Reddit reviews Philosophical Foundations of Neuroscience

I'm sympathetic with your view, but I do think the people who espouse it generally do a woeful job of coming up with concrete, putative examples of situations where getting the 'philosophy' wrong has led to any scientific blunders (forgetting any nonsense from the pre 20th century, before anybody starts banging on about phlogiston).

Note that it is fairly easy to point to discussion sections where scientists produce some meandering bumble of tautologies. But the methods and results are generally more sound..

Oh, and you're certainly not alone. For example, you may find some common ground in something like Philosophical Foundations of Neuroscience. It is interesting to note, however, that Peter Hacker's thesis is in some sense the opposite of yours. He thinks there is a fundamental chasm between philosophy and science, but that the former can give you some useful tools for doing the latter (much like maths provides science with useful tools)

>evidence as to what is likely to be the right answer

well. we're not looking for metaphysics in brain scans. we're just... scanning brains. any metaphysical overlay to that would be rather folly =)

(besides... i feel like mentioning this book here.)

>they are not ultimately responsible for their behaviour

again, that's only if we have to frame it in terms of that framework. and i don't think we do. behavior is there, living and breathing, regardless of what models our laws rest on. how we go about having all that behavior, all those agents running around, that's rather a historical affair, innit...

>the ability to transcend causal laws

bit too "grand" language for my taste, there. we have this thing we call "choice", which refers to us trying to figure out what to do in various situations, but it's neither a mechanical thing (it would not require all that effort if it was), nor a uniquely isolated thing (it has to rely on something, otherwise it makes no sense). those are just two quick ways of shutting down extremist/absolutist leanings towards either side, i'd say.

>Why is it such a leap of logic, our whole personality and memories are stored in the brain, why not emotions.

You're just using the analogy of a computer. People didn't think of brains in this way before computers were invented. And no neuroscientist will say straight up that "personality and memories are stored in the brain", because it makes no sense, it is fluff talk. Personality and memories are not things that can be stored anywhere.

>A human body without a brain cannot be happy (being dead and all)

The same is true of any vital organ. But either way, nowhere have I denied that the brain is of vital importance for a human, even psychologically. What I have denied is your shifting of subject, anthropomorphizing the brain. It has no justification whatsoever.

>A brain without control of a body can definitely be happy though, im sure people with locked-in syndrome who can only move an eyelid experience happiness

We would never know, since a brain has no way to be happy (not to mention: a brain is a body part, not a subject, so we don't understand what it means for a brain to be happy any more than we understand what it means for a lung to be happy). You are like someone taking the sentence "my heart is broken" literally, rushing to the hospital. Such sentences concern the person, not the organ.

>So only the brain is required for happiness

Nonsense.

See this talk, it might alter some of these opinions of yours. The lecturer has also written extensively on neuroscience, here. In short, you're wrong.

Since when is it taboo to read "mein Kampf?" Might be but who actually cares (aside from politicians). Learn basic statistics and learn about the predictive value of IQ tests (how the hell did I even end up having to defend that stuff, I prefer: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_multiple_intelligences).

Actually most of thoses models of cognition with all their "faculties" and spooks are probably nonsense (https://www.amazon.com/Philosophical-Foundations-Neuroscience-M-Bennett/dp/140510838X).

Also that book ("mein Kampf") is mostly about various conspiracy theories regarding WW1, jews etc. I once told my German teacher (back when I was still some "German kid") I read part of it but not all. She said why not? I told her it was too d*amn boring. Then she agreed. Didn't get jailed btw.

"but if you're honestly indexing people by IQ scores- maybe you could use a more nuanced understanding of intelligence."

How would I even do that? "You disagreed, sit down and take this test!" Idgaf about people's actual IQ scores. What matters is what they say and do. Throw in some tit-for-tat.

"One day you'll meet an incredibly attractive interesting girl and you'll want to sleep with her "

I am not ordered around by my ** and will not change opinions based on that. And where I live there are plenty of attractive "girls" so what.

"while talking to her you'll use words like "special", "autistic", and "schizophrenia" to describe crazy dysfunctional things or people you see in the world."

Big deal. If she cannot take some hyperbole then we are just no fit. Both parties move on, done. Also, if she felt genuinly insulted, why would I still want to sleep with her "anyway"? What kind of scumbags do you take men for?

"because she has a brother with autism or Downs and you didn't know."

That's life. If she gets "triggered" by my word-choice (btw who rants on about how bad all kinds of things are when they are attracted to someone lmao) then that's her right. Can't be helped.

"Just a helpful tip to save you from future humiliation. "

How is not getting to sleep with some random person I am attracted to humilating? Are most males humilated most of the time because of a bit rejection!?

Ps:
" could support his claims against biological determinism."

I am not a biological determinist.

"I check my white privilege all the time, thanks very much. That's why"
"post-Brexit Islamophobia in Europe makes the American Jim Crow South seem progressive. ""

//

" let the job market decide what you study at university instead of your political passions."**

Good advice for the kids. Agreed.

>Hacker is a philosopher with apparently very little understanding of neuroscience. Hacker simply isn't qualified to even be talking about neuroscience the way he is. Kandel's written fucking textbooks on the subject. And don't say "argument from authority," I'm sure you can see how these accomplishments are relevant.

Hacker is criticizing a definition of a psychological term not a neurological term, not research nor experiments or their results, just their interpretation and definition of the phenomena. There is a difference between studying the brain/neuroscience and defining psychological vocabulary, expertise regarding the brain/neuroscience does not ensure expertise regarding psychological concepts. So, following this differentiation, Hacker is perfectly within his domain, the domain of psychological concepts and their definition, which is a subset of the philosophy of psychology. Can you not see how these two areas are not identical, and not even necessarily related? It is the same for someone who knows about different kinds of vehicle but knows nothing about how engines work, and it is like an automotive technician defining driving as "any movement of the vehicle". Clearly that definition is too broad, hence, criticism of the definition results. Kandel is like an engine technician with a definition of vehicle that reads 'anything that can move', I hope this example illustrates how, while Kandel can no doubt be an expert in one area, this doesn't make in infallible in another related, yet separate area, thus, he is not immune from sound criticism. And while Hacker is not an expert in the design of neuroscientific experiments, nor in neuroscience generally, he is an expert in the domain of psychological terms, which a part of cognitive neuroscience, and this is largely where his criticisms are aimed, in his area of expertise, so to dismiss Hacker because he is a philosopher and not a neuroscientist, hence not competent in the area we are discussing is to be mistaken.

More to the point, Hacker has written numerous articles and books with neuroscientists who agree with his positions, with whole chapters dedicated to the history of cognitive neuroscience's development in specific areas, such as memory see:

https://www.amazon.ca/Philosophical-Foundations-Neuroscience-M-Bennett/dp/140510838X

https://www.amazon.ca/History-Cognitive-Neuroscience-M-Bennett/dp/1118346343/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1466490478&sr=1-2

http://info.sjc.ox.ac.uk/scr/hacker/docs/CovertCognition.pdf

Your criticism amounts to a car technician yelling at a automotive salesman "you know nothing about how cars work! How can you tell me the definition of a car!" The domains are related but not identical, expertise in one is not expertise in the other.

>And don't say "argument from authority," I'm sure you can see how these accomplishments are relevant.

I never said that, he is no doubt an authority on neuroscience, but not an expert on the definition of psychological terms. As I have said above, definitions are not empirical matters, science does not discover what memory is, we first define it, as Kandel has, and then using this definition we discover empirical facts (such as whether a given creature does indeed remember something).

>Yes, your leg muscles have slightly optimized the schema which controls running. They have learned how to run better.

So any change in performance is learning, gotcha, and when I get slower I guess I learn that too, and when I limp because I'm sore I guess I'm learning as well, and you can see how this cascades it calling every change in behaviour a form of learning, which is no definition at all.

"performance changes as the result of experience, which justifies the term memory"

Milner, B., Squire, L. R. and Kandel, E. R., 1998. Cognitive neuroscience and the study of memory. Neuron 20, 445–68.

>The keywords being you and I, since neuroscientists don't debate it.

They do, see Hacker's work with the well known neuroscientist Maxwell Bennett: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Bennett_(scientist)#Awards_and_lectures

>So far, a field of strawmen....

Please read the quotation provided from Kendel's work.

>No, their handicap is affecting their memory, as the electrical shock was to the slug. The difference being the inability to hear acts as a filter for stimuli, whereas the shock works more directly as an input.

Right, a performance change as a result of experience, so deafness is caused by experience, causing a change in performance, but you admit its not memory, hence you reject Kendel's definition, hence you agree with Hacker.

>Oh there's a new one: false dichotomy. See last point.

This is actually funny, I've provided the source, it confirms what I have said and Hacker has said all along. There is no false dichotomy, you just assumed there was because you thought it wasn't his definition.

>As I said, it's as bad an analogy as the broken leg one.

It's not an analogy. It's an example of how a broken legs falls under his definition of memory. There's nothing analogous about it, it's literally using his definition to make an example of how poor it is.

>Which is hilarious, because you're building strawmen with his work!

See above quote, no strawmen involved.

> Please do not "transplain" philosophy to me. I grouped them together only in reference to their being irrelevant to this discussion about biology. Go to a subreddit on philosophy if you really want to argue that either of their views change biological facts, and send me a link when you've posted the argument. I disagree, but this is not the place to discuss it.

There are already philosophical works which show how philosophy can influence biological studies and change intepretation of them. For examle https://www.amazon.co.uk/Philosophical-Foundations-Neuroscience-M-Bennett/dp/140510838X