Neuromania? The possibilities and pitfalls of our fascination with brains

Philosopher and author Professor Raymond Tallis and RSA chief executive Matthew Taylor debate the competing claims made for the ability of neuroscience to explain human behaviour, culture and society.

Listen to the full audio: http://www.thersa.org/events/audio-and-past-events/2011/neuromania-the-possib...

Category:

Nonprofits & Activism

Tags:

• rsa
• the rsa
• talk
• debate
• discussion
• raymond tallis
• matthew taylor
• david aaronovitch
• brain
• neuroscience
• science
• behaviour

[critiacrof]

22:34

Does anyone know this website?

[CammieSpectrum]

Tallis has a Revolutionary Position here: knowing the brain states with extreme precision is not nearly as useful to Understanding Ourselves than is commonly believed. Antonio Damasio is Important, and some study of the brain helps in our understanding of ourselves, but Neuromaniacs think 'ourselves' is nothing but these neural processes functioning according to rigidlly applying hidden mechanisms that govern all the behavior of charged molecules(a Field of Quanta wth rigidlly applying Law)

[normativeRandroid]

Taylor attributes the growth of neuroscience materialism to the perceived failure of behavioral economics such as H. economicus. 1st u have to know that man is the rational animal however his economic decisions will be affected by the gov't system (laws, regulation, taxes,etc.) under which he resides. So it is not that man isn't rational as theorists devised but that certain gov't laws are irrational and thwart man's rational choices. Simply put Taylor uses bad economics to justify bad science.

[lkuzmanov]

the man is flat out wrong and arrogantly so

[spiltteethy]

@DusteDdekay Physical objects (like brains) are public objects, no one is in a privileged position regarding them. In fact a scientists knowledge of my mental states will ultimately depend my first person reports; but the scientist knowledge of the physical states of my brain will not depend on any first person report. I mean, scientific knowledge isn't even possible without the subject reporting his own mental states to the outside observer because he alone has private access to them.

[spiltteethy]

@DusteDdekay 1 no physical properties are self-presenting 2 at least some mental properties are self-presenting 3) therefore, at least some mental properties are not physical properties

Self presenting properties are directly present to the subject immediately and the subject has private access to. Whatever ways someone else has of finding out if I'm thinking about a pink elephant (brain scans, etc)I have a way of knowing this by immediate awareness of it.

[spiltteethy]

@DusteDdekay Eccles notes its impossible to develop a materialist expla of “how a diversity of brain events come to be synthesized so that there is a unified conscious experience of a global or gestalt character” Eccles proposed that “the self-conscious mind” serve to integrate the apparently disparate

brain processes into a unified consciousness.Eccles claims that his interactionist idea is a genuine scientific hypothesis “because it is based on empirical data and is objectively testable.

[spiltteethy]

@DusteDdekayEccles said the hope for an eventual physical explanation for mental events is wrongheaded in principle because mental events are not “simply derivative of aspects of nerve endings. There is no evidence for this whatever.” Eccles - “ my strong dualist-interactionist hypothesis . . . has the recommendation of its great explanatory power. It gives in principle at least explanations of the whole range of problems relating to brain-mind interaction.”

[spiltteethy]

@DusteDdekaySir John Eccles, a neurobiologist :

"My Hypothesis is that the self-conscious mind is an independent entity that

is actively engaged in reading from the multitude of active centres in

the modules of the liaison areas of the dominant cerebral hemisphere.

The self-conscious mind selects from these centres in accord with its

attention and its interests and integrates its selection to give unity of

conscious experience from moment to moment."

[spiltteethy]

@DusteDdekayDr. Wilder Penfield known for ground-breaking work with epilepsy noted that “The mind of the patient was as independent of the reflex action as was the mind of the surgeon who listened and strove to understand. Thus, my argument favours independence of mind-action.” Penfield also stated that if we liken the brain to a computer, it is not that we are a computer, but that we have a computer.

[DusteDdekay]

@stephenpaquet I agree, philosophy USED to be about the fabric of the mind,the experience and the understanding of the universe, it's right there in the name "philosophia".. He should join the research instead of working against it.

[DusteDdekay]

@areteist1 My opinion is based on my current understanding of the universe, my framework for understanding the universe is severely limited, which I believe to hold true for most of mankind, the data on which I base my opinion, is my own interpretation of the scientific articles I've read and the philosophy, both eastern and western I've studied. It might not be correct, but it's the best my mind can come up with as of now. But I believe (as do we all?) to be standing on the shoulders of giants.