Epistemologically Different Worlds and Cognitive neuroscien - PowerPoint Presentation

Slide1

Epistemologically Different Worlds and Cognitive neuroscience (a pseudo-science)

[Large

parts

of

this presentation are from

Vacariu 2008, 2010,

2012,

2015, etc

.]Slide2

Abstract

In

few words,

I present

the main actual problems of

cognitive neuroscience

:

mainly the

binding

problem

(other problem - localization

, differentiation–integration

in the

brain, the troubles created by the brain

imaging – with the same argument).

After decades of many people working in CNS, there are no palpable results. Why? This framework of thinking, “world”, “universe”, is wrong! Therefore any alternative to the mind-brain problem (identity theory, emergence, dualism, etc.) is wrong.

In 2002-2005 (and later), I introduced the new framework: the “epistemologically different worlds” which shows that the mind-brain problem is a pseudo-problem

!

In 2015, our book:

Is CNS a pseudo-science?

Answer: yes it is!!!Slide3

SCIENCE

Scientific knowledge

4

problems

of the "world"

(

dualities):

1.

mind-body

(brain) [Cognitive Science

]

2. c

ell/organism-life

[Biology]

3. particle-wave

(quantum) [Physics]

4. micro-macro

(Einstein-quantum

mech.)

[Physics]

↓

All other great

problems

in

“foundations of special sciences

” for the "world"!

T

he cause? The wrong framework:

world/unicorn world

!

Great philosophers deal with this framework!Slide4

Cognitive neuroscience CNS

main problems:

CNS – subdomain of CS

CS: problem of representation and computation (

computationalism

, connectionism and dynamical systems)

Identity theory

- reductionism for majority of researchers, Searle’s “emergence”, different aspects (Spinoza), etc.

Topics: emergence, spatial cognition,

supervenience

, reductionism, etc.

Using fMRI, EEG, MEG, TMG, etc.

Principles of EDWs (here particular cases):Slide5

(1) Binding problem

(2) Localization

(3) Emergence

vs

reductionism

(4) Mental representation and computation

(5) Spatial cognition, etc., etc.

Optimism

vs

skepticism (

Uttal

, the realist) in CNS

Uttal

: “

brain activity associated with

mental activity

is broadly distributed on and in the brain. The idea of

phrenological

localization

must be rejected and replaced with a theory of broadly

distributed neural

systems accounting for our mental activity”

(

Uttal

2011,

45).

→

Where happens the binding processes in the brain?

Vacariu: Nowhere in the brain, but in the mind! Dualism? Emergence (Searle)? NO! EDWs! (See below)Slide6

The binding problem

Different forms of binding: spatial (location) or temporal, conscious

or unconscious

, visual (linking together color, form, motion, size, and location

of a

perceptual object or binding various perceptual objects), auditory,

cognitive (

explains how a concept is connected to a percept), binding in language understanding

, in

reasoning, cross-modal binding, sensory-motor binding,

memory binding

and the causes of a unified conscious experience

(

Uttal

,

Velik

2010, Plate 2007,

etc.).

Principles of EDWs (here particular cases):Slide7

Binding mechanism is “

almost everywhere

in the brain and in all processing

levels” (

Velik

2010,

Uttal

2001…)

V

isual

binding: any object, for instance, has certain visual

features (

color, orientation, motion, texture, and stereoscopic depth) that are linked

to particular

neuronal areas. In the past, perception of color was correlated

with V4

, motion with MT/V5, and so on. Due to recent discoveries, such

correlations are

much more problematic

.

Since we perceive only a singular

entity (

the object) with various features, then a mechanism that binds these

features together

in a single entity becomes

necessary:

what mental processes (

conscious or

unconscious) create the binding among various features

?

Synchronization

or temporal coding theory (or temporal binding) (

von der Malsburg, Engel, Singer, Fries, etc.)

(outdated:

Treisman’s

feature-integration

theory)Slide8

Epistemologically different worlds

(EDWs

)

(2002, 2005, 2008, etc.)

“World”/unicorn world =

human illusion

The oldest Ptolemaic epicycle,

most powerful

(u

nquestionable during oldest times!)

Scientists

work/think

in this framework

Unicorn-world

→

4 dualities =

pseudo-problems

in

science

R

eplace the "world" with EDWs!Slide9

Principles of

EDWs

(A) About

non-living entities

(1) Epistemologically different interactions

constitute

epistemologically different entities, and epistemologically different entities

determine

epistemologically different interactions.

(2) Any entity exists only at "the surface" because of interactions that

constitute

it.

(3) Any entity exists in a single EW and interacts only with the nonliving entities from the same EW.

(4) Any EW appears from and disappears in the

hyper-nothing

.

(5) Any EW is, therefore all EDWs have the same objective reality

.Slide10

“Exist ”

is

for entity with

determinations/features.

→ In general, spatio-temporal framework

“Existence” and “interaction” interrelated

Interactions constitute “surface” of an

it. →

Ontological reality

(not exist "inside" of an object)

Constitution ↔

Determinations (features)

Parts–whole

→

Organizational

+

epistemological-ontological

thresholdsSlide11

(B) Propositions for being (the "I"/life/mind) and corresponding to cell/organism:

(6) Life/mind corresponds to a cell/organism.

(7) Life/mind is an EW. Therefore, life/mind is.

(8) Having certain determinations, from our

viewpoint a cell/organism is "composed" of an amalgam of other molecules/cells + relationships.

(9) Certain states and processes form knowledge that is life (mind).

(10) As an entity having a unity, life/mind is an indeterminate individuality.Slide12

Without

correspondence

to life/mind, any cell/organism - not

survive in

its environment

Coordination of biological functions needs an

unity

impossible to be

used/exist

within mechanisms of

a cell/organism

→ Such unity = the “I

”/life/mind!

This unity corresponds to

development

of

a cell/ organism

and

evolution

of

species.

Cognitive neuroscience: an error = checking

for unity of consciousness within the

brain

!

CNS = a pseudo-science (see Vacariu 2015, etc.): it has no ontological entities + main notions are

vagues

, unclear = pseudo-notions!Slide13

CNS: no progress since its birth (just because it is a pseudo-science!)

The

unity of the “I” represents

indeterminate

individuality

of life/mind.

The

notion of “life/mind” has no plural

. (Any life/mind is an EW.)

Any mental state/process (determinate feature) is the “I”.

No space/color in mind/brain.

However,

feature of color (

that belong to a representation of an object situated in the macro-EW, for instance

)

is mind.Slide14

From human viewpoint: not too many EDWs

Extending conditions of observation/ interaction to all entities, number of EDWs increases considerably

Rejection of “levels”, “emergence”, “supervenience”, “composition”, or “entanglement”, “ non-locality”, “complexity”, “

causalities

”

(11) Being (life/the "I") is, therefore EDWs are.

Objective reality for all EDWs: no criteria for differentiating their objective reality

Mind and body (brain), waves and particles, micro-macro, etc. are or belong to EDWsSlide15

Hume

laughing: "Post-modern human being quite many

pseudo-causalities dominate your world”!

After

Copernicus, Darwin, Freud, [“alone in the world”], Einstein’s [“creating particular frameworks”] revolutions against myths in human thinking, reject yet another myth:

“world”.

Once

again to mount a Copernican

revolution for discarding our “special” status: “World” does not exist!Slide16

EDWs perspective changes the largest

“Weltanschauung” (ironically, a wrong notion!) throwing to the garbage the most “tangible” but the most dangerous notion: the world/universe/reality.

[God even cannot exist, just because one EW is not for any EDW; otherwise, there would be an ontological contradiction in

God’s existence]