Neurological understanding

Adventureland · Post by **Adventureland** » January 14th, 2017, 2:57 pm

I am looking for examples in the western philosophical tradition where ideas have arisen based on a lack of understanding of neurological function. These assumptions may still be valid, or now refuted.
Any assistance appreciated. I will use any given examples to refine the question.

Post by **JamesOfSeattle** » January 14th, 2017, 11:07 pm

I nominate panpsychism. Not having a proper understanding of how neurons generate consciousness, consciousness has been described as a property of all matter, without an explanation of how that would work.

*

Haicoway · Post by **Haicoway** » January 18th, 2017, 11:10 am

It’s hard to think about anything philosophically when one recognizes from neuroscience that there is no “I”, no one place in the brain where an individual exists. The brain is morcellated, and even balkanized, and works like a person with a split personality, which is an extreme example that demonstrates the dynamic. All people have split personalities to a degree, as there are different neural networks responding to the environment, and other neural reactions, in different ways. Mechanisms in the brain try to coordinate different and sometimes competing sets of firings, but they often work independently, in succession. For example, when a bloke gets out of his car and shoots another driver (in this actual instance he missed and instead killed her grandchild) for pulling away from a stop sign too slowly, he is operating from a primal set of neural firings that didn’t connect with more rational sets in time. I’m sure another part of the man’s brain thought afterward that indulging to irritation in this way wasn’t worth a lifetime in jail.

Adventureland · Post by **Adventureland** » January 19th, 2017, 4:55 pm

Thank you for the replies so far. The Panpsychism was an interesting read.

Nonetheless I would like to focus if possible on specific examples where a philosopher/theorist (and perhaps forward wind to 19th/20th Century) has discussed ideas which rely upon an assumption of a neurological function.

Post by **LuckyR** » January 27th, 2017, 2:57 pm

Adventureland wrote:I am looking for examples in the western philosophical tradition where ideas have arisen based on a lack of understanding of neurological function. These assumptions may still be valid, or now refuted.
Any assistance appreciated. I will use any given examples to refine the question.

The decoupling of perception and reality (by a better understanding of neurology) essentially undermines simplistic philosophical arguments based on perception.