Will neuroscience overshadow philosophy?

Yazata posted this fine resource in our other forum. It breaks down modern philosophy in terms of subjects and prominent philosophers. Looks like you're due an education in this lively area of exploration:

http://philpapers.org/

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Any value statements about science, as so often are cited in this forum, are derived from a particular philosophical position and moral kind of thinking. Every elevation of science as a sort of program for human betterment and socio-economic advancement is couched in assumptions about what is best for humans overall and in dreams of a utopian world that have an almost religious taint to it. In reality the value of future progress is highly relative to our own cultural values and contemporary worldview. It is a projection of a largely subjective and personal value system. And that's something the peculiarly introspective pov of philosophy can help us sort thru to arrive at something more grounded in logic and pragmatic applicability.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You exposed your own ignorance of philosophy the moment you asked if there has been any research or discoveries in it the past 100 years. It's something we can directly infer from the questions you ask and the claims you make. If you don't like being pegged, then don't make patently absurd claims about a field you know very little about. In any case, don't worry about it. Everybody's ignorant and facile in some area or another. I am very ignorant about the taxonomy and physiology of slime molds, but I'm not going to then dismiss that whole field of research as irrelevant and unhelpful.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Six degrees of separation from the Singularity?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Yeah, no shit.

There is little that I can do to correct your ignorance here. There are well over a hundred philosophy departments across the USA, but you're not going to give a fuck.

 

I think one can express their philosophical views, without having a degree, via the internet.

Hence, philosophy would have influenced civilization to great extent.

 

Wow, ok. I thought we could have a productive discussion about this issue. Clearly, I was wrong.

 

Q: Will neuroscience overshadow philosophy?
A: I don't think so, I'm not sure what 'overshadow' means?

I do think neuroscience, particular objective measurements of brain activity as well as genetics, will become more useful for use in the field of psychology.

 

There is a third POV. See:
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/is...fe-is-it-an-illusion.49127/page-4#post-905778 and some of the discussion posts that follow. The GFW story is discussed in other later posts also.

Genuine Free Will is possible but what / who has it requires a new concept of self. Nothing "spiritual" but you are not your body either.

 

Is our brain a part of the simulation, or the simulator?

 

The brain is the "hard ware" the simulation of reality runs in. We (our psychological selves, not our bodies) are part of / created in / the simulation. The simulation does not run when our body is in deep sleep, etc. so then we do not exist. (We do exist in dreaming sleep, but as we do not act then, evolution has allowed us to violate the physical laws while we dream.)

The simultion does include all we perceive, and that of course includes our physical bodies. They are real object like the computer I am typing on and 100% governed / controlled by the physical laws. Thus our body can not have GFW.

To comment more directly on Edont Knoff's comments: Yes; philosphy will "stay important." I also add that the "soft ware" that is us, is self editing - we change with the passage of time. Hopefully, knowing some (and increasingly more) philosphy can guide that self editing some. Unfortuately, our basic physical needs and desires can and do guide the evolution of the soft-ware too.

 

Seems needlessly redundant to me. We have the simulation and then we have the reality. We have our bodies as simulated and then our bodies as real. We have the world as simulated and then the world as real. We have our bodies walking around in the world reacting to things as a simulation and we have our bodies walking around in the world reacting to things as a reality. A perfect schism between two dualist realms, neither ever touching the other. Each sealed off from the other in their own self-contained bubbles. One happening in lucid self-awareness and the other happening in total intangible darkness.

 

Not at all. The simulation slightly projects ahead the sensory input data to give a REAL TIME model of the external reality we have sensors (neural transducers) for. This complex parallel processing is done in the parietal cortex. A larger volume of the brain for which standard theory has few tasks assigned. See quote at end which tries to assign some task.

With out it, you would be hard pressed to play a game of fast ping-pong or hit a fast base ball pitch, etc. as the neural processing of signals from the neural transducers, thru at least four successive (often many more) sequential synaptic junctions stages and nerve cells, takes time. Up to 0.3 seconds in many cases. The simulation gives you a real time understanding of, for example, where a rock thrown at your head actually is NOW. You would be at great disadvantage in trying to duck it if your only knowledge of it was 0.3 seconds old.

Note "task - reward association" do inherently envolve events occuring at slightly different times. Of course that tissue does "flexibly reconfigure ... within single trials" as reality is often very dynamic.

BTW, I like your final note: "Either you repeat the same conventional doctrines everybody is saying, or else you say something true,..."

 

The simulation isn't in real time. It lags behind reality by about 40 milliseconds--13 for visual images. How do you know the simulation matches the reality--that it is indeed "a simulation?"

There is another problem with the simulation metaphor. As if the simulation inside the computer is self-aware and conscious of itself. Such is not the case. A simulation requires an already conscious person to view it from the outside on a monitor. There is no self-awareness of the simulation by sheer virtue of it being a simulation. So the metaphor of our consciousness being like a simulation also assumes a conscious entity--a homonculus?--standing on the outside of it looking at it and experiencing it AS a simulation. You are still left with the mystery of how consciousness of the simulation arises in the brain, which is no less mysterious than how the consciousness of reality arises as well. It is the old problem of the Cartesian theater, the movie in this case simple relabled as a "simulation".

 

I don't know where these numbers come from, but have no problem with there being different amounts of “projection ahead” for different senses. After all they are only compensating for neural (and synaptic) delays in a cascading neural system.

That is your postulate. Made I assume because current technology has not made a self-aware complex parallel processor.

Do you have any reason why it could not be done? The human brain is such a processor, and it is just much more complexly organized matter. Thus we have a proof that complexly organized matter can be self aware.* Admittedly man can not yet construct such a machine. Once man could not fly thru the air. Fact that something has not been done by man, is not proof it is impossible. The part of your text I made bold, is you arguing this false conclusion is valid logic, but I agree no computer is yet self-aware.

Part of your difficulty in following my POV, I think, is caused by my use of the word "simulation" - I don't mean that as a metaphor to type of computer programs. Replace "simulation" with "representation" or "perceived world", (including you body and thoughts).

* Not of every thing just as when a self aware material processor is made, it will not be aware of the state of each of its internal devices. Only of its own thoughts, relivant parts of its environment** and reasons for its actions.

** For example, like humans, it may not be aware of the frequencies of the thousands of EM signal (radio, microwaves & TV etc.) passing thru its body or near it.

 

There still has to be a preexisting consciousness of the representation. Same as there is of the world itself. And furthermore a consciousness of both to be able to understand that the representation refers to a simultaneous reality. Representation assumes consciousness and meaningful reference to the represented iwo, and not the other way around.

 

That is just your, unsupported by any argument, opinion. The awareness can be a part of the self-aware system as it is humans.

Or are you, in violation of Occham's rule, postulating humans have a non-material soul that allows them to be aware?

 

So is there a neuroscience of the philosophy of systems ? The whole of the Neurological network of our body .

 

You're using what you are seeking to explain as proof of your explanation. Consciousness can be a self-conscious simulation because it is an example of a self-conscious simulation. That sounds like circular logic to me. We don't know if consciousness is a self-conscious simulation at all. Maybe it's self-conscious being-in-the-world. In any case, consciousness itself remains unexplained.

 

To attempt an answer, I would need to understand what you mean by "the philosophy of systems."

But I can note, that yes neuroscience does understand a great deal about moods, like what neuro chemicals make for rage, happiness, fear, etc.