The relationship between the material and the ideal, the brain and the mind, time-space and the processes beyond, has always been a pivotal problem in philosophy, sparking multiple discussions among philosophers. Revolutionary discoveries in science and, consequently, new paradigms are causing some unrest in the field of philosophy. Widely approved philosophical concepts are being reexamined and readjusted to fit the entire scientific picture of the universe. As a result, a new field of Neurophilosophy has emerged, based on empirical research about the brain and nervous processes. According to Patricia Churchland, consciousness is the result of the functioning of various parts of the human brain. She considers consciousness to be the product of the highest nervous actions and uses the reduction method to investigate the essence of consciousness. It is not the individual that holds power over the brain, but rather the human brain that holds power over consciousness. Therefore, the decision-making process is not the result of consciousness, but rather the result of the nervous activity of the human brain, preceding the realization of the decision that had already been made. Since according to classical philosophy it is impossible to find the "self" as a physical substance, Patricia Churchland and Thomas Metzinger consider it non-existent. The concept of Kantian criticism is justified by Neurophilosophy through empirical research and goes even further. According to Metzinger, a human being is a "biorobot" resulting from genetic replication, and this is nothing but the process and concentration on selflessness, with realization being the only skill that could be seen as the primary function of a human being, as argued by his Neurophilosophy. The inquiry into the relationship between consciousness and the brain is not a novelty in the field of philosophy. Much has been written about it by philosophers such as Plato, Leonardo da Vinci, and René Descartes. The thoughts of Descartes about the relationship between consciousness and the brain could be considered the foundation or source for Neurophilosophy. Neurophilosophy, in its fascination with the discoveries in the field of science, has proclaimed human beings as fiction, instead of acknowledging them as a complex form of existence with a sophisticated system of self-consciousness. Furthermore, it has erased the entire field of intersubjective relationships. The controversies within the field of Neurophilosophy, along with the challenges that the scientific world is facing at the moment, can be explained by the fact that physiological research on the human brain is developing so rapidly that any attempt at extrapolation or making generalized assumptions is falling behind the scope of empirical data. Additionally, the results of empirical research on brain activity and neural networks are the subjects of infinite interpretation, which objectively hinders the process of establishing non-controversial theoretical concepts.
დეკარტი რ., მსჯელობა მეთოდის შესახებ. მეტაფიზიკური მედიტაციები, თბილისი, 2001
დეკარტი რ., სულის ვნებანი, თბილისი, 2015
მაჭარაშვილი ი., დუალიზმი რენე დეკარტის ფილოსოფიაში, https://www.academia.edu/43775540/დუალიზმი_რენე_დეკარტის_ფილოსოფიაში
Churchland P. S., Neurophilosophy: Toward a Unified Science of the Mind-Brain, A Bradford Book, 1989
Klar P., What is neurophilosophy: Do we need a non-reductive form?. Synthese 199, 2701–2725, 2021
Metzinger, T., The ego tunnel, The science of the mind and the myth of the self, New York: Basic Books, 2009
Metzinger, T., Being no one. The self-model theory of subjectivity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press., 2004
Дубровский Д.И. ,,Нейрофилософия и проблема сознания“, Философские науки, 2015
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Copyright (c) 2023 GEORGIAN SCIENTISTS