Epistemologically Different Worlds
and Cognitive neuroscience (a
pseudo-science)
[Large parts of this presentation are from
Vacariu 2008, 2010, 2012, 2015, etc.]
Abstract
In few words, I present the main actual problems of cognitive
neuroscience: mainly the binding problem (other problem localization, differentiation–integration in the brain, the
troubles created by the brain imaging – with the same
argument).
After decades of many people working in CNS, there are no
palpable results. Why? This framework of thinking, “world”,
“universe”, is wrong! Therefore any alternative to the mindbrain problem (identity theory, emergence, dualism, etc.) is
wrong.
In 2002-2005 (and later), I introduced the new framework: the
“epistemologically different worlds” which shows that the
mind-brain problem is a pseudo-problem!
In 2015, our book: Is CNS a pseudo-science? Answer: yes
it is!!!
SCIENCE
Scientific knowledge 4 problems of the "world" (dualities):
1. mind-body (brain) [Cognitive Science]
2. cell/organism-life [Biology]
3. particle-wave (quantum) [Physics]
4. micro-macro (Einstein-quantum mech.) [Physics]
↓
All other great problems in
“foundations of special sciences” for the "world"!
●
The cause? The wrong framework: world/unicorn world!
●
Great philosophers deal with this framework!
Cognitive neuroscience CNS main problems:
●
●
●
●
●
CNS – subdomain of CS
CS: problem of representation and
computation (computationalism,
connectionism and dynamical systems)
Identity theory - reductionism for majority
of researchers, Searle’s “emergence”,
different aspects (Spinoza), etc.
Topics: emergence, spatial cognition,
supervenience, reductionism, etc.
Using fMRI, EEG, MEG, TMG, etc.
(1) Binding problem
(2) Localization
(3) Emergence vs reductionism
(4) Mental representation and computation
(5) Spatial cognition, etc., etc.
Optimism vs skepticism (Uttal, the realist) in CNS
●
Uttal: “brain activity associated with mental activity is broadly
distributed on and in the brain. The idea of phrenological localization
must be rejected and replaced with a theory of broadly distributed
neural systems accounting for our mental activity” (Uttal 2011, 45).
→ Where happens the binding processes in the brain?
Vacariu: Nowhere in the brain, but in the mind! Dualism?
Emergence (Searle)? NO! EDWs! (See below)
The binding problem
●
Different forms of binding: spatial (location) or
temporal, conscious or unconscious, visual
(linking together color, form, motion, size, and
location of a perceptual object or binding various
perceptual objects), auditory, cognitive (explains
how a concept is connected to a percept), binding
in language understanding, in reasoning, crossmodal binding, sensory-motor binding, memory
binding and the causes of a unified conscious
experience (Uttal, Velik 2010, Plate 2007, etc.).
●
●
●
●
Binding mechanism is “almost everywhere in the brain
and in all processing levels” (Velik 2010, Uttal 2001…)
Visual binding: any object, for instance, has certain visual
features (color, orientation, motion, texture, and stereoscopic
depth) that are linked to particular neuronal areas. In the
past, perception of color was correlated with V4, motion with
MT/V5, and so on. Due to recent discoveries, such
correlations are much more problematic.
Since we perceive only a singular entity (the object) with
various features, then a mechanism that binds these features
together in a single entity becomes necessary: what mental
processes (conscious or unconscious) create the binding
among various features?
Synchronization or temporal coding theory (or temporal
binding) (von der Malsburg, Engel, Singer, Fries, etc.)
(outdated: Treisman’s feature-integration theory)
Epistemologically different worlds (EDWs)
(2002, 2005, 2008, etc.)
●
●
●
●
●
“World”/unicorn world = human illusion
The oldest Ptolemaic epicycle, most powerful
(unquestionable during oldest times!)
Scientists work/think in this framework
Unicorn-world → 4 dualities = pseudo-problems
in science
Replace the "world" with EDWs!
Principles of EDWs
(A) About non-living entities
(1) Epistemologically different interactions constitute
epistemologically different entities, and epistemologically
different entities determine epistemologically different
interactions.
(2) Any entity exists only at "the surface" because of interactions
that constitute it.
(3) Any entity exists in a single EW and interacts only with the
nonliving entities from the same EW.
(4) Any EW appears from and disappears in the hyper-nothing.
(5) Any EW is, therefore all EDWs have the same objective
reality.
●
“Exist ” is for entity with determinations/features.
→ In general, spatio-temporal framework
●
●
●
●
“Existence” and “interaction” interrelated
Interactions constitute “surface” of an it. →
Ontological reality (not exist "inside" of an object)
Constitution ↔ Determinations (features)
Parts–whole → Organizational + epistemologicalontological thresholds
(B) Propositions for being (the "I"/life/mind) and
corresponding to cell/organism:
(6) Life/mind corresponds to a cell/organism.
(7) Life/mind is an EW. Therefore, life/mind is.
(8) Having certain determinations, from our
viewpoint a cell/organism is "composed" of an
amalgam of other molecules/cells + relationships.
(9) Certain states and processes form knowledge that
is life (mind).
(10) As an entity having a unity, life/mind is an
indeterminate individuality.
●
●
●
●
●
Without correspondence to life/mind, any
cell/organism - not survive in its environment
Coordination of biological functions needs an unity
impossible to be used/exist within mechanisms of a
cell/organism → Such unity = the “I”/life/mind!
This unity corresponds to development of a cell/
organism and evolution of species.
Cognitive neuroscience: an error = checking for
unity of consciousness within the brain!
CNS = a pseudo-science (see Vacariu 2015, etc.): it
has no ontological entities + main notions are
vagues, unclear = pseudo-notions!
●
●
●
●
●
●
CNS: no progress since its birth (just because it is a
pseudo-science!)
The unity of the “I” represents indeterminate
individuality of life/mind.
The notion of “life/mind” has no plural. (Any
life/mind is an EW.)
Any mental state/process (determinate feature) is
the “I”.
No space/color in mind/brain.
However, feature of color (that belong to a
representation of an object situated in the macroEW, for instance) is mind.
●
●
●
From human viewpoint: not too many EDWs
Extending conditions of observation/ interaction to
all entities, number of EDWs increases considerably
Rejection of “levels”, “emergence”,
“supervenience”, “composition”, or “entanglement”,
“ non-locality”, “complexity”, “causalities”
(11) Being (life/the "I") is, therefore EDWs are.
●
●
Objective reality for all EDWs: no criteria for
differentiating their objective reality
Mind and body (brain), waves and particles, micromacro, etc. are or belong to EDWs
●
●
●
Hume laughing: "Post-modern human being quite
many pseudo-causalities dominate your world”!
After Copernicus, Darwin, Freud, [“alone in the
world”], Einstein’s [“creating particular
frameworks”] revolutions against myths in human
thinking, reject yet another myth: “world”.
Once again to mount a Copernican revolution for
discarding our “special” status: “World” does not
exist!
●
EDWs perspective changes the largest
“Weltanschauung” (ironically, a wrong notion!)
throwing to the garbage the most “tangible” but the
most dangerous notion: the world/universe/reality.
[God even cannot exist, just because one EW is not
for any EDW; otherwise, there would be an
ontological contradiction in God’s existence]