5 ms·
I am often disapponted by the inadequacy of modern philosophy of mind to follow recent advances in neuroscience and the brain sciences in general. Many of them
by ristretto 15y ago
I am often disapponted by the inadequacy of modern philosophy of mind to follow recent advances in neuroscience and the brain sciences in general. Many of them have inadequate knowledge of the fields or outright dismiss verified results in order to advance obscure entities such as "qualia", or to promote a dualistic view of the world. Some of them also like to use quantum mechanics as "correlates of consciousness", just because quantum mechanics is hard to understand, or they propose that "consciousness is a fundamental property of the universe". Such things remind more of new-age mumbo-jumbo rather than serious thinking. Generally, their role in the field has not been very constructive, and most neuroscientists quietly ignore them taking a physicalist approach.
- davesims 15y agoThis attitude towards philosophy -- 'quietly ignore' -- has been the status quo in basically every discipline since the turn of the twentieth century. It certainly isn't unique to neuroscience.
- omarchowdhury 15y agoConsciousness sure is a fundamental property of your universe.
- ristretto 15y agoThe problem is some philosophers go so far as to suggest that consciousness is a fundamental property of the physical world that is only "detected" by brains, or that consciousness is in principle unexplainable. Imho, that's just rubbish. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness
- omarchowdhury 15y agoIt definitely is rubbish if you are grounded in physicalism.