Hi Philosophy-Neuroscience twitter! Seems like some neuro folks want to know what the hell Philosophers of Mind (TM) do. I recommend reading these seven papers to start: Frege 1892; Putnam 1975 (and/or Burge 1979); Loar 1987; Kripke 1979; Kaplan 1977; Russell 1905; Perry 1979
-
Show this thread
-
Replying to @DLBarack
Serious question: how do philosophers expect anyone working in emergent tech to take pre-1980 philosophical accounts of "mind" seriously? Yes, some were ahead of their time, but we've got
#NeuralNetwok ML/AI now. So...?4 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @DrLeighMJohnson @DLBarack
I'd really love to hear more philosophers of mind reference Bostrom, Kaku, (Michael) Nielsen, even Kurzweil(!) before trotting out the tired old mid-20th C philosophers. Le sigh.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @DrLeighMJohnson @DLBarack
I would say that the post-1980 accounts of mind are good for physicalist/functionalist accounts, or accounts that reinforce what the neuro/cog-sci folks are already up to; not so good if you want to put those minds in social/cultural settings and have them learn something.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
What are good social/cultural accounts of philosophy of mind? Most of the contemporary stuff I am aware of is very shallow/fashionable/ideology driven? I’m fond of Castelfranchi and Sloman but neither got very far imho
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
I tend to rely on John Dewey's account in Experience and Nature, or Merleau-Ponty's account in Phenomenology of Perception. MP's account has been expanded by several recent thinkers.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
There has been an influence of MP on cogsci via enactivism, but that paradigm has failed. MP continues to inspire despite his fuzzy epistemology, but I have mostly seen "creative writing", not tangible models come out of this. Can you recommend any material that is not "soft"?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Plinz @shengokai and
(I think Dewey is already well integrated and recognized via the traditions of functional psychology, and I am not sure what else we can learn by going back to him. Phenomenology seems more promising to me as a source for undervalued perspectives.)
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
That's a tricky question, re: "soft" material, specifically where things similar to Dewey and MP are concerned. I'm not sure you can get a "hard" account of mind that involves the social that doesn't fray at the edges, but it's worth looking into.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
For that reason, I suspect we have to recover the social from the individual mind (other minds and their contents are a model imposed on the world by the individual mind). The social world is a domain of the physical world, not the normative or phenomenological domains.
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.