tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21605329.post1436241579500564380..comments2024-03-22T00:30:09.536-07:00Comments on The Neurocritic: Neuroexistentialism: A Brain in Search of MeaningThe Neurocritichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08010555869208208621noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21605329.post-47380330715512616352017-09-24T04:07:30.971-07:002017-09-24T04:07:30.971-07:00Nevertheless, brain = mind only moves the problem ...Nevertheless, brain = mind only moves the problem of understanding to another frame of reference - because what, really, is matter? <br /><br />Matter is shifting, changing, creating riddles of emergent complexity. I think quite the opposite of you: faith in the naive realism of most neuroscience is often to quell the existential anxiety born by realising how little control we really have as tiny flickers of consciousness embedded in a totality of chaos bordering on order. It really resembles an article of faith. <br /><br />I would like to recommend the book 'The Cybernetic Brain' by theoretical physicist and sociologist Andrew Pickering. Or only this, perhaps: https://architecture.mit.edu/sites/architecture.mit.edu/files/attachments/lecture/nss130067-pub.pdf<br /><br />Following Pickering I would say, we definitely need more brain science, but we need to take it less serious...Jonathan Led Larsenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00052113034045025971noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21605329.post-65642725934109905742017-09-19T05:10:39.038-07:002017-09-19T05:10:39.038-07:00Haha, I took it seriously. Thanks for clarifying :...Haha, I took it seriously. Thanks for clarifying :)dathin_noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21605329.post-88546575709853097362017-09-19T03:11:11.237-07:002017-09-19T03:11:11.237-07:00Thanks for your comments.
One of the authors (Fla...Thanks for your comments.<br /><br />One of the authors (Flanagan) is a proponent of mindfulness, which is a focus on the present moment. See <a href="https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/really-hard-problem" rel="nofollow">The Really Hard Problem</a>.<br /><br />My suggestion for medicating (along with "The Circle of Neuroexistentialism" figure) was largely sarcastic and a reaction to the authors' hyperbole. Although they echoed Sartre, Kierkegaard, and other old-school existentialists, I found it ironic that a neurobiological school of thought would not consider that cases of severe anxiety might improve by altering the individual's brain state.The Neurocritichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08010555869208208621noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21605329.post-6763482481904717052017-09-19T02:29:24.272-07:002017-09-19T02:29:24.272-07:00
Ok a couple of things.
The response of Professor...<br />Ok a couple of things.<br /><br />The response of Professor Patricia Churchland is a simplification of the problem and amounts really to ‘let’s not think about it’. This is not about God but about the meaning of existence in a much deeper sense. To say that we should ‘just chill and be happy’ is a failure of addressing the existence of the future. Actions either matter or not. Patricia is bounding meaning to her present moment ignoring the future all together! She is in essence simply rationalising her existential concerns (which is of course a valid stress reduction mechanism). <br /><br />As for Medicating Neuroexistential Angst. Wow that sounds dangerous to me! It has a build in assumption that there is no meaning and try to medicate us so that we don’t have an emotional reaction to it. How about not doing that. How about being curious, afraid but brave and just keep looking instead of trying to medicate away our drive towards truth.dathin_noreply@blogger.com