preliminary question for my neuropsychology professor this next semester: ‘rational thought is interpretation according to a scheme we cannot escape’ -Nietzsche I am greatly looking forward to this course in the upcoming semester. As an a priori consideration, I wanted to point students to Stephen Pinker’s formulation of the ‘Hard Question’ in this article on ‘Consciousness and the Brain,’ a topic we will surely be covering in this course: content.time/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1580394-1,00.html In this article, Pinker speculates that the ‘Hard Question’ shall be answered in so far as it is determined that the brain conditions consciousness. His argument then goes on to boldly claim ‘the biology of consciousness offers a sounder basis for morality than the unprovable dogma of an immortal soul. Its not just that an understanding of the physiology of consciousness will reduce human suffering through new treatments for pain and depression. That understanding can also force us to recognize the interests of other beings--the core of morality.’ Pinker’s provocative argument ostensibly addresses the philosophical ‘Problem Of Other Minds.’ As this problem suggests, strictly speaking it may not be possible to prove that other people have minds. If I had one question for this course—in addressing ‘The Problem of Other Minds,’ it would be: in what sense, experimentally speaking, can we avoid committing the logic fallacy cum hoc ergo propter hoc (correlation does not imply causation) in determining the neurophysiological basis of consciousness? Ancillary to this question—in terms of research methodology and design, what would a null hypothesis look like in hypothesizing that consciousness is determined by neurophysiological activity? Some things to think about, see you all on Monday, January 12th!
Posted on: Fri, 02 Jan 2015 19:26:40 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015