Subtly wrong ideas are much more dangerous to progress in science than plainly wrong ideas. Some subtly wrong ideas seem to include mirror neurons, integrated information theory, the gut brain, the extended mind and autopoiesis.
-
-
Replying to @Plinz
Mirror neurons I get, say more about the 1. *gut brain* and 2. extended mind ( what do those mean and why are they problems )?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @davidarredondo
The gut brain is a cluster of ideas around the intuition that the intestinal neurons that line the gut [possibly in democratic cooperation with the microbiome] to form a secondary brain that shapes cns cognition in significant ways.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Plinz @davidarredondo
The extended mind suggests that the mind does not end at the boundary of our nervous system, but extends into the environment. In the stronger sense, enactivism suggests that the mind does not emerge over neural activity, but over the interaction between body and environment.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @Plinz
Would you say that the contents of mind end at the *boundry of the nervous system* ( Eg. Thoughts &concepts) ?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @davidarredondo
No, I think that this is a category error. My mind does not exist in the same frame of reference as my nervous system. But as far as we can tell, it is mostly emergent over the activity of specific parts of my CNS.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @Plinz
So I think I know what you mean by CNS ( I don't know anyone who think that extends into the environment). What do you mean by the term mind? Does it include the content?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @davidarredondo
The original champion of the extended mind was Andy Clark. Alva Noe used to be invested in it for a while. Brooks, Bongard and Pfeiffer popularized enactivism in AI. A radical version of enactism in philosophy of mind is for instance given by Ezequiel DiPaolo.
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
-
Replying to @davidarredondo
I am not sure about the other question though. Much of the mind is invariant to its contents, but it is nor clear to me if I should see it as fully separate, even though I would, in a first approximation.
3 replies 0 retweets 3 likes
The mind seems to be able to turn some of its own regulation into its object and deconstruct itself.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.