4 ms·
"So to say that we can't understand all of this in terms of neuro, or even chemistry, or even physics is wrong and a false dichotomy." Since we are not omnisci
by anotherman554 5y ago
"So to say that we can't understand all of this in terms of neuro, or even chemistry, or even physics is wrong and a false dichotomy."
Since we are not omniscient, we can't understand it in terms of this. Certainly not now, possibly not ever.
It's not even clear that you could hypothetically attempt to understand the human mind in terms of physics without invasively doing all sorts of horrific things to human test subjects.
- guerrilla 5y agoThat's just one form of non-dualism, there are in fact hundreds of which dozens have been popular from time to time. Right now, eliminatitive materialism is probably more popular than Donald Davidson's, epiphenomenalism another, pansychism another.
- JabavuAdams 5y agoYou're not disagreeing with me, as far as I can tell. I am objecting to the claim that we can never understand the human mind in terms of neuro- and that psych- has some ability to explain things that neuro- can never explain. People are so short-sighted. Not you, but the author, and those who write that AI can never to X or similar things. Do we really believe that if humans or their descendants are still around 10k years from now, able to use tools and exercise creativity, that they won't have figured a lot of this stuff out? We've only been seriously at this for 400 years, and casually for say 5k years. Why would we make any "never" claims?