5,362 followers
5,362 followers
Neuroscience #anthropomorphizing: "If someone commits the mereological fallacy, then he ascribes psychological predicates to parts of an animal that apply only to the (behaving) animal as a whole. This incoherence is not strictly speaking a fallacy...but a
6,063 followers
RT @RomainBrette: A side note: Wittgenstein has been mentioned in support of a literal understanding of brains as computers. Here’s what th…
329 followers
RT @RomainBrette: A side note: Wittgenstein has been mentioned in support of a literal understanding of brains as computers. Here’s what th…
3,465 followers
A side note: Wittgenstein has been mentioned in support of a literal understanding of brains as computers. Here’s what the leading specialist of W has to say: https://t.co/tnVLR314sL 8/11 https://t.co/GEsjqoLFec
253 followers
@Dancravercych @daleth27 @janeclarejones Thanks, read this many times 😀 What you've given is what Bennett & Hacker might "loosely" call a "mereological fallacy":- ascribing "predicates to parts of an animal that apply only to the [...] animal as a who
4,095 followers
Mereologically yours One must not confuse and conflate the body that a human being is with the body that a human being has. https://t.co/oZhcT1P3ff
1,699 followers
RT @clinpsychris: For those reading The Philosophical Foundations of Neuroscience here are some useful commentaries on the mereological fal…
1,958 followers
For those reading The Philosophical Foundations of Neuroscience here are some useful commentaries on the mereological fallacy. Rom Harré’s critique: https://t.co/uW4N36UyXs Peter Hacker’s reply: https://t.co/xHBZnvHLQr Smits and Hacker’s clarifications:
2,004 followers
3,792 followers
Very first time I reach out for an article... Does anyone have access to Erkenntnis? http://t.co/s8DW2hXsVg