RE: why do we enjoy poetry From the perspective of neuroscience?
January 19, 2019 at 11:52 pm
(This post was last modified: January 20, 2019 at 12:07 am by bennyboy.)
(January 19, 2019 at 10:44 pm)Thoreauvian Wrote: I find it surprising that philosophers still think "science is a subset of philosophy" instead of a spinoff.
(January 19, 2019 at 10:44 pm)Thoreauvian Wrote: I already answered this. See below.
(January 16, 2019 at 9:18 pm)Thoreauvian Wrote: Of course we can observe our own minds directly. First person accounts form a useful part of scientific studies, especially when scientists have large samplings which are compared to measurements of brain activity.
All sorts of things can't be observed directly by science, yet scientists can assemble excellent guesses by means of their careful detective work on available evidence, including proxies. That's how scientists reconstructed ancient climates for instance.
Scientists are studying the mind, and the objections of philosophers are not standing in their way.
I'll make an assertion, and then ask a question. If you can answer it without double-talk, then I may accept that you have a point.
My assertion is that to study something scientifically, you must be able to subject it to physical measurement or enumeration. My question is this-- how would you, as a confident scientist, demonstrate that any physical system, human or otherwise, actually experiences anything subjectively? What are the observable criteria by which you will establish sentience as a material fact?
You can't. You will have to take a position based on a hunch or on inferences drawn from your experience of life.
Congratulations. You haven't even STARTED studying the mind, and you're already doing philosophy!
