tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33488833.post1503446956542153541..comments2023-11-02T02:14:31.901-06:00Comments on ReadMoreWriteMoreThinkMoreBeMore: Details, Details...Doctor Jhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13189506916480012553noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33488833.post-88190491476833781672010-09-30T19:25:18.135-05:002010-09-30T19:25:18.135-05:00Thanks, again, Carl. I guess what I want to say i...Thanks, again, Carl. I guess what I want to say is that if neuroscientists (and cognitive scientists) are NOT asking themselves the question "What do we do with concepts?", then I'm guessing they have already conceded the mind-vs.-brain debate and settled that the mind is *only* the brain. I, for one, am not so sure that all of the operations of the mind/brain can be translated into "scientific" (by which I understand you to mean, I think, "materialist") terms.Doctor Jhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13189506916480012553noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33488833.post-48523492104942689502010-09-30T18:42:23.511-05:002010-09-30T18:42:23.511-05:00I don't know whether or not someone can lack a...I don't know whether or not someone can lack a concept of space. I'm not Kant, and I'm not a neuroscientist. But the more that I think about it, I don't know how one would actually translate "the concept of space" into modern terms that could be made part of a scientific investigation. Would scientists have to ask questions like, "Do you know the difference between up and down?"<br /><br />That being said, there are definitely all sorts of really radical spatial neglects that I didn't have time to get into. Balint's syndrome, for example, is sometimes called a psychic paralysis, making it impossible for a person to pay attention to anything that isn't directly in front of his or her own eyes.<br /><br />Scientists can certainly be flaky at times about philosophy, just like they can be about the history of science. I have no idea how to measure degrees of flakiness, though.Carlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03829168960578664919noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33488833.post-57176846923212470912010-09-30T13:12:34.439-05:002010-09-30T13:12:34.439-05:00@Carl: Thanks for stopping by... and, if this was...@Carl: Thanks for stopping by... and, if this wasn't made clear above, I want to say again that I am a real fan of your work (the perhaps overly-harsh tone of this post notwithstanding)!<br /><br />I think the important point (only <i>implicit</i>, admittedly, in the Robertson quote that you cite) is that, as I noted here, Kant's claim is that Space (and Time) are <i>a priori</i> concepts, which means (among other things) that they are not derivative of experience. That means that we cannot have "perceptions" or "experiences" of things that are not accompanied and contextualized and made thinkable FIRST in conjunction with our concepts of Space and Time, but also that our concepts of Space and Time are largely vacant and meaningless without the perceptions and experiences that fill that context with content. As he famously stated in the First <i>Critique</i>: "Concepts without intuitions are empty, intuitions without concepts are blind."<br /><br />The *radical* element of Kant's claim is, of course, that our concepts of Space and Time are <i>conditions for the possibility of</i> "experience." My worry with the "spatial neglect" studies, as you explain them, is that they suggest that there are people who have no "concept" of Space. If that <i>were</i> the case, it would most certainly present a MAJOR challenge to Kant's theory of perception, and also (I suspect) an entirely new problem for neuroscientists. But, in the end, the "loss of [a certain degree of] spatial perception" is not the same as the loss of spatial perception (or conception) altogether.<br /><br />Again, I really appreciate the work that you do. So, I'm interested to hear your thoughts on my claim that there is a significant and disproportionate relation between the claims that scientists make about philosophical theories and the claims that philosophers make about scientific theories. I wonder if, in your view, an analagous misattribution or misinterpretation (by a philosopher, toward a "hard" scientist) would be taken as seriously?<br /><br />For the record, I am not accusing you of "not doing your research" (as is evidenced, in part, by the citation you provided in your comment, which I can see as easy to misread <i>sans</i> context).Doctor Jhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13189506916480012553noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33488833.post-64452396171609825702010-09-30T12:55:17.685-05:002010-09-30T12:55:17.685-05:00What does RTFA FTW mean?
Leigh, don't let you...What does RTFA FTW mean?<br /><br />Leigh, don't let yourself sink into mediocrity defending Kant from scientists. That's the job of untenured faculty and adjuncts!Not Chethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10273786971120329655noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33488833.post-44824707994412273902010-09-30T12:15:28.794-05:002010-09-30T12:15:28.794-05:00Clearly, I need to read up on my Kant.
As way of...Clearly, I need to read up on my Kant. <br /><br />As way of explanation--if not excuse--I came across the connection between Kant and spatial neglect in "Spatial Deficits and Selective Attention," by Lynn Robertson (in The Cognitive Neurosciences, 4th edition 2009, MIT Press).<br /><br />Robertson, a neuroscientist at UC Berkeley, opens the chapter as follows:<br /><br />"The influential 18th century philosopher Immanuel Kant claimed that space and time were the two necessary mental concepts supporting all other human experience."<br /><br />After quoting Kant on how we can't imagine the nonexistence of space, she writes, <br /><br />"Although it is very nearly impossible to imagine a world in which space does not exist, there are individuals with damage to certain brain areas who must contend with the loss of spatial perception on a daily basis."Carlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03829168960578664919noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33488833.post-76474937796463304692010-09-30T11:50:24.226-05:002010-09-30T11:50:24.226-05:00RTFA FTW.
But don't read it by yourself. :-)RTFA FTW.<br /><br />But don't read it by yourself. :-)anotherpanaceahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08170804573665745672noreply@blogger.com