Philosophy and Neuroscience links

[Marshall]

Does anybody have any really choice links to online resources on this topic? If not it's OK, we can move this thread to trash?

[Voiceless Mermaid]

Your link was pretty interesting Marshall, so I'll put it here. I might add a few more later on.

From David Eagleman's talk at the FQXi 2011 international conference which is to be found here: http://fqxi.org/conference/talks/2011 under the section: CHOICE

To go directly to Eagleman's talk click the link below:

http://youtu.be/MkANniH8XZE

[dandelion]

These seem somewhat relevant to the last post.

http://www.unicog.org/publications/TICS_923_final.pdf
Space, time,and number: a Kantian
research program

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3243078/
(Although not accounting for continuous quantity, this "...suggests time and numbers are at least partially independent, with some cross-talk between these dimensions”. Butterworth discusses animals such as fish counting elsewhere.)

[neuro]

What do you mean by philosophy and neurscience links, Marshall?

I wrote a book, which is linked at in my profile, that deals with a number of philosophically relevant questions from a neuroscientific perspective (although with quite a bit of freedom for personal nterpretation).

Would that qualify?

[dandelion]

The blurb looks interesting, Neuro, but if I've placed posts inappropriately here or in the similar thread on art links, please move or delete them. Thanks.

[neuro]

you are very welcome, dandelion!
why would your posts be inappropriate?

[dandelion]

I was wondering too about links that may be less directly about philosophy but involving philosophically relevant ideas. I think connections are made in this case here, and in the post in the other thread about art and philosophy, both discussions in my post are fairly philosophical, with Latour elaborating on Saraceno’s work at around the 15.00, but I wasn’t sure if the connections were strong enough (which is a bit odd, given the content). And also, I hope to add more, but these being just my first attempts, by that nature they are limited and so less generally about philosophy.

[Marshall]

What do you mean by philosophy and neuroscience links, Marshall?

I wrote a book, which is linked at in my profile, that deals with a number of philosophically relevant questions from a neuroscientific perspective (although with quite a bit of freedom for personal nterpretation).

Would that qualify?

Absolutely! I don't remember exactly--I think it was Mermaid who suggested to me to start some PhilosophyAND threads in the Media&Resources section. I didn't have a clear idea.There are some interesting divisions that call for creative bridging. Mermaid may have suggested both this topic and the Phil+Art topic.
I think it was in the thread where Scott Aaronson was speculating about duplicating the mind self and personality in a computer (which has got to be a kind of academic standup comedy act) BTW he is at MIT too. That was where she suggested Philosophy& threads. I carried out in a trial balloon spirit.

It would be brilliant if you could make something of it, we would (I think) all be grateful :^D

[Marshall]

I was wondering too about links that may be less directly about philosophy but involving philosophically relevant ideas. I think connections are made in this case here, and in the post in the other thread about art and philosophy, both discussions in my post are fairly philosophical, with Latour elaborating on Saraceno’s work at around the 15.00, but I wasn’t sure if the connections were strong enough (which is a bit odd, given the content). And also, I hope to add more, but these being just my first attempts, by that nature they are limited and so less generally about philosophy.

that MIT video from CAST (center for art sci tech) was my introduction to Saraceno. his work embodies ideas which for me are central to philosophy. it was exciting.

is Latour the director of CAST who introduced Saraceno? I didn't catch the name. No, how silly of me, Bruno Latour is a completely different person! I think the director (not Latour) performs a partial VERBAL REDUCTION of the philosophy embodied in the art. so he performs a vital function. however it is the original art that gets me thinking and the verbal translation is secondary.

who was that Dutchman who made wind creatures on the beach and who told me about them? they are amazing too. I only just now remembered how amazing. (google "strandbeest")

Philosophy and Neuroscience is all Neuro's! I can't myself imagine how it could go. I think Scott Aaronson might have some entertaining thoughts about it but I am actually more interested in what Neuro can tell us.
http://www.tomassaraceno.com/Projects/CloudcCities/
http://www.neuroworld.it/soul/

This text aims at scientific correctness. Indeed, it tries to be extremely scientific. The never confessed but inexorable rule that has always guided scientific research is as follows: “between two interpretations of experimental data the right one, the true one, the one to be defended even in the face of torture, must be the more beautiful one”.
Thus, I tried and go further, beyond, as far as possible, along this road, in search for a truth that be not only beautiful, a truth that approached as closely as possible music and poetry.

http://www.neuroworld.it/cgi-bin/libro/showbook.pl
Speaking of music, Chapter VIII on the emotions of the soul quotes alfredo's aria in act one of traviata which becomes a duet with violetta one of the all-time most beautiful pieces of music.
so here is this neuroscientist Riccardo who, it suddenly appears, has had the gallant courage (bel coraggio) to write a book about the soul. this makes me very happy and maybe also other people.
http://www.tomassaraceno.com (this will open at photos of the work "In Orbit" at düsseldorf)

[dandelion]

I’d be grateful to read what Neuro can tell us and I agree very much about traviatta’s duet, too.
(Theo Jansen’s Strandbeest, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYGJ9jrbpvg )

[neuro]

I was wondering that the pair philosophy / neuroscience are linked in at least two different ways.
It is like philosophy and science in general (even apart from the methodological aspects of science that may have important philosophical relevance as to the reliability and value of truth of science):

Take quantum mechanics and relativity, for example:
- on the one hand the philosopher may ask whether the value of science in these fields is ontological or purely epistemological and, if epistemological, whether it has a descriptive, explicative, interpretational or merely metaphorical value.
- on the other hand, relativity undermines the basic reference framework of quite a lot of philosophy, by stating the relativity of time, size and mass. Even more relevant, it denies the most central dichotomy of any previous philosophical approach, that between matter and energy.

The situation is similar for neuroscience:
- on the one side, philosophy may ask whether neuroscientific discoveries actually have any relevance with regard to the crucial themes of existence, consciousness, spirit vs. matter, free will, religious thinking, responsibility, oblativity and love...
- on the other hand, neuroscience seems to be contributing quite extensively to a gradual change in philosophical paradigms. The impression is that - the same way as a number of physical, metereological, chemical processes have been subtracted from metaphysics and spiritual/supernatural explanations - a series of impressive properties of our brain have been gradually clarified in their elementary neurological mechanisms, thereby depriving functions such as associative and generalization capacity, learning and memory, mathematical ability, logics, and even language and emotional dynamics of their metaphysical appearance.

This latter field is the one I am most interested in, and the most striking experience I have had in playing with this is that for every aspect that has emerged from the fog of mistery and spiritual inexplicability, and begun to be reduced to mechanistic biological processes, the overall picture has not lost a bit of its fascination, poetry and overwhelming appearence of complexity and wonder.

This reminds me of a poem by Leopardi:
Infinity
This solitary hill has always been dear to me
And this hedge, which prevents me from seeing most of
The endless horizon.
But when I sit and gaze, I imagine, in my thoughts,
Endless spaces beyond the hedge,
An all encompassing silence and a deeply profound quiet,
To the point that my heart is quite overwhelmed.
And when I hear the wind rustling through the trees
I compare its voice to the infinite silence.
And eternity occurs to me, and all the ages past,
And the present time, and its sound.
Amidst this immensity my thought drowns:
And to flounder in this sea is sweet to me.
Giacomo Leopardi (1798 – 1837)

It is as if, by clarifying any aspect of mind or consciousness, one proved unable to appreciate feeling lost in front of Leopardi’s hedge and the infinity it excludes, to peek in with timid and reverent imagination, as if one feared wasting the charm of uncertainty, vagueness, indefiniteness.
It is as if one were to coldly try and sidestep all hedges to look farther and farther.

The fascinating aspects, instead, is that one can fully enjoy the commotion of the hidden and imagined infinity, but can also confidently try and look over, with no fear of losing the infinity, sure instead that she will find a thousand more new hidden infinities, in front of which she may get moved, and thousand more obstacles to overcome.
Provided one does not lose the capacity of marveling and enjoying the enchant of wonder.
New questions will keep arising, new vague, unexplored infinities will reveal themselves, and the inchant of the quest, the transcendent experience of philosophy, is never reduced.

"e il naufragar mi è dolce in questo mare”

[Marshall]

I'll try to remember the first line or two without looking it up;

sempre caro mi fu quel' ermo colle
e questa siepe che, da tanta parte,
dal ultimo orizzonte il guardo esclude.
ma sedendo e mirando …

it is one of the most beautiful of all poems

[dandelion]

Rather related to an earlier post in thread with a paper by Dehaene and another by Butterworth.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/05/160513084549.htm?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+sciencedaily%2Ftop_news%2Ftop_science+%28ScienceDaily%3A+Top+Science+News%29

Scientists have found a mathematics network on the brain that is totally separate from the language regions. The question is can we have thought without language. The tests were only four seconds and I wondered how much you can test in just four seconds. But I suppose, with math, you could. It's a great story.

http://www.unicog.org/publications/Amal ... s%20SI.pdf


As well there is a lot in this link, eg., about baby Bayesian abilities-
http://www.college-de-france.fr/site/en ... -09h30.htm
Bayesian Learning Theory: Are All Babies Scientists in the Crib?

https://www.edge.org/response-detail/10260