the following text from the February 2005 I have searched in vain for a year to house in a magazine. The scientific trade journals, he was 'not professional enough', the cultural studies Pages he was 'too technical'. The triple cross-journal brain & mind which had published "The Manifesto" and for which he had thought he was not ...
'not popular enough'! roar
The sparrows are on the roof: Brain research has brought us a revolution. The freedom of the will is refuted, the ego is in the file. a new man? called its spokesmen His latest book.
spontaneity ...
long time it looked as if the brain research in the process of Because empirical evidence in human knowing the priority of the subjective over objective, Kant and his followers had always claimed. For would receive 'from our brain, it is said, only single sensory stimuli. These combine to a meaningful unit 
, had its own Performance, the sensory stimuli preceding it were, '. "Individual neurons represent the degree of their activation by only elementary object features, no complex feature constellations," writes Wolf Singer.
, had its own Performance, the sensory stimuli preceding it were, '. "Individual neurons represent the degree of their activation by only elementary object features, no complex feature constellations," writes Wolf Singer. [1] "Every cell interacts with approximately twenty to thirty thousand others. [2] The information about complex objects in the brain in each case analysis of labor by many neurons, each encoded by its activation only a relatively small aspect of the object texture. Those responsible for one feature Neurons [ are] not to be found in such a restricted area of the brain, but spread over vast areas of the brain. Objects [are] not by the activity of single or very few neurons in the cerebral cortex represented, but through extensive and wide ranges distributed neural connections -. So-called "Assemblies" [3]
This means that "the Verschaltungsarchitektur a very important determinant of brain functions [ is ]. Here are the most degrees of freedom, as the functions of individual Nerve cells are very stereotypical. [4] The specificity of brain functions is based solely on the architecture of connections between nerve cells. The program [of the brain ] resides virtually in the architecture of the compounds and their weighting, which is genetically determined in the guidelines. It stores it were acquired during the phylogenetic development experience, the essence of the world. [5] We come with considerable knowledge about the world into this. " [6]
The old dispute between idealism and realism would be decided empirically final:, Wahr'nehmen is not recording, but a "verification vorausgeträumter hypotheses. [11] The a priori synthesis which the neural signals into a meaningful perception, ie ', "is an act of spontaneity of the imagination," the "if not by objects, but only performed by the subjects ago can be, "it said in the Critique of Pure Reason . [12]
... and game.
Subjectivism of the brain researcher goes further. The subject recognizes, 'that is not only active, but lawful, but it makes its findings of fact of a priori value attribution dependent. Whatever, I get 'is' natural processes subject to evaluation, " the "Allow changes only if the whole brain has found that each process mixes activity patterns are important. This assessment is made of centers in the limbic system. The evaluation results will be communicated to spread throughout the cerebral cortex locations via nerve pathways and specific chemical transmitter substances, known as neuromodulators. "About eighty percent of the synaptic connections of nerve cells in the cerebral cortex belong to this class, and only about ten to twenty percent of the inputs come from directly the sensory cells. "The sensory systems and thus the signals from the surrounding world are thus only a very small fraction of compounds taught in the cerebral cortex. The system is primarily concerned with themselves. Eighty to ninety percent of the compounds of the inner monologue dedicated " [13]
" The ability of the brain, to build predictive models of outstanding events, to adapt more quickly, is relatively recent. But when it is a system that can develop on the basis of experience, these predictive models, which requires the storage of content experience, then it must be combinatorially can play. What has been internalized as a representation must be made in various references, in order to examine what could happen to all. " [14]
related Playing we are not only in the daily grind deal: "This is also what makes a scientist when he makes theories, and what makes an artist when he produces something. [15] The creative process in science is the same as in art. The cognitive process of science begins with the generation of hypotheses that are initially intuitively, with very often aesthetic consistency criteria are applied, which did not rationalized. One looks after apparently quite similar criteria as the artist: by consistency or coherence. Very much in science is dominated by the aesthetics. A scientific theory is then the circle of initiates considered valid if it is consistent with existing evidence, first and second, if they beautiful . You must be satisfied easily. Similarly, the artist goes, is the only material with which he deals, a different one. The artist maps the world, as he interprets them, so within a description system, it creates new realities, new interpretations of what the scientist does, when he produced a model of experiential "; [16] he plays with the material, and at one point he knows that it is now right. " [17]
" What can the artist and the scientist is not other than the curiosity and the desire for the combinatorial game to give in and, detached from the utilitarian everyday business of life to play this combinatorial game on. This results in models of the world. This game is apparently so deeply rooted in the architecture of the brain, which are played must when the system is to be used at all useful for solving everyday problems. Some play very good play, some less, but all of them. In this respect, any person who is responsible, in a sense, an artist, because it produces models of the world, interprets and generates its own consistency criteria. " [18]
Or Determination?
The perception seems to be a spontaneous performance not only subject, but even as that of a artistic player. Even more striking is the conclusion, with the power of empirical neuroscientist Wolf Singer in the German media sensation, "is in reference neurobiological research, there is no room for objective freedom, because each next action, each next state of the brain would still be determined by the each immediately preceded it. " [19] What it in the reference system of neurobiological research seems no one denies, and what to deny outside this frame of reference to him no one needed was willing, Wolf Singer, however, does not leave within this frame of reference: "urgent are already thinking about the assessment of misconduct on the assessment of debt and our justifications of punishment. " [20]
What impact? Is my brain someone other than myself? If I molested a bully who is not himself to blame, but his brain. If I kick him for it in the rump, he felt my foot while on the rump - but it's his brain that it senses. Everything remains as before: the culprit gets what he deserves. We see a no, which could be the practical consequences of wolf Singers discoveries, and why it makes such a fuss.
There remains the question of the scientific subject of knowledge and decision making. But to carrying the "so-called binding problem" at all. For what would change if the brain researchers, the center would "be able to locate? Nothing. Wolf Singer would say that the "cause of action, each corresponding to the previous total state" - not just the brain, but - of the Center ' is. [24] Whether it is empirically considered a systemic process or is an occasional act takes place, the question of spontaneity of the synthesis of no importance - but only if he of may be someone else determined '. The Wolf Singer has not been claimed. It runs but also the fact he has not noticed it bare. What he really wants to say is this: one certain neural circuitry a specific ideal content - and only this - determined '. On any, neural correlates of meaning 'addressed, he said, "that different thoughts are different neural activity patterns based. No thought without substrate. All that is conceptually separable, must correspond to different brain states. " [25]
This is the only rational sense to talk of 'determination' in can have this connection: that the meanings "images" of facts are. In the conventional imaging theory, it should be the things of the outside world, which would be formed by thought '. There is an inner state. But this difference is secondary and only temporarily. Because if it really were possible to brain researchers, the 'envelope' or 'transition' from the (physiological) to illustrate this fact (logical) sense, with the help of their modern imaging 'method, he would, in principle, other types of treatment available - And then would the 'determination' from the outside.
And if so, can reverse the Determinationskette also 
. When I use the word, consistency 'and say my party tries to understand, would then in so far as his imagination, the meaning, continuity' realized, set in his mind the associated neural substrate. By word meaning so determined, a certain physiological state would, '. Then would be the word meaning a Objektivum (With which substrate?) And brain research have proved empirically way the Platonic doctrine of ideas.
. When I use the word, consistency 'and say my party tries to understand, would then in so far as his imagination, the meaning, continuity' realized, set in his mind the associated neural substrate. By word meaning so determined, a certain physiological state would, '. Then would be the word meaning a Objektivum (With which substrate?) And brain research have proved empirically way the Platonic doctrine of ideas. decisive factor would be that the transition is a continuous is: When natural processes "is nowhere jumps! [26] [27] An unexpected twist! Or not? After all, the nuclear physicist Robert Havemann forty years ago has indicated that the mechanical materialism is only a variety of objective idealism. [28]
jumps
Fortunately, not the be. For if certain idea content "map" only neural processes, then it should cover a analog act picture. Analogous representations can, in other reflect as digital, no denial mode, and the question let alone mode. I (or my brain, what does it mean?) can also ask and say no. This is the proprium humanum: Man is the animal that can say no. And before he could say no wonder he ob
If Wolf Singer objections now: There are just a computer brain, the analog images into digital symbols translated, ANSWER I: Show me the place - just sit there for the ego!
That's the whole point. A digit is not a substrate, but an arbitrary, interchangeable and very heterogeneous character for a meaning to which it bears no factual relationship and as such does not materialize and Substernisierung "capable. The Logical "is" in no way, but is. Among them, the scientists not imagine '. As natural scientist, he is also not that. It does not fall within his portfolio. In his area rule causality, determination and consistency: it is constituted by them.
- Wolf Singer relies on literally shaped by the Leibniz formula for the canonical Stoic-Platonic doctrine of continuity. "The metaphysical law of continuity is this: All the changes are continuous or flow, that is, opposite states followed only by an intermediate number of different states 
successive"
successive" Natura non fecit saltus [29] - as Kant formulated it and to the starting point of the Criticism made. The continuity of natural processes presupposes the thing-like reality of a continuously-infinite space and a uniformly flowing time. Both Kant has referred to the transcendental a priori, but our capacity for knowledge! But the manifesto that has given Wolf Singer, along with ten colleagues in the past year, it is again: "spirit and consciousness fit into the natural process that is and do not exceed it. This means you will consistent mind, consciousness, feelings, acts of will and freedom of action regarded as natural processes, because they are based on biological processes. " [30] So because they are based on physiology, they must be physiology - where is the problem? Hen kai pan , All is One! Where they will have great difficulties to give us this metaphysically understood nature of a scientifically based concept ...
It is true: I look at the evolution of human physiology from the inside, it follows always a state to the other. That the changes are the only states inside determined, ': that a state from follows the other, is so far from being said. Evolution is adaptation - in conditions that fall outside. Now comes the change of the external condition of their hand with an initiative on professional emanating from within, then enters a feedback one - and the is a 'jump', the viewer to a Perpektivwechsel, compels a hiatus.
talking about the act of hominization itself, because that was the moment when the ego is born '.
evolution is selection and adaptation. Throughout its history, every species has found its ecological niche. The niche can observe and describe the nature and researchers. The environment but that it means the animal, 'he must reconstructing open : "The environment is completely invisible, for it consists only of the characteristics of the animals that moved beyond the animal itself. Each environment is the product of a subject, " [31] Jakob von Uexküll writes, who coined the term biological environment. "Every environment is a self-contained unit that is dominated in its entirety by the importance of the subject. Anything and everything that gets into the spell of an environment, change their minds and formed until it has become a viable carrier of meaning - or it is completely neglected " [32] The relationship between species and. their ecological niche is a natural relationship - and a natural relationship, the meanings of the things that happen in it. They are "naturally".
Man has left millions of years ago the natural environment, has placed himself on his hind legs and is broken up into an open world. [33] Their meanings were not inherited biologically, are not a natural relationship, he had to understand her own out-ie, more accurately, into place. Because of its open world is uncertain, he must ask the meaning of the things he meets; to ask. And who asks, can say yes or no. This is a completely new dimension of existence. If that is not, jump ', what else is there? Means a microscopically under the physiologist - or its modern, imaging 'About formations - he can not be seen, however. Because man not know what things mean to him and what he considers them to - so he says "I". [34]
Circular
any sense, Wolf Singer also disputes the non-ego and his will. "We know from psycho-pathology, what happens when a construct such as the free will collapse." [35] As we experience it as real, it needs to be something based on: "However, based our idea to be free, to processes in the brain. I think this is a cultural construction. It must, therefore, at some point in our cultural evolution have trained. " [36] that it is the (representative constituent state) notion of the sovereign subject to a construct that no one will deny him. Even more determined we could agree with him, he would have added: just like my ideas of 'determination', 'causality', 'continuity' as well. These are not values that has promoted its research to light, but logical premises that have enabled his research in the first place.
constructs speaks Wolf Singer often and like it when it comes to the other categories. Of his own categories, it can be said of something no one. That's the problem with Wolf Singer: He speaks constantly 'in the object-language of his trade, but all other subjects he used against her when she would be the meta-language. For his subject he accepts the other hand, no kind of meta-language. He is know logically naive, but does not believe it. This is the fate of all empiricists.
differences between science, he does not want to know but only those between "descriptive systems". But what differ, and how? They describe something in terms of something else. This, in terms of 'is a intention that constitutes a field of attention. The intent - the 'view' - is the starting point, the field is the 'object'. Several items are by various respects, able to '. But it will not know Wolf Singer. "Can scientists ever be trusted to even this, actually only in the first-person perspective tangible realities [ he says the ego issue ] comment on? Some think that it is possible. These are usually the scientist responsible for the unity of science [ continuity! ] advocate. The others - mostly cultural researcher -. Claim here would be category mistake, and the project of unified science is not in principle be realized " [37]
Is merely inadequate knowledge of the history of science, or is it refined? Good for two thousand years had the philosophy, with the blessing of the theologians, as a first-born of all the sciences, naturalists provisions made (the doctrine of continuity, for example), so that it could not come before Galileo to a natural science. Until finally the philosophy - denied any legislative interference in the affairs of the empirical sciences - in the form of Kant's critique. Since then, my, most cultural researchers ", it would be in the nature of science, that there be not a single-class science can. The naturalist, unaffiziert of critical concerns, do not hesitate to extend its legislation on God and the world. And leaves it look as if the 'cultural studies' chicken out of him!
This is not only historical knowledge but also know logically a very interesting point. It was not the success of empirical research, which pointed the theoretical speculation in their place and Kant would have led to his withdrawal. Galileo himself has not quite set the experiment as an independent source of knowledge in the place of theory but is introduced only as evidence against doubters. And Newton is always assumed to speculative conditions, as the title of his main work - Principia mathematica philosophiae naturalis - already announced. The impetus to Kant's Copernican revolution was' rather from the self-criticism of empiricism! David Hume has demonstrated that the constitutive principles of empirical science - that every event has a sufficient cause and knowledge would be to attribute the events to their causes - is not itself justified by experience, and certainly not in reason. He thought he was merely a convenient habit of the people has been vindicated. Kant has pointed out, however, that the assumption of causality, the categorical (Necessary for the mind) is required in order to make experiences at all. The premise that every event must have its adequate cause, constitutes the subject field of science, by providing her the spotlight. Which is beyond its perspective is not a possible object of natural science.
Wolf Singer other hand, seems to say: What is not covered in their view that there is not. If we tell him that his concept of causality is not from experience, but arson sake of the scientific basis of experience is, he replied that we are not entitled to such statements - because they are outside the Kausaliätsbetrachtung.
he does not know what a logical circle?
[February 2005]
[1] Andreas Engel and Wolf Singer, "Neuronal basis of shape perception" in: Spektrum der Wissenschaft, Dossier 4 / 1997, p. 67
[2] Singer, "too early to start ... The neurobiology of learning" in: Mantle, G. (ed.), unused potential, Mainz, etc., 1997, p. 45
[5] idem, "perception is the verification of vorausgeträumten hypotheses" in: A new image of man, Frankfurt aM 2003? , p. 70
[6] idem, "The picture in the head - a paradigm shift" in: Ganten, D. (ed.), genes, neurons, and qubits ; Co., Stuttgart. and Heidelberg, 1999, p. 269
[21] Singer, "We need the neural code," ibid, p. 42
[22] idem, " From the image to perception ", in: Ch Maar, H. Burda (ed.), Iconic Turn, Cologne 2004, p. 75f.
[24] ders, "The end of free will?" in: ibid, p. 32f. - A real I identified the fact that it has a story.
[25] idem, "Who interprets the world?" In: ibid, p. 15 - What do the terms have to be here? What reason is there - under the premise of a systemic process - every single idea in a respective state 'of the entire system, Ding-resistant' to do? The real thinking is done so not in terms, but incomprehensible in a cascade of images. Terms occur only added in the reflection - and that is a discussion of the overall system with itself, a change of sides, a, jump '. And only then comes the idea of an ego, able to '.
[27] In association psychology of the "Eleatic" J. Fr. Herbart act, idea masses 'be tight, cause' onto individual thinking: "reason is perceiving." Of course, Herbart rejected free will and thought have overcome the Kantian epistemology to.
[ 28] "Scientific aspects of philosophical problems" in: Robert Havemann, dialectic without dogma? Reinbek 1964, p. 27ff.
[29] I. Kant, The shape of the sensory and intellectual world and the reasons for [inaugural dissertation], Ed. Weischedel, vol V, p. 49
[32] idem, "meaning theory" in id, / G. Kriszat, journeys through ENVIRONMENT-th of animals and humans, Hamburg. 1983, p. 111ff.
[33] Whether this event before 3 million years ago in the Rift Valley or even 4 million years earlier has taken place in Chad is irrelevant.
[34] see this in detail: J. Ebmeier, "The Self and the World," in: Lettre internationally 68, spring 2005
0 comments:
Post a Comment