Philosophy of Science

[hatchback176]

I know Kant, Hegel, Wittgenstein, Heidegger, Buber, Christopher Langan, George Herbert Mead, and enough Cognitive Neuroscience to know they basically covered all the main functions of the human brain. The places where they haven't I know which brain region they were self-consciously philosophizing about and who can serve as a substitute. Also, since the brain serves as a very general platform for human thought I can catch common blindspots people are missing.

So, for instance, as far as the brain is concerned the terminus of thought is the Frontal Eye Fields. Singu thinks you start with terminology to learn a new field when what actually matters are the visuo-spatial attention maps that tell your brain where to move your eyes and contribute to the spatial rotation that allows object-recognition to see the same object from unfamiliar angles or perspectives. Knowing that the grammar of language comprehension is rooted in branching derivation trees amenable to graph-theoretic spatial reasoning means you can maintain a coherent thought process over multiple fields of study simultaneously and catch redundancies where language-dominant learners have unknowingly created separate representations or concepts for the same thing.

[Singu]

So, for instance, as far as the brain is concerned the terminus of thought is the Frontal Eye Fields. Singu thinks you start with terminology to learn a new field when what actually matters are the visuo-spatial attention maps that tell your brain where to move your eyes and contribute to the spatial rotation that allows object-recognition to see the same object from unfamiliar angles or perspectives. Knowing that the grammar of language comprehension is rooted in branching derivation trees amenable to graph-theoretic spatial reasoning means you can maintain a coherent thought process over multiple fields of study simultaneously and catch redundancies where language-dominant learners have unknowingly created separate representations or concepts for the same thing.

This is why the current state of "neuroscience" is abysmal. All they're doing is correlating certain behavior with certain regions of the brain.

So a "neuroscientist" will typically tell you something like "Well your complex thought is done in the pre-frontal cortex of the brain". But that's as useful as running a computer software and then saying "Well there is some activity in this area of the CPU". But that tells us nothing whatsoever of how the software actually works, which must be understood by understanding how it's programmed, which must be understood by coming up with theories of programming.

So physics, chemistry, biology... have figured out the "programming" of nature to a certain extent. They have begun to understand how it actually works, rather than just making some correlations or observing and making notes of things.

The reason why "social sciences" is so behind is because it's still stuck in just making statistical correlations and observations.

And of course we can blame the "bad philosophy" for this misguidance... The bad philosophy of Empiricism, Inductivism, Logical Positivism...