Has modern neurology rendered the mental aspects of philosophy obsolete in the same way that modern astronomy renders theology obsolete?
Now that we know that the whole of the human mind consists of chemical reactions and electric wiring, philosophical notions of "the mind" seem pretty silly now, don't they?
No.
I think you are neither versed in neurology or philosophy of mind.
I would have "Sforzad" her "Caterina" if you know what I mean.
You're a special kind of retard
No, because unless you are a sociopath and want society and humankind to implode we still need laws and values to base this laws on, so that we can organise society to live in a somewhat harmonic way.
Somewhat maybe? A lot of our behaviors are based on the need for survival but that doesn't really change the fact that we can still behave in different ways and alter our behavior.
Just cos we know why we value sex and food doesn't change that some of us wish to abstain because we believe in God, don't care in general, or go out of the way to embrace that.
I mean knowing how the brain works doesn't exactly answer "Why are we here?" or "What should we do?" now does it?
...
Neurology is not nearly advanced enough to completely replace things such as psychology and philosophy (sociology is garbage however), so they're still quite useful. It won't happen in our life times?
Eventually? Sure, probably. But until then it still works out quite well, provided of course philosophy adapts to reality.
Buddhist thought is getting some much needed attention for this very reason.
>versed
>STEMfag fedora thinks modern neurology is advanced enough to render anything obsolete
>implying philosophy is just "Muh brains"
Reread OP's post.
No u
Theology has not been rendered obsolete.
Neurology does nothing to explain what the causal relation is to specific stimuli and the transfer of information being coded for a certain chemical response.
There is nothing in Neurology that tells us why we see certain things as bad, all we Neurology does is tell us what happens when we see something as bad rather than something as good, it has absolutely zero explanation for why the information is taken in differently, at what point does a certain piece of information become a causal factor in chemical reactions, what would determine the information and why is there no material explanation for this method of determining (no, not a mental determining, a more inaccessible determining)?
"Chemical reactions and electric wiring" yea but none of that explains why certain patterns of information are taken in certain ways "we are wired that way" is not a legitimate answer, but its the only answer Neurology has been able to give when you break down the relation between the inner reactions and the stimulus of the outside world.
>seem pretty silly
>pic related
>astronomy renders theology obsolete
what did he mean by this?
neurology to philosophy like psychiatry is to psychology
whats more its not worth the non hemp its written on if ur not smoking fat bongs
What philosophy of mind have you read, and why do you believe that neurology makes it obsolete?
I think he meant to say astrology
not him but this is Veeky Forums
fuck off
Let's just say recent scientific discovery pushed us more towards philosophical materialism, but Marx predicted this already in the 19th century.
Has modern subatomic particle theory rendered all aspects of all forms of education obsolete? After all, everything is made up out of these things, so it basically explains everything from psychology to waste disposal management, right? It's just particles applying fields to each other.
>modern astronomy renders theology obsolete
Whose ass did you pull this out of?
It was through astronomy that humanity discovered the universe's true origins, in the form of the Big Bang, instead of magical sky daddy.
Yes, the mind has ceased to be best studied by philosophers and is now firmly part of science. Philosophers refuse to accept this, but they can be ignored here just as they were ignored when they tried to cling on to astronomy.
hmmm...who's behind this post.
Religion is concerned with more than just cosmology. It's certainly true that we don't need to consider what philosophers have to say about the origins of the universe, thanks to modern astronomy, but religion will be with us a while longer yet and really neuroscience has done more to detach religion from philosophy than astronomy has.
>Has modern subatomic particle theory rendered all aspects of all forms of education obsolete
All forms of education based on primitive notions of the nature of matter, yes. Physics classes don't waste time with he ponderings of philosophers on the motions of the celestial bodies any more than biology classes waste time on creationism, science has in both areas swept philosophy into the dustbin of history.
There is so much wrong here it's painful. First of all, the Big Bang was predicted by mathematical models way before we made any kind of objective measurements of background radiation or whatever that supports the theory with hard data. Second, "theology" is way WAY more involved than just explaining "the universe's true origins." In fact that's not even what theology is primarily about. Don't post if you don't know what you're talking about.
*overturns bowler hat*
>le magical sky daddy meme
Physics classes also don't waste time on the nature of matter at all. Shut up and calculate is a tried and tested tradition in physics circles my friend
astrology is not "modern" at all and is not an alternative to theology
you are embarrassing
>Physics classes also don't waste time on the nature of matter at all.
So what you're saying is, you've never taken a physics course?
Sounds like you misunderstood yours.
>HURR
If your physics teacher never told you about neutrons and protons then he did a piss poor job.
Did your professor engage the class in an in depth discussion on the ontology of the wave function? Bell's theorem? Or the interpretations of quantum mechanics? If not, then you didn't come close to addressing the nature of matter. Sorry
>DURR
That wasn't the question, and the answer is yes, my highschool physics teacher loved to engage the class with tricksy theoretical ideas.
Oh boy, we got an unironic positivist in the year 2016.
>HERP
If you say so, moron. Btw, you're wrong, as usual.
>That wasn't the question
What was the question?
>the answer is yes, my highschool physics teacher loved to engage the class with tricksy theoretical ideas
Then you should be aware these expressly philosophical problems have vexed physicists from the moment quantum theory was conceived and that they aren't even close to being solved. You should also be aware that most physicists don't consider them matters of concern, not because they aren't, but because there's a difference between physics and the philosophy of physics
You're a fucking retard. Like seriously, it's not even funny how retarded you are.
On the contrary, it sounds to me like you have, at most, an elementary understanding of the physics AND philosophy involved here. Should probably stop projecting and go back to being an uninformed mong
Seriously just stop, you've made enough of a fool of yourself already.
If getting the last word makes you feel better about completely revealing yourself as the ignoramus you are, then so be it. I'd suggest you probably stop posting until you've graduated high school, it's embarrassing
You should read more on neurology, philosophy, astronomy, and theology before commenting on any of them.
>philosophical notions of "the mind"
What do you mean here? Explain, because it's impossible to respond to something as vague as this.
Overall though, the modern sciences have definitely rendered a wide majority of pre-Nietzsche philosophy and religion "silly" in comparison to what Nietzsche offered, whose philosophy was totally aligned with the future of science's endeavors.
>DERP
Just stick to posting images, you'd seem like less of a moron that way.
>modern astronomy renders theology obsolete
Has Monism rendered all other fields of study obsolete?
Now that we know that the whole of the universe consists of the universe, philosophical notions of "objects" seem pretty silly now, don't they?
While the "magical sky daddy" comment is retarded, this guy is generally correct otherwise... our understanding of energy in the universe, how the universe came to be and what happens to it, etc. makes the concept of a physical afterlife seem primitive.
It's more likely that the universe never ends, but repeats itself ad infinitum, changing but maintaining an equivalent level of energy throughout, like a spiral. There's no afterlife, there's just infinite life.
Monism is one of the great missteps of philosophy, it's easy to posit a single substance for concepts such as the good or consciousness, but the science suggests the truth is way more complex, and looking for the single unifying concept behind these ideas seems to be a snipe hunt.
Spinoza pls
>physical afterlife
afterlife is not physical
>There's no afterlife, there's just infinite life.
for the universe maybe, not for humans
>modern astronomy renders theology obsolete
>afterlife is not physical
I'm commenting on the notion of a physical afterlife. I'm not concerned with other ideas. You can define the soul in any way you want.
>for the universe maybe, not for humans
Humans are within the universe. Everything within the universe receives this treatment.
Actually, Process Philosophy a la Whitehead is getting pretty popular in Neurology.
>the same way that modern astronomy renders theology obsolete?
MAXIMUM OVERTIPPING
>the whole of the human mind
How do you know?
>neurology to philosophy like psychiatry is to psychology
I have much more respect for psychology than psychiatry. Psychology looks at empirical data and repeatable experiments.
Psychiatrists are just paid shills for the drug companies.
>in the same way that modern astronomy renders theology obsolete?
You mean not at all? Yeah.
>modern astronomy renders theology obsolete
Call me when science finds the existence of things outside of existence itself.
Oh right, you can't, because divisions between you and me are impossible, lel.
>Call me when science finds the existence of things outside of existence itself.
Meaningless.
>Oh right, you can't, because divisions between you and me are impossible, lel.
Meaningless.