Word. Systems of thought are, almost by definition, fixed; reality is fluid. It is impossible for a system of thought to accurately reflect reality more than twice a day.
-
-
And, in fact, yes, we do look to sufficiently advanced chemistry to answer biological questions—biochem is a huge discipline. Why not neuro-epistemology?
-
the hybrid terms get right to it, though, don't they? it isn't one discipline providing the answers so another doesn't have to, it's one discipline informing another. which neuroscience can tremendously do for epistemology, absolutely
-
i don't think our epistemic questions having neuroscience-informed answers is anything but obvious, it's our epistemic questions having *neuroscience answers* that raises my eyebrow
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Is it though? Someday, when you ask “how do I know what I know,” they’ll be able to walk you through it neuron by neuron, structure by structure. Granted, they’ll need a very powerful computer to do it, but why not?
-
because the attempt to comprehend a painting molecule-by-molecule will leave you dead of old age not very far into it and with no idea what it was a painting of
-
the hilarious part will be that that approach will mostly tell us we literally don't know anything, we just manage to act very approximately similarly to how we would if we knew any things
-
sure, but how we actually do that is pretty important. As are knowing the ways in which our approximation fails.
End of conversation
New conversation -
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.