Forget that part... — Nickolasgaspar
That is because you assume that thought is reducible to neuroscience, which is precisely the meaning of 'neuroscientific reductionism — Wayfarer
-Criticisms based on metaphysical worldviews are useless in Epistemology. What they need to provide is objective independently reproducible evidence in favor of their alternative framework.There are many criticisms of neuroscientific reductionism which are too voluminous to try and give an account of here. — Wayfarer
-Your argument makes no sense from a scientific perspective. Meaning is a characteristic infused in our conscious states by an other property of mind known as Symbolic Language. it turns out that reasoning affections and emotions in to feeling and concepts has an evolutionary and survival advantage for organisms with brains. Not only its is a necessary ingredient of our conscious states,but we can accurately decode the semantic content of conscious thoughts by just read brain scans (Carnegie Mellon 2017)But I would argue that it's a mistake to ascribe semantic content to neurological data. Semantic content, which is the content of meaningful statements, is of a different order to the kinds of data the neuroscience deals with. Saying that neurobiological signals 'mean' something or 'transmit meaning' is projecting semantic value onto neurological signals — Wayfarer
-This is a common misconception based on personal incredulity and the result of a wishful thought . A quick search in a popular databased of Neuroscience can reveal to anyone that we know a great deal of things on how meaning arises in our brains and which mechanisms are responsible for this mental property.But neuroscience itself is nowhere near to understanding this process on a practical level. — Wayfarer
-This is an other factually wrong statement about science.So neuroscientific reductionism is said to commit the 'mereological fallacy', that is, the ascription of what conscious agencies are able to do, to only one part of the organism, namely, the brain. — Wayfarer
Besides, that is not the point of the emerging science of biosemiosis is the sense in which signs (and therefore meaning) are inherent in all living processes, even very simple ones like single-celled organisms. That is in turn connected with the view that rational sentient beings such as ourselves don't live in a world comprising physical objects, but a world comprising meanings - the meaning-world or 'umwelt' which is interpreted by us as (among other things) a physical domain. — Wayfarer
Our current epistemology demonstrates the Necessity and Sufficiency of brain mechanisms for the emergence of human mind states. — Nickolasgaspar
Our current epistemology demonstrates the Necessity and Sufficiency of brain mechanisms for the emergence of human mind states.
— Nickolasgaspar
‘It’ does no such thing. There is no such consensus. This is a philosophy forum, as such knowledge of neuroscience is not assumed or necessary, although at least some knowledge of philosophy would be considered desireable. — Wayfarer
Chronicling is NOT Philosophy. Kant or any other great philosopher of the past didn't have access to the epistemology available to us today....so its mainly a waste of time to either criticize outdated philosophy or to try and understand what they really meant when you can use our current knowledge and arrive to informed and far superior philosophical conclusions.
That is not a rule of course.... — Nickolasgaspar
Chronicling is NOT Philosophy. Kant or any other great philosopher of the past didn't have access to the epistemology available to us today....so its mainly a waste of time to either criticize outdated philosophy or to try and understand what they really meant when you can use our current knowledge and arrive to informed and far superior philosophical conclusions. — Nickolasgaspar
And not only that.....the available epistemology during their time was not enough to assist them in their work.:up: Thanks for letting us know. Philosophers have blind spots, like everyone else I suppose. — Agent Smith
I up-voted Wayfarer's post because truth be told, our knowledege on consciousness is full of holes and so long as that's the case, people are justified in challenging any position one assumes on the nature of the mind. — Agent Smith
...when he can easily visit a neuroscience database and learn the roles of the Ascending Reticular Activating System and the Central Lateral Thalamus in establishing and introducing content in our conscious states!But neuroscience itself is nowhere near to understanding this process on a practical level — Wayfarer
ITS just irrelevant to the subject in question. — Nickolasgaspar
In every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with, I have always remark’d, that the author proceeds for some time in the ordinary way of reasoning, and establishes the being of a God, or makes observations concerning human affairs; when of a sudden I am surpriz’d to find, that instead of the usual copulations of propositions, is, and is not, I meet with no proposition that is not connected with an ought, or an ought not. This change is imperceptible; but is, however, of the last consequence. For as this ought, or ought not, expresses some new relation or affirmation,’tis necessary that it shou’d be observ’d and explain’d; and at the same time that a reason should be given, for what seems altogether inconceivable, how this new relation can be a deduction from others, which are entirely different from it … am persuaded, that a small attention [to this point] wou’d subvert all the vulgar systems of morality, and let us see, that the distinction of vice and virtue is not founded merely on the relations of objects, nor is perceiv’d by reason. — Hume
I agree with you - there's a lot of stuff that people present as philosophy but ain't. You provided a list in another thread on what pseudo-philosophy is and it was an eye-opener. — Agent Smith
chronicling is NOT philosophy — Nickolasgaspar
But comprehending the is/ought distinction is. — Banno
↪Banno What I mean , do you see a "god" in my system?..And don't be confused, Moral pronouncements are NOT the same with moral evaluations based on Objective principles,at least this is what I am trying to challenge in this idea...by exposing to your eyes. — Nickolasgaspar
This is a really chip excuse sir. The goal of ethics is to define these oughts!
So you confuse subjective unfounded declarations with objective moral evaluations.
We need to agree on the principle and you avoid this conversation.
I think we are done here. — Nickolasgaspar
This makes me really happy to hear. Most individuals in here stick to their guns even when facts hit them in the face with a big metal sign with bold letter spelling "facts". — Nickolasgaspar
the difference is that I have acknowledged the beating I suffered by that metal sign and I gave up my comforting beliefs. — Nickolasgaspar
Interesting. If someone were to say that physicists don't need to pay attention to f=ma, that talking about Newton's ideas was just chronicling and not physics, would anyone here give them credence? — Banno
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.