Part 6 - Philosophy in the Age of Neuroscience

Patricia Churchland gives a talk for the UCSD 40/40 Vision Lecture Series in which she discusses the progress that has been made in neurophilosophy in the past four decades, and then makes predictions as to what the field will bring in the next four.

This is part 6 of 6.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Neuroscience
• Philosophy
• of
• Mind
• Eliminative
• Materialism
• Folk
• Psychology

[Kasu1917]

She also mentioned something about society and organization. Since she's a materialist, which is the closest thing to a Marxist, she probably is referring to the necessity to reorganize economic life on a socialist basis. The technological, financial, and natural resources on the entire planet would be subordinated to a scientific plan, democratically controlled by the working class, to meet pressing social demands, not for the private profit of a few hundred corporate and financial parasites.

[LennyBound]

Adopting a materialistic ontology doesn't commit you to any specific set of social or political views.

[rootberg]

What is philosophical about this? That she mentions Aristotle? I'm really starting to get annoyed with all these "philosophers" who just take some recent developments in science, say something incoherent about how everything is determined by previous material states (including their own beliefs and their own defenses of some materialist thesis), and end with a (determined) push for "values". It's just getting ridiculous in my opinion.

[LennyBound]

Rootberg, I'm not sure I understand your objections.

Pat Churchland is an eminent philosopher of mind. In this talk she discussed contemporary advances in the neurosciences and their philosophical implications. I fail to see how this talk wasn't philosophical.

Secondly, what did she say that you think was incoherent?

[LennyBound]

And thirdly, I don't think I understand your objections concerning values and the materialistic worldview. Could you rephrase it for me?

Thanks for the comment, nonetheless.

[b88104044]

i love love LOVE THIS PRESENTATION ! thank you so much.

[chuckinator0]

M-theory is falsifiable. If the LHC does not produce the results predicted by it, then it is falsified. If it does, then that would be considered "encouragement" that it's on the right path. Also, Gödel's theorems are interesting, but hardly provide grounds to say that science is worthless and arrogant. Science is the best way we know of to gain knowledge. No one said it was perfect, but it is the most reliable method we have, and perhaps the best method we will ever have.

[renumeratedfrog]

As to the String Theory, I recommend the book "Not Even Wrong" by Peter Wot. Anytime a scientific theory is unable to provide falsifiable hypothesis, it stops being science.

[renumeratedfrog]

Quantum Mechanics clearly shows that certain knowledge is fundamentally impossible. As you pointed out, it has to be formulated in terms of probabilities and not in terms of certainties. This overthrows the logocentrism on which science is built. This is just one example. Chaos Theory and Godel's Theorems perform the coup de grace to the arrogant realism of science.

[chuckinator0]

Also, Quantum Mechanics-as it is most commonly referred to-tells us that there is a fundamental uncertainty due to the wave/particle duality of quantum "units," I'll call them. This is hardly reason to stop pursuing materialistic knowledge. This just tells us that we sometimes have to calculate probabilities rather than precise outcomes. I don't know if you were trying to use QM to throw out naturalism altogether, but if you were, I think that is a little bit of an over-reaction.

[chuckinator0]

Just curious and off-topic. I assume you mean M-theory when you say string theory. Was M-theory discredited within the last month or so, and if so, how? I don't stay completely on top of these things, but as of recently, M-theory has not been proven incorrect. Also, M-theory does predict phenomena that are indeed measurable with the LHC, so until the predictions are shown to fail, it is still a perfectly good theory.

[Kasu1917]

The proof of the materialist world outlook lies in the entire historical experience of mankind in its interaction with nature, particularly in the extraordinary development of scientific knowledge over the past several hundred years. The proof of materialism is demonstrated in this historical practice, whereby mankind has not only formed hypotheses, but realized these hypotheses in the transformation of the material world.

[Kasu1917]

My question is why are you doing in a video about neuroscience? Science holds that everything that exists consists of the law-governed development of matter in its various forms. Since matter is law-governed, it can be subject to scientific investigation, and at the same time science requires the presumption that the objects of its investigation follow causal relationships. This, ultimately, is the central conflict between materialism and idealism, rationality and irrationality.

[Kasu1917]

Ah, a postmodernist, even worse. "it's all relative". "there is no objective, only the subjective" "we can never really know anything" "the biggest fable of all is the fable of knowledge" "scientific theories are no more or less valid than religious theories" etc. I don't need to be taken seriously by philistines.

[renumeratedfrog]

Neo-Kantian? LOL... I've never been called that. You probably try to describe something which is commonly described as Postmodernism. If so, I'd be glad to accept this label. As for your naive realism, if the shoe fits, wear it. Just don't expect to be taken seriously by philosophers.