Besides Patricia Churchland, where should I start with neurophilosophy?
 It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
 DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68 |
It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
Besides Patricia Churchland, where should I start with neurophilosophy?
Besides Patricia Churchland, where should I start with neurophilosophy?
It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68 |
It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
Bullet to the head. If you survive, you'll be left handicapped enough to actually care for something like that.
And what exactly is the issue with approaching philosophy while acknowledging the discoveries of neuroscientists?
Nothing as long as you do that without engaging in a pseudo-intelectual mishmash of both.
So which philosophers or writers do that without being pseudo-intellectual?
The ones who don't write neurophilosophy? Why are you asking questions with such obvious answers? Are you moronic? Wait a minute... you believe in neurophilosophy---of course you are moronic!
Name someone who makes explicit references to modern neuroscience without writing "neurophilosophy"
Lisa Feldman Barrett, Daniel Kahneman, Oliver Sacks, V.S. Ramachandran, Edward Faser, David Eagleman, and David Bentley Hart.
Antonio Damasio as well.
i’d add jaak panksepp too
I don't even get this question. Most authors who write about this don't really write "neurophilosophy". The ones who do are a minority: the Churchland couple, William Bechtel, and, to a certain extent, Dan Dennett, and Thomas Metzinger.
I guess this guy is really stupid.
>the Churchland couple
Holy shit. I just remembered who these morons are. They're the ones who want to speak like heckin' science-loving redditors unironically.
«Pat burst in the door, having come straight from a frustrating faculty meeting. “She said ‘Paul, don’t speak to me, my serotonin levels have hit bottom, my brain is awash in glucocorticoids, my blood vessels are full of adrenaline, and if it weren’t for my endogenous opiates I’d have driven the car into a tree on the way home. My dopamine levels need lifting. Pour me a Chardonnay, and I’ll be down in a minute.’”»
I thought people didn't take seriously those homosexuals.
I find it ironic their name is CHURCHland and they’re atheists
Puritan surname, so it's fitting. The puritans were uppity and pseudo-intelectual morons who eventually felt too smart for religious mysteries, their descendants became atheists/deists/panteists. That's why the Britisch should've just killed the dissidents of the Church of England---all the troubles we could've spared.
Glad I’m a borderer instead
The most based type of American.
For the longest time I thought I was Russian because of a misreading of genealogy reports from my childhood
Neurophilosophy just means writing philosophy with an education in neuroscience. Plenty of philosophers don't do this and continue to talk about vague, outdated concepts because they lack an education in neuroscience.
No, you're mistaken: neurophilosophy is when you shove neuroscientific jargon in your speech as if you were the unflattering parody of a Rick & Morty fan (cf.
).
Maybe, but that's not what it should mean.
And IQfy should mean "literature" board and not "pointless meandering about fringe philosophical and religious pipe-dreams" board, but we don't always get what we want in life, don't we?
The thread is about authors and books, so it's on topic. I'm on the same page as you and have no interest in reading anything convoluted and superficial, it was just a thread asking for recommendations in a field I just discovered and know little about.
Anyone who uses scientific terms in pseudo-intellectual ways is just as bad as any philosopher still using terms like "spirit" or "soul." These are both pseudo-intellectual types.
>Anyone who uses scientific terms in pseudo-intellectual ways is just as bad as any philosopher still using terms like "spirit" or "soul." These are both pseudo-intellectual types.
"Anyone who doesn't buy the mechanistic-cum-materialistic and/or naturalistic dogma is a heckin' pseud!!!"
Uh, okay?
I knew you were a dogmatic moron from the every beginning. There was nothing in the OP warranting such a violent knee-jerk reaction as your first post.
A lack of precision in one's writing indicates a lack of precision in one's thinking. Words like "spirit" and "soul" are imprecise terms that don't belong in modern philosophy. If you're still using these terms, you're a medieval moron.
The hell you're talking about? I literally just came here.
>I literally just came here.
Take some napkins and clean it up then!
Nah, you homosexuals deserve the cum stains.
>“My dogma is less dogmatic than your dogma because it's newer."
What dogma, you fricking moron? What the frick are you even talking about?
>hey guys, where should I start with [subject]?
>HOLY SHIT LOOK AT THIS DOGMATIC REDDIT homosexual
cf.
, you fricking moron. I ain't sure if you're actually moronic (wish is likely, considering your reading picks) or just intelectually dishonest (wish is likely, considering your reading picks). The Churchlands and their readers aren't fricking welcome here. Frick off to Reddit!
There's nothing dogmatic there.
>The Churchlands and their readers aren't fricking welcome here
Because you said so?
>Churchland-gay
I've never read Churchland, so how can I be a Churchlandgay, you dumb assuming motherfricker?
Why do you hate puppies and little children so much, anon?
Why do you project so much?
Why did you kill your wife, anon?
You are such a moron.
This question
is fully warranted since I've never Churchland and know nothing about neurophilosophy. I simply made a thread asking for recommendations.
For some reason, this simple question resulted in one or more morons accusing me of having an agenda, despite not giving any opinion about the subject myself, since I don't know anything about it yet.
You are the dogmatic one here. I haven't responded to anything not explicitly within the thread. All of you are doing this by accusing me of being on some sort of side, despite not being on one or remotely suggesting otherwise.
never read Churchland*
I'll also still read Churchland and still post on this board despite your whining. I've been coming here since 2012.
>I've been coming here since 2012
Fricking post2006 newhomosexuals ruined this place. They ruined this place with their pseudo-intelectual mumbo-jumbo.
Been coming to IQfy since 2012 but coming to IQfy since 2005
Don't you say? What's next? You're actually moot's friend? Frick off! You're just a newbie tourist from Reddit.
I came to this site for the Morrowind memes on IQfy and stayed ever since, but keep coping.
Stop LARPing, homosexual.
Cry harder.
Why did you kill your wife, anon?
You're unironically researching "neurophilosophy", and just made a thread about the fricking Churchlands; you're in no possition to call anyone a "pseudo-intelectual".
See
Why do you lose your shit like a moronic gorilla when someone decides to take modern science into consideration? Because that's all this thread is about. Everything else is your projection.
Even if you're not
your replies are just as unwarranted.
You posting the Churchlands is what's unwarranted. Posting about those morons should be punished with a permaban. Actually, philosophy and religion should've their own board. I just want to talk about Victor Hugo and shit, not about how we should say "my levels of serotonin are rather elevated at this particular instance" instead of "i'm happy." Frick off, pretentious twat.
This schizo meltdown is ridiculous. If you don't like the thread, don't respond to it.
>This schizo meltdown is ridiculous.
Don't you mean: "This manifestation of disorganized thought and behavior indicative of a schizoaffective episode presents a notable departure from normative cognitive and affective processing, exhibiting disruptions in neural circuitry and neurotransmitter systems associated with psychosis.", you Churchland-gay?
>Why do you lose your shit like a moronic gorilla when someone decides to take modern science into consideration?
This is a "why did you hit your wife?" type of question.
I just noticed that guy has been making leading questions all this time.
>[anon]: I don't like the Churchlands.
>[OP]: Why do you hate science and progress in neuroscience so much?
What a fricking swindler that moron is.
Paul Churchland
He's Patricia's ghost-writer. Broads can't do shit besides getting fricked and birthing kids.
Malabou
This whole thread was derailed and turned into a bullying session for OP lmao
It's cute you think this schizo meltdown had any effect on my ego.
I'm not them, but okay? I guess.
Could someone please take a break from your trolling and explain to me what insights neuroscience could add to philosophy? Genuine question here, I'd just like a couple of examples.
None. It's just another fad that'll die out eventually. Some people will cling to it to feel smarter than the bunch, but nothing will come out of it.
Don't bother with it, mate. Why do you think everybody ignored this thread besides a couple schizos/trolls? It's a nothingburger of a field. Two geezers with sticks up their asses were getting bored in their sexless marriage, so they decided to dedicate the rest of their lives to "own the Christians" by trying to explain everything through materialistic lenses supported by neuroscientific jargon. That's it. They want you to, instead of saying "I'm feeling a bit under the wheater today", to say "I find myself in a state of dysphoria today, presumably owing to a dysregulation in the serotonergic system, which modulates affective states. This affective perturbation may stem from an imbalance in neurotransmitter activity within mesolimbic circuits, thereby implicating dopaminergic dysregulation as well. My current affective disposition underscores the intricate interplay between neural substrates and subjective experiences, emblematic of the intricate neurophenomenological tapestry that defines human consciousness."
Perhaps they're just trying to troll us, but who knows? If I were you I'd just ignore them.
If the field was so much of a nothingburger, there wouldn't be people like you who seethe so hard at it, or at guys at Dennett who praise neurophilosophy. Clearly, something about it threatens you enough to respond repeatedly to these threads.
>or at guys at Dennett who praise neurophilosophy.
No, anon, I don't "seethe" at any person who frequents an establishment named "Dennet", whose existence I was unaware of.
>Clearly, something about it threatens you enough to respond repeatedly to these threads.
This is some "Flat Earth" shit. "The REAL reason you mock this stupid thing is that it threatens you as an agent of the 'powers that be', and not that it's such a low-hanging fruit that it's amusing and easy to mock".
Yeah, anon, if people begin to speak like Jimmy Neutron on crack, the foundations of what I stand for will definitely crumble. You're such a dangerous revolutionary by researching about neurophilosophy, anon.
Give it a rest, homosexual. No one cares about your hateboner for neuroscience.
>Hateboner
Sorry, wasn't I feeling "threatened" by the revolutionary discoveries of neurophilosophy? Make up your mind, mate!
There is no such thing as a soul or consciousness. There's just a combination of electrical feedback loops and chemicals in the nervous system constructed from genetic instructions. That's all your religious experience amounts to. Now go have a nice day for shitting up this board with your vapid bullshit. I won't see you in heaven or hell because they don't exist besides as neurochemical states.
>There's just a combination of electrical feedback loops and chemicals in the nervous system constructed from genetic instructions.
Holy Reddit! You got 'em well, fellow free-thinker! Your keen response let me feeling euphoric!
>Now go have a nice day...
Don't you mean "proceed to initiate an instance where your neural network undergoes a fundamental reconfiguration, resulting in the cessation of the integrated system dynamics that we conventionally associate with a person's existence"? I'm really doubting your conviction to SCIENCE and PROGRESS.
Anon, it appears that your amygdala and hypothalamus are exhibiting heightened activity, potentially indicating an increased release of stress-related neurotransmitters such as cortisol and adrenaline.
>hateboner
Don't you mean "a manifestation of heightened neurophysiological arousal concomitant with the activation of circuits associated with antagonistic affective states. This arousal, stemming from cognitive evaluations laden with negative valence, paradoxically yields a physiological response analogous to that observed in contexts of positive affect, thereby illuminating the intricate interplay between cognitive appraisal and somatic arousal in the realm of aversive stimul"?
I thought you were all on board with neurophilosophy, so why don't bite the bullet and speak without the implicit metaphysical assumptions and metaphors that hinder our understanding of complex concepts?
Philosophy without neuroscience is like psychology without genetics. You can do it, but you're ignoring a lot of relevant data.
Yeah, yeah, whatever you say. Personally, I think that every moron who takes the Churchlands seriously should just, as they'd say, "Engage in a neural reconfiguration resulting in the cessation of their existence. By meticulously dissecting the intricacies of the neural substrate, they're ought to unearth the futility inherent in the perpetuation of consciousness, thus yielding to the rational imperative of terminating one's cognitive instantiation."
Do you even understand what "neurophilosophy" actually is, or are you just assuming what it should be based on its name? Also, why did you kill your wife?
>The literature has distinguished “philosophy of neuroscience” from “neurophilosophy” for two decades. The former concerns foundational issues within the neurosciences. The latter concerns application of neuroscientific concepts to traditional philosophical questions. Exploring various concepts of representation employed in neuroscientific theories is an example of the former. Examining implications of neurological syndromes for the concept of a unified self is an example of the latter.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/neuroscience/
>Also, why did you kill your wife?
What?
~~*plato.standford.edu*~~
also, the fact that there are ~~*scholars*~~ who push the term doesn't mean it isn't moronic. pretty much the same happens with the whole "continental philosophy/analitic philosophy" ordeal---just uppity morons creating categories to justify their existence.
I asked for an example.
There I can't provide an example. I'm merely able to seethe and describe everything through physical processes because I'm a Redditor in denial.
I empathize with the neurobiological complexities influencing your current state, recognizing the intricate orchestration of neurotransmitters such as serotonin, dopamine, and oxytocin, which contribute to the modulation of affective responses and interpersonal connections.
Here is an example: boys' prefrontal cortex develops 1-2 years slower than girls' until they level out in their upper 20's. From this, we can (and should) reform our education system to accommodate, and redshirt all boys by default, so they are on a more equal footing emotionally with their female classmates. We should also be more weary of handing out diagnoses of ADHD to young boys, since the lack of policy acknowledging this biological difference is likely contributing to this phenomenon.
This is just one such example of how findings from neuroscientists can change how we think about current social phenomena or where behavior and perception may be originating from. Neuroscience can and should be informing our philosophy of mind, our policy making, and our cultural attitude.
That has nothing to do with neurophilosophy tho.
Yes it does. Neurophilosophy is using neuroscience to reassess traditional philosophical ideas. In that example the ideas being reassessed are that of education and boyhood.
This aligns with the foundational ethos of traditional philosophy, which rigorously grounds its conjectures within the ambit of accessible empirical data. Such a methodology epitomizes the essence of philosophical inquiry, eschewing the need for a distinct categorization such as "neurophilosophy," as it inherently embodies the quintessence of philosophical discourse. If you were acquainted with the works of the Churchlands, it would become apparent that neurophilosophy entails the endeavor of elucidating the intricacies of the world by meticulously examining its phenomena through the lens of neurological processes.
This. Neurophilosophy involves integrating neuroscience and philosophy to gain a deeper understanding of the mind, consciousness, and the nature of reality. It emphasizes describing and explaining various phenomena, including aspects of human experience, in terms of underlying neurological processes.
It really doesn't have nothing to do with what
is saying. Perhaps you're just confused.
>Such a methodology epitomizes the essence of philosophical inquiry, eschewing the need for a distinct categorization such as "neurophilosophy," as it inherently embodies the quintessence of philosophical discourse.
Not exactly. Neurophilosophy as a term helps identify philosophical discourse that refers to neuroscientific data. It's nothing more than this, or shouldn't be.
Any philosophizing using neuroscientific data would be neurophilosophy, or philosophy that factors in neuroscientific data. Taking an interest in neurophilosophy just means wanting to read more philosophy that makes explicit reference to neuroscientific data. That's all the OP was about.
It's bizarre how a simple question resulted in such an autistic backlash.
We know that's you, OP.
Pretty sure he means OP as in 'original post,' not 'original poster.'
Is the age that you send children to school a philosophical idea? I don't really see how neuroscience can inform ethics, metaphysics, or epistemology. Maybe there's other branches of philosophy that could benefit from neuroscientific insights, but I can't think of one.
He's moronic, intelectually dishonest, and a Reddit tourist, so don't bother.
>I don't really see how neuroscience can inform ethics, metaphysics, or epistemology.
It affects ontology first and foremost, and from there everything else. The discovery of evolution and DNA had the same effects. Rethinking ontology affects epistemology, cosmology, ethics, political philosophy, and so on.
Hey, OP, the synaptic interplay between my neural circuits and those of your maternal progenitor culminated in a biochemical cascade involving dopamine, oxytocin, and serotonin, resulting in the fusion of our genetic materials and the propagation of new neural connections within our respective central nervous systems 😀
ChatGPT is too obvious. No (You) for you, kiddo.
>"everything that rebutts my bullshit is AI"
Even if it was (which it isn't), doesn't take away from it---it's true regardless of it.
OP, just admit that you've no idea what you're talking about.
I'm still wondering why anon killed his wife.
>blatantly off-topic thread is kept on the catalogue
Every. Single. Time. What are mods suppose to do here all day, anyway?