Listing 1 - 2 of 2 |
Sort by
|
Choose an application
This introduction just aims to be a fast foreword to the special topic now turned into an e-book. The Editorial "Decision-Making Experiments under a Philosophical Analysis: Human Choice as a Challenge for Neuroscience" alongside with my opinion article "Neurophilosophical considerations on decision making: Pushing-up the frontiers without disregarding their foundations" play the real role of considering in more details the articles and the whole purpose of this e-book. What I must highlight in this foreword is that our intention with such a project was to deepen into the very foundations of our current paradigms in decision neuroscience and to philosophically moot its foundations and repercussions. Normal Science (a term coined by Philosopher Thomas Kuhn) works under a research consensus among a scientific community: A shared paradigm, consolidated methods, widespread convictions. Pragmatically, winning formulas must be kept, although, not at any cost. What differentiates a gifted and revolutionary scientist from a more bureaucratic colleague is the capacity and willingness of constantly reevaluating, depurating and refining his/her own paradigm. That is best strategy to avoid that a paradigm itself would gradually come under challenge. In my view, some achievements, in this sense, were brought about in our project. The e-book will be inspiring and informative for both neuroscientists that are concerned with the very foundations of their works and for philosophers that are not blind to empirical evidence. Kant once said: “Thoughts without content are empty, intuitions without concepts are blind”. Paraphrasing Kant we could say: Philosophy without science is empty, science without philosophy is blind.
Neuroscience. --- Neural sciences --- Neurological sciences --- Neuroscience --- Medical sciences --- Nervous system --- Decision Making --- neurophilosophy --- free will and culture --- compatibilism --- risk and uncertainty --- decision neuroscience --- Intertemporal choice --- Neuroethics --- preference and moral judgment --- adaptive decision
Choose an application
Können objektiv feststellbare Prozesse wie z.B. neuronale Vorgänge subjektives Erleben wirklich hinreichend erklären? Mit der Frage, wie Bewusstsein aus physikalischen Prozessen zu erklären ist, dem hard problem, ist der schwierigste Teil des ehemaligen Körper-Geist-Problems in die aktuelle philosophische Debatte zurückgekehrt. In der kaum noch zu überblickenden Diskussionslage schafft Edwin Egeter Orientierung, indem er eine Typologie von sechs bipolaren Problem-Optiken auf das hard problem entwickelt. Sodann revidiert er den Begriff qualitativen Erlebens (Qualia), indem er ihn auf emotionale und kognitive Formen des Erlebens ausweitet. Auf dieser Grundlage zeigt er auf, dass Qualia mentale Phänomene darstellen, die wesentlich für bewusste Organismen sind. Ansätze, die Bewusstsein zu erklären versuchen, ohne qualitatives Erleben gebührend zu beachten, müssen deshalb scheitern.
Philosophy. --- Mental philosophy --- Humanities --- Philosophie des Geistes --- phänomenales Erleben --- Subjektivität --- hard problem --- Gehirn und Geist --- Reduktionismus --- Empfindung und Emotion --- Affekte --- das Intentionale --- Neurophilosophie --- Hirnforschung --- philosophy of mind --- phenomenal experience --- subjectivity --- brain and mind --- reductionism --- emotions --- intentionality --- neurophilosophy --- Kritik Reduktionismus --- affects --- mood --- phänomenale Adäquatheit --- Rettung der Phänomene --- Revision und Kritik des Qualia-Begriffes --- somatoviszerale Sensibilität und Emotion --- emotiv-kognitives Erleben --- phänomenale Aspekte des Intentionalen --- Empfindungen und Emotionen --- Stimmungen und Denken --- Neurophilosophie und Hirnforschung --- phänomenales Erleben und Subjektivität
Listing 1 - 2 of 2 |
Sort by
|