Study finds a difference between neurons of humans and other mammals

news.mit.edu

81–82 of 82 posts

Re: Study finds a difference between neurons of humans and other mammals

#81

Post by the__alchemist » Tue, Nov 16, 2021, 12:08 AM UTC

jiocrag wrote: post #80

the__alchemist wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Picked up this book just now... Seems full of red flags. In the first few pages: - Accepts Descartes' "I think, therefore I am" without skepticism - Aims for a scientific theory to be "respectable" - Concludes that because sensory input to a brain seems infeasible using 1990 simulation tech (Not considering advances, using sensors etc), simulating reality to a brain isn't possible; Makes a comparison to a ladder-to-t…

Hmm... those seem like pretty shallow interpretations of his research. What do you mean by 'accepts Descartes' "I think, therefore I am" without skepticism?'

They're shallow, but there's such a high density of questionable statements in the first few pages, it's a red flag. I love speculative science and reading about potentially new and/or controversial ideas... but it only makes sense if I can trust the author on more concrete topics.

> "I think, therefore I am". Philosophers today are less concerned with proving one's own existence as a thinking thing (perhaps because they have decided that Descartes settled that matter quite satisfactorily)

Re: Study finds a difference between neurons of humans and other mammals

#82

Post by jiocrag » Tue, Nov 16, 2021, 5:17 PM UTC

the__alchemist wrote: post #81

jiocrag wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hmm... those seem like pretty shallow interpretations of his research. What do you mean by 'accepts Descartes' "I think, therefore I am" without skepticism?'

They're shallow, but there's such a high density of questionable statements in the first few pages, it's a red flag. I love speculative science and reading about potentially new and/or controversial ideas... but it only makes sense if I can trust the author on more concrete topics. > "I think, therefore I am". Philosophers today are less concerned with proving one's own existence as a thinking thing (perhaps because…

I think you’re misinterpreting. Dennet is setting up to question Descartes’ assumption, which has been “accepted,” but he spends the first 50 or so pages of the book breaking down.

I’m not saying this book has all the answers about consciousness (quite the contrary — it has been criticized for not really “explaining consciousness” as the title implies), but I think you would find the studies and observations about how our minds generate “drafts” of reality quite compelling.

Post reply on HN