {{ $json.why }}nnContext: {{ $('Summarize Transcript').first().json.response.text }}n",
"options": {},
"promptType": "define"
},
"typeVersion": 1.8
},
{
"id": "70c1fa3b-40b2-4015-b6dd-5f0750c80c1b",
"name": "Wikipedia",
"type": "@n8n/n8n-nodes-langchain.toolWikipedia",
"position": [
860,
720
],
"parameters": {},
"typeVersion": 1
},
{
"id": "968816a8-2da1-4af0-abe1-e46f9df21883",
"name": "Podcast Episode Transcript",
"type": "n8n-nodes-base.code",
"position": [
-760,
500
],
"parameters": {
"jsCode": "return { transcript: `So throughout the last couple episodes weu2019ve been doing on the philosophy of mindu2026thereu2019s been an IDEA that weu2019ve referenced MULTIPLE TIMESu2026 and really just glossed over it as something, thatu2019s PRACTICALLY self evident. nnnnThe ideau2026 is that when we THINK about consciousnessu2026 we can SPLIT it into two different typesu2026thereu2019s ACCESS consciousness on the one handu2026 and PHENOMENAL consciousness on the other. This is what weu2019ve been saying. nnnnWhen it comes to ACCESS consciousnessu2026thatu2019s stuff we CAN explain with neuroscience things like memories, information processing, our field of visual awarenessu2026we can CLEARLY EXPLAIN a bit about how all THAT stuff works.nnnnBut in this conversation so far, what KEEPS on being saidu2026 is that what we CANu2019T SEEM to explainu2026is PHENOMENAL consciousnessu2026you know, the subjective experience, that UNDERLIES conscious thought. That it FEELS like something to be me. Thereu2019s this ideau2026that this phenomenal consciousness is something separateu2026something fundamental, something in a category ALL ITu2019S OWNu2026 that needs to be explained. You can explain a lot of stuff about access consciousnessu2026but you canu2019t explain PHENOMENAL consciousness. nnnnBut if you were a good materialist listening to the discussions on this series so faru2026and youu2019re sitting in the back of the room, being SUPER PATIENT, NOT SAYING ANYTHING trying to be respectful to all the other ideas being presentedu2026maybe thereu2019s a part of you so far thatu2019s just been BOILING inside, because youu2019re waiting for the part of the show where weu2019re ACTUALLY going to call that GIANT assumption thatu2019s being made into question. nnnnBecause a materialist might say, SUREu2026phenomenal consciousness is PRETTY mysterious and all. But DOES that necessarily mean that itu2019s something that NEEDS a further explanation? nnnnThis is a good question. What is the differenceu2026 between EXPLAINING ALL of the component PARTS of our subjective experience again the thoughts, memories, information processingu2026whatu2019s the difference between explaining all that and explaining phenomenal consciousnessu2026 in itself? Like what does that even mean?nnnnThatu2019s kinda like you sayingu2026wellu2026 you can EXPLAIN the delicious waffle cone. You can EXPLAIN the creamy chocolatey goodness inside, you can EXPLAIN the RAINBOW colored SPRINKLES. But you CANu2019T explain the ICE CREAM CONEu2026in ITSELF, now can you? nnnnI mean at a CERTAIN point what are we even talking about anymore? IS phenomenal consciousness REALLY something thatu2019s ENTIRELY SEPARATE that needs to be explained? nnnnMaybe, it DOESNu2019T need to be explained. Maybe phenomenal consciousness is less a thing in itselfu2026and MORE a sort of ATTRIBUTION we makeu2026 about a particular INTERSECTION of those component parts that we CAN study and explain. nnnnNow obviously thereu2019s a bit to clarify thereu2026 and going over some popular arguments as to why that might be the case will take a good portion of the episode here today. But maybe a good place to start is to ask the questionu2026if the hard problem of consciousness is to be able to explain why it FEELS like something to be meu2026and your SOLUTION to that is that maybe we donu2019t even need to explain that. One thing youu2019re gonna HAVE to explain no matter whatu2026 is why it SEEMS to MOST people living in todayu2019s worldu2026that phenomenal consciousness IS something that needs to be explained. nnnnRight before we began this series we did an episode on Susan Sontag and the power of the metaphors we casually use in conversations. And we talked about how these metaphors ACTUALLY go on to have a pretty huge impact on the way we contextualize the things in our lives. nnnnWell the philosopher Susan Blackmore, and apparentlyu2026 I ONLY cover female philosophers by the name of Susan or Simone on this showu2026but anyway SUSAN BLACKMORE, huge player in these modern conversations about the mysteries of consciousnessu2026and she thinks that if itu2019s DIFFICULT for someone to wrap their brain around the idea that phenomenal consciousness is NOT something that is conceptually distinctu2026it MAY BE because of the METAPHORS about consciousness that we use in everyday conversation that are directing the way you THINK about consciousnessu2026 into a particular lane thatu2019s incorrect. nnnnFor example, thereu2019s a way people think about consciousnessu2026 thatu2019s TRAGICALLY common in todayu2019s worldu2026itu2019s become known as the Cartesian theater. So Cartesian obviously referring to Descartes. And when Descartes arrives at his substance dualism where the MIND is something ENTIRELY SEPARATE from the BODYu2026this EVENT in the history of philosophy goes on to CHANGE the way that people start to see their conscious experience. They start to thinku2026 well what I amu2026is Iu2019m this conscious creature, sort of perched up here inside of this headu2026and Iu2019m essentiallyu2026sitting in a theater, LOOKING OUT through a set of eyes which are kind of like the screen in a theateru2026and on the screen what I SEE is the outside world. nnnnNow nobody ACTUALLY believes this is what is happening. Every person on this god forsaken planet KNOWS that there isnu2019t a movie theater up in their heads. But hearing and using this metaphor DOES SHADE the way that they see their own conscious experience. The casual use of the metaphoru2026 ALLOWS people to smuggle in assumptions about their subjective experience, that we REALLY have no evidence to be assuming. nnnnFor example, when the mind and body is totally separateu2026maybe it becomes EASIER for people to believe that theyu2019re a SPIRIT thatu2019s INHABITING a body. Maybe it just makes it easier for people to VIEW their subjective, phenomenal consciousness as something SEPARATE from the body that needs to be explained in itself. WHATEVER IT IS thoughu2026the point to Susan Blackmore is that metaphors you use have an IMPACT on your intuitions about consciousness. And she thinks thereu2019s several OTHER examples that fall into the very same CATEGORY as the Cartesian Theater. nnnnHow about the idea that thereu2019s a unified, single, STREAM of consciousness that youu2019re experiencing. The STREAM being the metaphor there. Susan Blackmore asks is a SINGLE, unified STREAM, REALLY the way that you experience your conscious thought? Like when you REALLY pay attention is that how youu2019re existing?nnnnShe says most likely the only reason people SEE their consciousness in terms of a streamu2026is because of the specific way that people are often asked to OBSERVE their own consciousness. Thereu2019s a BIAS built into the way that weu2019re checking in. How do people typically do it? Well theyu2019ll take a momentu2026theyu2019ll stop what theyu2019re doingu2026and theyu2019ll ask themselves: what does it feel like to be ME right now. Theyu2019ll pay attention, theyu2019ll listen, theyu2019ll try to come up with an answer to the questionu2026and theyu2019ll realize that thereu2019s a PARTICULAR set of thoughts, feelings and perceptions that it FEELS like, to be YOU in THAT moment. nnnnBut then that person can wait for an houru2026come back later, and ask the very SAME QUESTION in a different moment: what does it feel like to be me right nowu2026and low and behold a totally DIFFERENT set of thoughts, feelings and perceptions come up. nnnnAnd then what we OFTEN DO as people at that pointu2026 is we FILL IN that empty space between those two moments with some ethereal STREAM of consciousness that we assume MUST HAVE existed between the two. nnnnBut at some OTHER levelu2026RATIONALLY we KNOWu2026that for the whole time that we WERENu2019T doing this accounting of what it FEELS like to be meu2026we KNOW that there were TONS of different unconscious meta-processes going onu2026all doing their own things, sometimes interacting with each other, most of the time not. We KNOW that our EXPERIENCE of consciousness is just directing our attention to one PIECE of our mental activity or anotheru2026 and that all those pieces of mental activity KEEP on operating whether weu2019re FOCUSING on one of them or not. nnnnSo is there a specific LOCATION where thereu2019s some sort of collective STREAM where all of this stuff is bound together HOLISTICALLY? Is there ANY good reason to ASSUME that it NEEDS to BE that way? Could it be that the continuity of this mental activity is more of an ILLUSIONu2026 than it is a reality?nnnnAnd if this sounds impossible at firstu2026think of OTHER illusions that we KNOW go on in the brain. Think of how any SINGLE sector of the brain CREATES a similar sort of illusion. Memories. We KNOW that DIFFERENT parts of the brain are responsible for different types of memory. Semantic memory in the frontal cortex, episodic memory in the hippocampus, procedural memory in the cerebellum. ALL of these different areas work together in concert with each other, itu2019s ALL seemingly unified. nnnnWhen someone cuts me off in traffic and Iu2019m choosing a reactionu2026I donu2019t CONSCIOUSLY, travel down to my cerebellum and say hey 200 million years ago how did my lizard grandfather react when a lizard cut him off in trafficu2026no MULTIPLE different parts of the brain work together and create an ILLUSION of continuity. And the SAME thing goes for our VISUAL experience of the world. The SAME thing happens with our emotions. nnnnHereu2019s Susan Blackmore saying: the traditional METAPHORS that we casually throw around about consciousnessu2026even with just a LITTLE bit of careful observation of your own experienceu2026being someone up in a theater in your head with a unified, continuous STREAM of your own consciousnessu2026this ISNu2019T even how our experiences SEEM. nnnnNow it should be said if you were sufficiently COMMITTED to the processu2026you could ABSOLUTELY carry on in life with a complete LACK of self awareness fueled by the METAPHORS of pop-psychology and MOVIES and TV shows, and you could DEFINITELY LIVE in a state of illusion about it. But that DOESNu2019T make it rightu2026and what happens she asks when those METAPHORS go on to impact the way we conduct science or break things down philosophically? She says:nnnnu201cNeuroscience and disciplined introspection give the same answer: there are multiple parallel processes with no clear distinction between conscious and unconscious ones. Consciousness is an attribution we make, not a property of only some special events or processes. Notions of the stream, contents, continuity and function of consciousness are all misguided as is the search for the neural correlates of consciousness.u201dnnnnThe MORE you think about the ILLUSIONS that our brains create for the sake of simplicityu2026the more the question starts to emerge: what if there is no CENTRALIZED HEADQUARTERS of the brain where the subjective experience of YOUu2026is being produced? nnnnWhat if consciousnessu2026is an emergent property that existsu2026ONLY, when there is a VERY SPECIFIC organization of physical systems? nnnnThere are people that believe that phenomenal consciousnessu2026 is an ILLUSION, theyu2019re often called Illusionistsu2026and what someone like THAT may say is sure, fully acknowledge there are other theories about what may ultimately explain phenomenal consciousnessu2026but isnu2019t it ALSO, ENTIRELY POSSIBLEu2026that what it FEELS like to be YOUu2026is an illusion created by several, distributed processes of the brain running in parallel? Multiple different channels, exerting simultaneous influence on a variety of subsystems of the brain. That these subsystems talk to each other, they compete with each other, they ebb and flow between various states of representation. nnnnBut that these different DRAFTS of cognitive processes come together, to create a type of simplification of whatu2019s going on in aggregateu2026 and that simplification is what YOU experience asu2026 YOU. I mean we have our five senses that help us map the EXTERNAL world and they do so in a way that is often crude and incomplete. Could it beu2026 that we SIMILARLYu2026 have a crude misrepresentation of our own brain activity that SIMILARLY, allows us to be able to function efficiently as a person? nnnnIf you were looking for another METAPHOR to apply here that an illusionist might say is probably better for people to think of themselves in terms ofu2026 because its not gonna lead us down that rabbit hole of the cartesian theateru2026its to THINK of phenomenal CONSCIOUSNESSu2026as being SIMILAR to a USER INTERFACE or a DESKTOP on a computer. nnnnThe idea is: what IS the desktop of a computer? Well its a bunch of simplified ICONS on a screen, that allow you to essentially manipulate the ELECTRICAL VOLTAGE going on in between transistors on computer hardware. But AS youu2019re pushing buttons to CHANNEL this electricity, getting things DONE on the computeru2026you donu2019t ACTUALLY need to know ANYTHING ABOUT the complex inner workings of how the software and hardware are operating.nnnnThe philosopher Daniel Dennett INTRODUCES the metaphor here in his famous book called Consciousness Explained (1991). He says:nnnnu201cWhen I interact with the computer, I have limited access to the events occurring within it. Thanks to the schemes of presentation devised by the programmers, I am treated to an elaborate audiovisual metaphor, an interactive drama acted out on the stage of keyboard, mouse, and screen. I, the User, am subjected to a series of benign illusions: I seem to be able to move the cursor (a powerful and visible servant) to the very place in the computer where I keep my file, and once that I see that the cursor has arrived u2018thereu2019, by pressing a key I get it to retrieve the file, spreading it out on a long scroll that unrolls in front of a window (the screen) at my command. I can make all sorts of things happen inside the computer by typing in various commands, pressing various buttons, and I donu2019t have to know the details; I maintain control by relying on my understanding of the detailed audiovisual metaphors provided by the User illusion.u201dnnnnSo if we take this metaphor seriouslyu2026then the idea that you are some sort of privileged observer of everything thatu2019s going on in your mindu2026that starts to seem like itu2019s just FALSE. To Daniel Dennettu2026we donu2019t know whatu2019s REALLY happening at the deepest levels of our brainsu2026we only know what SEEMS to be happening. We are constantly acting in certain ways, doing thingsu2026and then AFTER the fact making up reasons for why we ACTED in the way that we did.nnnnPoint is: you donu2019t need to know EVERYTHING thatu2019s going on at EVERY LEVEL of a computeru2026 to be able to for example, drag a file that you donu2019t need anymore into the trash can on your desktop. You just drag the file into the trash can on this convenient, intuitive SCREEN. In fact you could make the argument that KNOWING about all the information being processed at other levels would get in the way of you being able to get things done that are USEFUL.nnnnButu2026 as its been said many times beforeu2026to RELATE this back to our subjective experience of consciousnessu2026to an ILLUSIONISTu2026 we have to acknowledge the factu2026that there is NO MOREu2026 a TRASH CAN inside of your computer screenu2026as there is a separate PHENOMENAL SUBJECT inside of your brain that needs to be explained. THATu2026is an ILLUSION. What you HAVEu2026 Daniel Dennett refers to as an EDITED DIGEST, of events that are going on inside your brain. nnnnSo again just to clarifyu2026an ILLUSIONISTu2026 doesnu2019t DOUBT the existence of access consciousness, theyu2019re not saying that the OUTSIDE WORLD is an illusionu2026 No, just the phenomenal REPRESENTATION of brain activityu2026just the subjective YOU that experiences the world phenomenologically.nnnnThe philosopher Keith Frankish gives the example of a television set to describe the type of illusion theyu2019re talking about. He says: nnnu201cThink of watching a movie. What your eyes are actually witnessing is a series of still images rapidly succeeding each other. But your visual system represents these images as a single fluid moving image. The motion is an illusion. Similarly, illusionists argue, your introspective system misrepresents complex patterns of brain activity as simple phenomenal properties. The phenomenality is an illusion.u201dnnnnWhen it FEELS LIKE SOMETHING to be youu2026these phenomena are u201cmetaphorical representationsu201d of REAL neural events that are going onu2026and they definitely help us navigate realityu2026they definitely ARE usefulu2026 but nothing about those phenomenau2026 offer ANY sort of deep insight into the processes involved to produce that experience. So in THAT sense, they are an illusion. nnnnAnd Daniel Dennett goes HARD on ANYONE trying to smuggle in ANY MORE MAGIC than needs to be brought in to EXPLAIN consciousness. He wrote a GREAT entry in the journal of consciousness studies in 2016 called Illusionism as the obvious default theory of consciousness. nnnnNow whatu2019s he GETTING at with that title? Why should consciousness being an ILLUSIONu2026 be the DEFAULT theory we should all START from? Well he COMPARES the possibility of consciousness being an illusionu2026with ANOTHER kind of illusion. The kind of illusion that youu2019d see in VEGAS at a MAGIC show. nnnnBecause what HAPPENS at a MAGIC show? Well there are GREAT efforts MADE by the magician youu2019re watchingu2026to TRICK you into thinking that what youu2019re seeing is real. nnnnYouu2019re watching the magic show from a VERY specific point of viewu2026CAREFULLY selected by the magician to LIMIT the information you have. They got lights and smoke and music to DISTRACT you, theyu2019re usually wearing some kind of bedazzled, cowboy costume looks like they got it at spirit Halloween, their poor assistant is dressed in God knows what to distract you. nnnnAnd when they DO the trick and the ILLUSION is finally COMPLETEu2026and youu2019re sitting there AMAZED, WONDERING as to how they defied the laws of nature and actually sawed someone in half and put them back together in front of youu2026imagine someone in the crowd writing a REVIEW of the show the next day and saying, welpu2026I guess EVERYTHING we KNOW about science needs to be rethoughtu2026I mean this man is CLEARLY a wizardu2026he is CLEARLY outside the bounds of natural constraints that we THOUGHT existedu2026itu2019s time to RETHINK our ENTIRE theoretical model.nnnnDaniel Dennett says who would EVER TAKE that person seriously? Theyu2019d be laughed off the internet if they wrote that. And RIGHTFULLY SO. And SIMILARLY when it comes to these modern conversations about consciousnessu2026why would we EVER assume that our entire theoretical MODEL is flawed? Why would we ASSUME the supernatural? Why wouldnu2019t we assume that anything that seems magical or mysterious definitely HAS a natural explanationu2026and that we just donu2019t understand it yet? nnnnIf you ONLY saw a magic trick from a single angle, like sitting in the audience of a theateru2026it would be silly for us to assume that there wasnu2019t a different perspective available that would SHOW how the trick was done. Similarlyu2026 we ONLY REALLY SEE the qualia of our subjective experience from the angle of introspection. nnnnThis is why to daniel dennettu2026the DEFAULT position we should be starting fromu2026the MOST parsimonious explanation for a mystery that contradicts everything else we knowu2026is that itu2019s an illusion. nnnnItu2019s funny because itu2019s an argument thatu2019s coming from a place thatu2019s SIMILAR to where a panpsychist may be coming from, but itu2019s arriving at a totally different conclusion. Panpsychist might say that we donu2019t yet know enough about the human brain to write OFF the possibility that consciousness exists at some level underneath. Hereu2019s an illusionist position thatu2019s saying, yeah, we certainly HAVENu2019T been doing science long enough to know EVERYTHING about the brainu2026and think of all the low hanging fruit in the sciences that could potentially EXPLAIN this mystery if only we have more time to study it. nnnnMore than thatu2026to an illusionistu2026maybe there is something ABOUT the nature of the illusion that weu2019re experiencing, that is NOT fully explainable by studying the physical properties of the brain. Maybe studying the ILLUSION ITSELFu2026 is where we should be focusing more of our attention. nnnnBut that saidu2026thereu2019s no shortage of people out there that have PROBLEMS with saying consciousness is an illusion. For exampleu2026 the philosopher Massimo Pigliucci, who by the way fun trivia fact is the only person OTHER than phillip goff that weu2019ve ever interviewed on this show all the way back in our HUME seriesu2026anyway HE once wrote an article where he talks about how Illusionismu2026AS an ANSWER to the hard problem of consciousnessu2026is something that HE thinks HEAVILY relies on the specific definition youu2019re using of what an ILLUSION is or what CONSCIOUSNESS is. nnnnTo explain what he meansu2026 letu2019s go back to the metaphor about the icons on the computer screen. Massimo Pigliucci says this metaphor that Daniel Dennett presents in Consciousness Explainedu2026is a POWERFUL metaphor when it comes to describing the relationship between phenomenal consciousnessu2026 and the underlying neural machinery that makes it possible. Itu2019s great. But what HE canu2019t seem to understand is why ANYONE would EVER CALL whatu2019s going ON thereu2026an u201cillusionu201d? Why USE the word illusion? nnnnWhen you hear the word illusion he saysu2026 you think of mind trickery, smoke and mirrors. But thatu2019s not whatu2019s happening when it comes to the user interface of a computer. He says, u201ccomputer icons, cursors and so forth are not illusions, they are causally efficacious representationsu2026 of underlying machine language processes.u201d nnnnWhat heu2019s getting atu2026 is that thereu2019s no ILLUSION going on here. There IS a connection between the underlying processes of the brain and our phenomenal experience of it. If it were truly an illusion, there would BE no real connection. But he says if you wanted to use that same logicu2026would you say that the wheel of your CAR is an illusion? I mean when youu2019re driving down the road and you turn the wheelu2026youu2019re not aware of the complexity of everything the car is doing, all of the internal communication going on to be able to turn the car in whatever direction youu2019re going. Does that make it an illusion when you turn the steering wheel left and everything moves that makes the car go left? No, the steering wheel is causally connected to the underlying machineryu2026 and that steering wheel makes it POSSIBLE for you to actually be able to drive the car efficiently. So why would you ever choose the word ILLUSIONu2026 to describeu2026 whatu2019s going ON there? nnnnMassimo Pigliucci thinks thereu2019s an easy trap for someone to fall into living in todayu2019s worldu2026he calls it a sort of reductionist temptationu2026we come from a LONG HISTORY in the sciences of progressively reducing things to a deeper, more fundamental level of their component partsu2026 and then the assumption has usually been that if you can find a lower level of description about somethingu2026for example if we can explain what PHENOMENAL CONSCIOUSNESS is, with a neurobiological explanationu2026well then THAT explanation, must be MORE TRUE than anything going on at a more macro levelu2026at the level of the consciousness we experience every day. It must be a more FUNDAMENTAL explanation, and therefore a BETTER explanation. nnnnYouu2019ll see this same kind of thinking going on when someone assumes the atoms that MAKE UP an appleu2026 are more REAL in some sense than the apple in macroscopic realityu2026the assumption being that the apple as WE experience it is some kind of an illusion created by our flawed SENSES and that itu2019s somehow less valuable. nnnnBut this whole way of thinkingu2026is UNWORKABLE he says. Weu2019ve learned over the course of THOUSANDS of years of trying to STUDY the things around usu2026that different levels of descriptionu2026 are USEFUL for different purposes. nnnnHe gives a series of examples: he says, u201cIf we are interested in the biochemistry of the brain, then the proper level of description is the subcellular one, taking lower levels (eg, the quantum one) as background conditions. If we want a broader picture of how the brain works, we need to move up to the anatomical level, which takes all previous levels, from the subcellular to the quantum one, as background conditions. But if we want to talk to other human beings about how we feel and what we are experiencing, then it is the psychological level of description (the equivalent of Dennettu2019s icons and cursors) that, far from being illusory, is the most valuable.u201dnnnnReality plays by different sets of rules at different scales. And different SCALES of reality are USEFUL for different types of inquiry. When youu2019re going about your everyday life do you assume that the ground is solid? Or do you use the lower level of description at the atomic level where the ground is really 99.9% empty space?nnnnSo when it comes to consciousnessu2026if weu2019re gonna SAY that a neurobiological description of whatu2019s going on invalidates the experience of whatu2019s going on at the level of subjectivity, that subjectivity is nothing but an illusionu2026then why stop at the neurobiological level he says? Why not say that neurons are actually an illusion because theyu2019re ultimately made up of molecules? Why not say that MOLECULES are illusions because theyu2019re really made up of quarks and gluons. You can do this INFINITELY. nnnnAnd maybe on a more GENERAL noteu2026JUST when it comes to this lifelong process of trying to be as clear thinking of a human being as you possibly CAN beu2026maybe part of that whole processu2026 is accepting the fact that there is no, single, monistic way of analyzing reality that is the ULTIMATE METHOD of understanding it. Maybe understanding realityu2026 just takes a more pluralistic approach, maybe GETTING as close to the truth as we can as people takes LOOKING at reality from many different angles at many different scales, and maybe phenomenal consciousness is an important scale of realityu2026 that we need to be considering. nnnnSo from Daniel Dennett and Keith Frankish offering a take on HOW consciousness might be an illusionu2026to Susan Blackmore offering a take on WHY the illusion of consciousness is such an easy trap to FALL intou2026I think if anyone youu2019re in a conversation with calls themselves an illusionistu2026then unless youu2019re talking to David Copperfield I think youu2019ll at LEAST be able to understand the main reasons for why someone may THINK this way about consciousness. nnnnAnd this is the point in the conversation where we hit a bit of a crossroadsu2026SAME crossroads that weu2019ve seen with OTHER theories of consciousness in the series so far. At a certain point...there are GOOD reasons to believe that phenomenal consciousness may be an illusionu2026and there are good reasons to DOUBT whether that is true or not. As weu2019ve talked about at a certain point with these conversations you just have to CHOOSE to believe in something, and then deal with the prescriptive implications of BELIEVING it after the factu2026and one of the ones with Illusionism in particular is you can start to wonder, the more you think about it, how much consciousness being an illusion, ACTUALLY has an impact on ANYTHING going on in your everyday life or your relationship to society. nnnnItu2019s actually pretty interesting to consideru2026how much the possibility of consciousness being an illusionu2026DIRECTLY MIRRORS, OTHER, unsolved conversations in the philosophy of mind more broadly. Like for exampleu2026the ongoing debate about whether FREE WILL is an illusion. nnnnIn fact in order to be able to talk about the societal impacts of consciousness being an illusion we have to talk about free will being one as well. nnnnNext episode weu2019re going to dive into it. Free will, free wont, hard determinism and the implications of ALL of these when it comes to structuring our societies. Keep your eyes open for it, it will be out soon! Thanks for everyone on Patreon and thanks for checking out the website at philosophizethis.orgnnnnBut as always, thank you for listening. Talk to you next time. `}"
},
"typeVersion": 2
},
{
"id": "a2ba5d04-8c28-4899-b131-29ade473526e",
"name": "Summarize Transcript",
"type": "@n8n/n8n-nodes-langchain.chainSummarization",
"position": [
-484,
500
],
"parameters": {
"options": {},
"operationMode": "documentLoader"
},
"typeVersion": 2
},
{
"id": "47b73fb3-0d0c-4125-8639-8809ebccb9f6",
"name": "Recursive Character Text Splitter",
"type": "@n8n/n8n-nodes-langchain.textSplitterRecursiveCharacterTextSplitter",
"position": [
-280,
860
],
"parameters": {
"options": {},
"chunkSize": 6000,
"chunkOverlap": 1000
},
"typeVersion": 1
},
{
"id": "0830e349-2c8e-45ad-89be-14a77d0d083e",
"name": "Extract Topics & Questions",
"type": "@n8n/n8n-nodes-langchain.informationExtractor",
"position": [
-4,
500
],
"parameters": {
"text": "=Podcast Summary: {{ $json.response.output_text }}",
"options": {
"systemPromptTemplate": "=Come up with a list of questions and further topics to explore that are relevant for the context. Make sure questions are relevant to the topics but not verbatim. Think hard about what the appropriate questions should be and how it relates to the summarization."
},
"schemaType": "manual",
"inputSchema": "{n "type": "object",n "properties": {n "questions": {n "type": "array",n "items": {n "type": "object",n "properties": {n "question": {n "type": "string"n },n "why": {n "type": "string",n "description": "Explanation of why this question is relevant for the context"n }n },n "required": [n "question",n "why"n ]n }n },n "topics": {n "type": "array",n "items": {n "type": "object",n "properties": {n "topic": {n "type": "string"n },n "why": {n "type": "string",n "description": "A few sentences explanation of why this topic is relevant for the context"n }n },n "required": [n "topic",n "why"n ]n }n }n },n "required": [n "questions",n "topics"n ]n}"
},
"typeVersion": 1
},
{
"id": "e9e8239d-2154-406a-98c2-b77511a70f3e",
"name": "OpenAI Chat Model3",
"type": "@n8n/n8n-nodes-langchain.lmChatOpenAi",
"position": [
80,
660
],
"parameters": {
"model": {
"__rl": true,
"mode": "list",
"value": "gpt-4o-mini"
},
"options": {}
},
"credentials": {
"openAiApi": {
"id": "8gccIjcuf3gvaoEr",
"name": "OpenAi account"
}
},
"typeVersion": 1.2
},
{
"id": "b3abb262-f334-4ef4-b8f7-a8e6e8aa3b5f",
"name": "Topics",
"type": "n8n-nodes-base.splitOut",
"position": [
340,
500
],
"parameters": {
"options": {},
"fieldToSplitOut": "output.questions"
},
"typeVersion": 1
},
{
"id": "0bd53e7e-e1dd-47bb-86a1-e4f270c4dab3",
"name": "OpenAI Chat Model1",
"type": "@n8n/n8n-nodes-langchain.lmChatOpenAi",
"position": [
700,
720
],
"parameters": {
"model": {
"__rl": true,
"mode": "list",
"value": "gpt-4o-mini"
},
"options": {}
},
"credentials": {
"openAiApi": {
"id": "8gccIjcuf3gvaoEr",
"name": "OpenAi account"
}
},
"typeVersion": 1.2
},
{
"id": "6c05ed75-e890-4500-9804-6118adca6ee6",
"name": "Format topic text & title",
"type": "n8n-nodes-base.code",
"position": [
1160,
500
],
"parameters": {
"jsCode": "const inputItems = $input.all();nconst topics = [];nconst questions = [];nconst summary = $('Summarize Transcript').first().json.response.text;n// Format Topicsnfor (const [index, topic] of inputItems.entries()) {n const title = $('Topics').all()[index].json.questionnn topics.push(`n <h3>${title}</h3>n <p>${topic.json.output}</p>`.trim()n )n}nn// Format Questionsnfor (const question of $('Extract Topics & Questions').first().json.output.questions) {n questions.push(`n <h3>${question.question}</h3>n <p>${question.why}</p>`.trim()n )n}nnreturn { topics, summary, questions }"
},
"typeVersion": 2
},
{
"id": "836c1897-04bd-4547-897f-d7bf5ad91762",
"name": "Send Digest",
"type": "n8n-nodes-base.gmail",
"position": [
1340,
500
],
"webhookId": "8c4cf2db-e22b-46e6-b27a-c03044bd38dc",
"parameters": {
"sendTo": "oleg@n8n.io",
"message": "=Greetings ud83dudc4b,nHope you're doing well! Here's your digest for this week's episode of Philoshopy This! nn<h2>ud83cudf99 Episode Summary</h2>n{{ $json.summary }}nn<h2>ud83dudca1 Topics Discussed</h2>n{{ $json.topics.join('\n') }}nn<h2>u2753 Questions to Ponder</h2>n{{ $json.questions.join('\n') }}",
"options": {},
"subject": "Podcast Digest"
},
"credentials": {
"gmailOAuth2": {
"id": "Sf5Gfl9NiFTNXFWb",
"name": "Gmail account"
}
},
"typeVersion": 2.1
}
],
"pinData": {},
"connections": {
"Topics": {
"main": [
[
{
"node": "AI Agent",
"type": "main",
"index": 0
}
]
]
},
"AI Agent": {
"main": [
[
{
"node": "Format topic text & title",
"type": "main",
"index": 0
}
]
]
},
"Wikipedia": {
"ai_tool": [
[
{
"node": "AI Agent",
"type": "ai_tool",
"index": 0
}
]
]
},
"OpenAI Chat Model": {
"ai_languageModel": [
[
{
"node": "Summarize Transcript",
"type": "ai_languageModel",
"index": 0
}
]
]
},
"OpenAI Chat Model1": {
"ai_languageModel": [
[
{
"node": "AI Agent",
"type": "ai_languageModel",
"index": 0
}
]
]
},
"OpenAI Chat Model3": {
"ai_languageModel": [
[
{
"node": "Extract Topics & Questions",
"type": "ai_languageModel",
"index": 0
}
]
]
},
"Default Data Loader": {
"ai_document": [
[
{
"node": "Summarize Transcript",
"type": "ai_document",
"index": 0
}
]
]
},
"Summarize Transcript": {
"main": [
[
{
"node": "Extract Topics & Questions",
"type": "main",
"index": 0
}
]
]
},
"Format topic text & title": {
"main": [
[
{
"node": "Send Digest",
"type": "main",
"index": 0
}
]
]
},
"Extract Topics & Questions": {
"main": [
[
{
"node": "Topics",
"type": "main",
"index": 0
}
]
]
},
"Podcast Episode Transcript": {
"main": [
[
{
"node": "Summarize Transcript",
"type": "main",
"index": 0
}
]
]
},
"When clicking "Execute Workflow"": {
"main": [
[
{
"node": "Podcast Episode Transcript",
"type": "main",
"index": 0
}
]
]
},
"Recursive Character Text Splitter": {
"ai_textSplitter": [
[
{
"node": "Default Data Loader",
"type": "ai_textSplitter",
"index": 0
}
]
]
}
}
}