Mazes of the mind: The philosophy of neuroscience | Iain McGilchrist, Colin Blakemore, Bryan Appleyard
Philosophy For Our TimesShow Notes
Over the past decades, neuroscience has blossomed, positioning itself as a kind of master discipline over everything else. For who understands the brain surely understands all of human activity and creation? Or not? Neuroscience's reach has extended past its scientific remit and into the world of philosophy and its major questions. What is a human? What is consciousness? Are we free? And so on. Yet its utility in this field, and in general, is still being fiercely debated, with its proponents and detractors arguing on the one side that it is the key to the universe, and on the other that it is a bunch of garbage. Join this engaging conversation from 2011 where Iain McGilchrist, famous psychologist and researcher of the brain, the late neuroscientist and neurobiologist Colin Blakemore, and journalist Bryan Appleyard delve into the nitty-gritty of neuroscience and what it has to say on major philosophical questions. Post-realist philosopher Hilary Lawson hosts. See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.
More from Philosophy For Our Times
Description Does the left really need to be more conservative? What is the difference between capital C and lowercase c conservatism? Is the Blue Labour movement the best tool against the MAGA agenda and right wing nationalism?
Should we give up seeing evidence as the truth and instead see it as a persuasive argument? Does evidence settle the matter or is a counter-narrative always possible? And if evidence is not the truth, how are we to choose between competing perspectives and models of the world? We turn to evidence to settle the matter. And we imagine it is evidence that confirms a scientific theory, or the guilt of an accused. But perspective can result in evidence being interpreted radically differently. One person's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. More broadly some argue all so-called 'facts' are context or theory dependent. And if evidence depends on perspective, it is no longer clear what counts as evidence in the first place. Unlike the French legal system, that assumes evidence determines truth, the English system embeds opposing narratives, each employing their own 'evidence' to support a case. The same is true when physicists operate with different models of reality, recognising that alternative frameworks can be used.
Are homo sapiens the only organisms capable of creating and experiencing beauty? Can we find beauty in God? Why do we see the hand of an Artist in the Natural, if God does not exist?
What does it mean for rationality to be ‘permissive’? Is rationality more limited than we would like to admit? Does the idea that ‘truth is the aim of belief’ still stand?
What makes humans different from nature? What do Confucianism and Daoism have to do with physics? Is science too realist? In part 2 of our interview with Carlo Rovelli, we help unpick the history of the philosophy of science. From uncovering how millennia old Chinese philosophers were debating Enlightenment philosophical principles, to finding whether the self and consciousness are functionally identical, Rovelli's argument finds a home in a single statement: we must rehumanise science.