This entry was posted on May 25, 2014 at 2:59 pm and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
You seem to be making 2 separate arguments. One philosophical and one that seems like an a cheap attack on brain scans.
“Informed consumers of science need to be aware of the limits of reductionism in science in general, and in biology especially”
That’s a philoshophilcal point. Certain thjings jujust aren’t reducible. I think David Chalmers says the same thing, thouigh I wish you would have included Dennnet’s ‘Consciousness Explained’ in your survey
“Examples of this pop-science abound. Marketing consultant Martin Lindstrom tells us that people “love” their iPhones. This conclusion is based on the fact that brain scans of telephone users listening to their personal ring tones showed a “flurry of activation” in the insula, a prune-sized area of the brain. But researchers at UCLA claimed that photos of former presidential candidate John Edwards provoked feelings of “disgust” in subjects because they lit up the… insula. Is dopamine “the molecule of intuition”, as Jonah Lehrer suggested in The Decisive Moment (2009), or is it the basis of “the neural highway that’s responsible for generating the pleasurable emotions”, as he wrote in Imagine (2012)?”
That seems like an ad-hominem attack. Their conclusions conflict- so it’s all trash. But what if they fine tooled their scans to the point where they could actually tell you exactly which emotion you’re feeling. Would that change your conclusions- or are you arguing that that’s impossible?