Added: Feb 27, 2008
From: RowanFortuneWood
Duration: 1:32
A video response to 2bsirius' video watch?v=CcR3s7EtyfA
Channel: Nonprofit
Tags: agency neurodeterminist neuroeconomics neurophilosophy raymond reductionist scientism self sociobiology tallis
Rating: 5.00 (7 ratings) Views: 285 Comments: 8
2bsirius Says:
Feb 27, 2008 - Like you, I don't like reductionism for the sake of reduction. My only rebuttal to your argument, and it isn't really even that, is that these techniques seem to work. Also they are too often in the hands of those who use them to manipulate outcomes for their own ends, while most of us have no ideas that this kind of "persuasion" is being used on us.
2bsirius Says:
Feb 27, 2008 - I have a visceral dislike of many of the points the Churchlands make as well. But I don't want to neglect a whole area of technique because I know parts of it are wrong headed.
RowanFortuneWood Says:
Feb 27, 2008 - Thank-you, I'm glad you enjoyed the video.
RowanFortuneWood Says:
Feb 27, 2008 - You might have a point, I just find myself very sceptical of these kinds of reductionist claims. They are oddly prevalent and I think, potentially, give a dangerous impression about the reach of science.
2bsirius Says:
Feb 28, 2008 - I always take the reductionist point seriously. I follow their reasoning as far as I can, but I know the situation is almost always far more complex than the reductionists have allowed for. That doesn't negate the fact that reductionists' arguments can sometimes be used as a shorthand for some complex scenarios, and this is valid just as long as you recognize its vast limitations.
sssswwwsssss Says:
Feb 29, 2008 - I'd like say that much of the more recent work in so-called neurophilosophy would escape the kind of objections you are discussing above. Very many philosophers in this field, in weakening their claims about intuition, now characterise the brain as processing certain unconscious intuitions at a higher level than once thought - though not at the level of discursive thought. There's a familiar experiment in the literature concerning the recognition of car types, which I'll provide a link to.
sssswwwsssss Says:
Feb 29, 2008 - I suppose what I mean to say is that any distinguishing between a reptilian part of the brain and some rational agency seems to involve a false dilemma. I don't take you to be doing that above (rather other posts elsewhere) although as I say, (1) intuition can now be held in the reductionalist hand. (2) All manner of non-reductive analytic philosophers have rejected a notion of 'self', so I'm not sure if the specific neuroscientific rejection
valhala56 Says:
Apr 20, 2008 - This video dismissing the primitive parts of the brain is incorrect. I think you are on the right track, by the time the brain is fully understood, it will be understood by our succesors the machine. In the meantime what we do know explains quite a lot if not exactly the mechanism. Please read neuroligist Vilayanur Ramachandran and his work with amputee phantom pain. Some think conciousness itself may be an illusion/survial tool. Just saying...
2bsirius Says:
Apr 20, 2008 - Vilayanur Ramachandran also has a great video on Google Videos...Yes, if we could begin to get a grip with explaining consciousness to our own consciousness, we might then be on the cusp of understanding this mystery and begin to develop strategies that would really help us to understand and pursue our own survival. techniques.
randyhelzerman Says:
Feb 27, 2008 - ????? You preface this video with admitting that you might not know everything about this subject matter???? That breaks all known rules of YouTube philosophy!! :-) :-) :-) haha dude you are a breath of fresh air. My limited understanding of these matters agrees with your limited understanding....