scholarly journals Consciousness, Crosstalk, and the Mereological Fallacy

2017 ◽  
pp. 1-35
Author(s):  
Rodrick Wallace
Keyword(s):  
2016 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 16-33 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leandro Gaitán ◽  
Luis Echarte ◽  

The present work is developed within the frame of so-called critical neuroscience. The aim of this article is to explain the transition from a kind of neuroscience understood as a strict scientific discipline, possessing a methodology and a specific praxis, to a kind of neuroscience that has been transformed into a meta-narrative with totalizing claims. In particular, we identify and examine eleven catalysts for such a transition: 1) a lack of communication between scientists and journalists; 2) the abuse of information by the sensational press; 3) the acceptance of specific philosophical approaches (like eliminative materialism) by a wide range of scientists; 4) the widespread transmission of two conceptual mistakes: a) an identification between methodological and ontological reductionism and b) the mereological fallacy; 5) the influence of post-Cartesian philosophical thinking in the scientific community; 6) an overwhelming scientific hyper-specialization; 7) the illegitimate transfer of authority from humanities to the sciences; 8) an inbuilt human preference for visual data; 9) economic interests; 10) scientific utopianism; and 11) the new self-help movements and their alliance with neuro-enhancement. Finally, our essay seeks to draw attention to the most damaging consequences for both science and human ways of living.


2017 ◽  
pp. 29-66
Author(s):  
Thomas Fuchs

‘The brain as the subject’s heir?’ critiques the claims according to which subjectivity is to be regarded as an epiphenomenon of neuronal processes and thus one’s experience of agency and freedom of choice should be seen as an illusion. First it is shown that the subjectivity of ‘experiential facts’ cannot be reduced to objective or physical facts about brain processes. Likewise, the reduction of the intentionality of consciousness to relations of representation is refuted. Moreover, the identification of the subject with the brain leads to fundamental category mistakes which are examined as the ‘mereological fallacy’ and the ‘localization fallacy’. On this basis, a critique of the thesis of the powerlessness of the subject is developed. The summary analyses the basic ‘naturalistic fallacy’ of an objectifying account of consciousness which believes it can remove itself from its rootedness in the lifeworld.


Conceptus ◽  
2008 ◽  
Vol 37 (91) ◽  
Author(s):  
Hans Lenk

SummaryThe paper discusses Bennett’s and Hacker’s critical work on the philosophical foundations of neuroscience and their so-called ” mereological fallacy“. It argues that Wittgensteinian arguments of mere ordinary language analysis are not enough to cover activations of patterns in the brain and especially of sense perception and meaningful human action. The approach offered by the author’s methodological scheme-interpretationism may solve these problems by using and differentiating higher-order concepts and metatheoretical and methodological as well as schema-theoretical perspectives.


2007 ◽  
Vol 154 (3) ◽  
pp. 285-286 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paolo Fusar-Poli ◽  
M.R. Broome
Keyword(s):  

2018 ◽  
Vol 29 (1) ◽  
pp. 66-86
Author(s):  
Robert Pagel

The term “depth cue” is fundamental to and widely used in vision science. However, despite the prevalence and importance of that concept, there is virtually no study on its theoretical foundations and coherence. This article aims at filling that gap by investigating both its historical development and its current use within the predominant computational approach to vision. Against the backdrop of Wittgenstein’s therapeutic approach to philosophy, it is shown that both traditional and current characterizations of depth cues suffer from a serious logical flaw known as “homunculus” or “mereological fallacy.” It is suggested that the problem of homuncular language impedes critical thinking and theorizing in vision science since it obscures the matters at issue by disguising explanatorily empty expressions as explanatory hypotheses. Furthermore, it is argued that homuncular language is not confined to the concept of depth cues but typical of current cognitive science in general since it is linked to its most fundamental assumption of the brain being an information processing system. In conclusion, resulting implications for cognitive science and cognitive scientists are considered.


Author(s):  
Marcelo Carvalho

The use of psychological concepts in cognitive neuroscience is heavily criticized by Bennett & Hacker's Philosophical Foundations of Neuroscience. The central objection points to neuroscience's attribution to the brain of psychological concepts that are meaningful only when applied to the entire being. That is supposedly the case of “seeing,” “communicating,” and “reading.” Bennett & Hacker identify in such attributions what they call a mereological fallacy. The critical revision of Bennett & Hacker's argument is an opportunity to present the debate about philosophy and psychological neuroscience and outline a Wittgensteinian perspective about the meaning of psychological concepts, its interest, and its relevance to scientific research.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document