I don’t see it. If science and humanities had really been two separate worlds before this (which I don’t believe), this is not going to merge them. Especially since these things were discovered in the late 80′s. We’ve had 20 years to analyze them, and nothing much has come from it.
This will aid in the development of a philosophy of social sciences, which I see as the bridge between science and humanities. Right now, there is bitter disagreement: should we look at the cause-effect factors that lead people to make certain decisions (behavioralists/ rational choice theorists), or should we take a more anthropological approach that understands the life-world in which in an individual is situated (constitutional theory/hermeneutics)? Clearly this guy is a science-minded positivist, but the discovery of mirror neurons allows for both an empirically grounded knowledge of cultural decision-making, as well as a way for pragmatically thinking about how to cultivate understanding. In the past twenty years normative theory has pushed really hard in defense of a politics of empathy and understanding, but has alienated positivists because its arguments are often based on metaphysical speculations about the moral self. Basically, this can begin to appease positivists by giving this new strand of normative theory the empirical validation it needs.
I should preface this by saying I know nothing about mirror neurons other than what I learned from the talk above…
I can see how mirror neurons can “prove” that empathy is real, and this is clearly important for contemporary normative theory. But it still seems like a huge jump from empathy at an immediate/personal level to some sort of empirically based positivist theory of human relations built around the existence of empathy. Positivists may understand from mirror neurons why neighbors help each other, but I just don’t see how macro (and meta?) level theories, like cosmopolitanism which seems to heavily rely on the existence of universal empathy, will be strengthened by these neurological discoveries.
What do you think? I feel like I’m missing something here…probably about the behavioralist/anthropological debate on cultural decision making. Do you see mirror neurons as reconciling these views, or as supporting the anthropological side of the argument?
Jack, I am still confused why you think this is so interesting…. Let me try to explain. I grant that if mirror neurons really exist, then they are interesting in the following sense: they are the physical mechanism in virtue of which we experience things like empathy (and maybe other psychological attitudes).
But what makes mirror neurons any more interesting than let’s say, discovering that there is a physical explanation for anger, or any other psychological state?
There are only two ways that I can think of for why someone might think this is ground breaking. First, if you previously denied that humans feel empathy, then you might think that this provides evidence that humans do feel empathy. But my response here is to say, who ever took this view (something like psychological egoism) seriously? Hobbes. and maybe Ayn Rand. I took it as obvious both that people can and do experience empathy. The only question was how this is possible, and mirror neurons provide an interesting explanation. (Analogously, it’s obvious that I am sometimes angry but it might still be undecided the neurological or physical mechanism in virtue of which I experience anger.)
The second way I could imagine that one would find this super interesting is if you were a dualist and thought that empathy and other mental states could not be given physical explanations, because then then mirror neurons would seem to show that empathy does have a physical basis. But my reply here is like the one above. No one, whether it be in philosophy or neuroscience takes dualism seriously these days.
So, the existence of mirror neurons is interesting insofar as we have found the mechanism in virtue of which we experience empathy. But it’s not interesting because it shows that we experience empathy, because that was already obvious. (Furthermore, it cant show that we experience empathy because that gets the methodology all wrong. We first start with various interesting mental states that we know prior to any scientific investigation that we experience: e.g., anger, empathy, affection, disgust, etc.. What the neurologist tries to do, then, is find the physical mechanism that isntantiates these states.)
Long story short, I dont see why mirror neurons are particularly interesting outside of giving the physical mechanism in virtue of which…(you get the point)
Also, Im not sure what you mean by ‘positivism’. If you mean logical positivism, then it should be kept in mind that after Quine, very few scientists and philosophers of science held on to logical positivism. Do you just mean empiricism? Or maybe you have in mind some reductivist doctrine to the effect that everything can be ultimately given physical explanation. But after Fodor’s article “special sciences” most philosophers of science and scientists agree that psychology, economics, social sciences, etc., cannot be reduced to physical theories… (Roughly, this is because we can make interesting generalizations about, for example, monetary transactions, [economists do this] but economic transactions can be realized by various different physical mechanisms which have nothing in common… e.g., cash, credit, gold, etc.. So the physical description of economic generalizations involving monetary kinds would be wildly disjunctive…. Ill tell you more about it if you want..)
anywho, enough blabber…
Yes you are all pretty much right. I did some minor primary research (wikipedia) only to realize that mirror neurons really are controversial. Anyways, I woke up in a good mood, found this on Ted talks, and thought it was pretty sweet. plus, the guy talks with such an authoritative demeanor, how could he be wrong? (lol) This will be the last time I try and defend something that is clearly an exaggeration of the truth on this blog. Yes, I want to hear more about Fodor, and the other Ted talk was sweet.
I should say that the ‘positivism’ I am referring to may in fact be some watered down version handed to me via sociology, political and international theory, but does refer to ontological dualism. From my understanding, dualism IS alive and well in the social sciences, so maybe philosophy/physics is a few steps ahead of the game.
Also, I found out William Connolly cited mirror neurons in his book ‘Neuropolitics’ which speculates on how Americans experience political events, so I am not the only one who thinks this shit could be cool.
The dualists you are thinking of, were they skeptical of whether mental states (such as empathy) are instantiated by physical mechanisms in the brain? I mean, if that were the case, then you might find the existence of mirror neurons really surprising, but I find it odd that anyone would have doubted that mental events are instantiated by physical processes.
Now you might you might hold that mental events cannot be explained by physical processes even though they are instantiated by physical mechanisms. This might be right. (Talking about neural firings doesn’t explain what its like to feel pain.)
Well I didn’t mean to gang up on you until you no longer found them fun. It was just you posted it in Darren’s wall, wrote about it on your blog, and Darren had it as his message on Gmail, so I was constantly seeing it, and not getting it.
January 10, 2010 at 9:02 pm
I don’t see it. If science and humanities had really been two separate worlds before this (which I don’t believe), this is not going to merge them. Especially since these things were discovered in the late 80′s. We’ve had 20 years to analyze them, and nothing much has come from it.
January 11, 2010 at 2:10 am
TED has has sweet talks. I wonder if this mirror neuron phenomenon holds true when you’re seeing videos of people. I’ll google that.
This one is my favourite: http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/dan_ariely_on_our_buggy_moral_code.html
January 11, 2010 at 2:11 am
And I completely agree with Joe – how does this bridge the humanities/science gap exactly??
January 11, 2010 at 4:24 am
This will aid in the development of a philosophy of social sciences, which I see as the bridge between science and humanities. Right now, there is bitter disagreement: should we look at the cause-effect factors that lead people to make certain decisions (behavioralists/ rational choice theorists), or should we take a more anthropological approach that understands the life-world in which in an individual is situated (constitutional theory/hermeneutics)? Clearly this guy is a science-minded positivist, but the discovery of mirror neurons allows for both an empirically grounded knowledge of cultural decision-making, as well as a way for pragmatically thinking about how to cultivate understanding. In the past twenty years normative theory has pushed really hard in defense of a politics of empathy and understanding, but has alienated positivists because its arguments are often based on metaphysical speculations about the moral self. Basically, this can begin to appease positivists by giving this new strand of normative theory the empirical validation it needs.
Your thoughts?
January 12, 2010 at 5:27 pm
I should preface this by saying I know nothing about mirror neurons other than what I learned from the talk above…
I can see how mirror neurons can “prove” that empathy is real, and this is clearly important for contemporary normative theory. But it still seems like a huge jump from empathy at an immediate/personal level to some sort of empirically based positivist theory of human relations built around the existence of empathy. Positivists may understand from mirror neurons why neighbors help each other, but I just don’t see how macro (and meta?) level theories, like cosmopolitanism which seems to heavily rely on the existence of universal empathy, will be strengthened by these neurological discoveries.
What do you think? I feel like I’m missing something here…probably about the behavioralist/anthropological debate on cultural decision making. Do you see mirror neurons as reconciling these views, or as supporting the anthropological side of the argument?
January 13, 2010 at 3:56 am
Jack, I am still confused why you think this is so interesting…. Let me try to explain. I grant that if mirror neurons really exist, then they are interesting in the following sense: they are the physical mechanism in virtue of which we experience things like empathy (and maybe other psychological attitudes).
But what makes mirror neurons any more interesting than let’s say, discovering that there is a physical explanation for anger, or any other psychological state?
There are only two ways that I can think of for why someone might think this is ground breaking. First, if you previously denied that humans feel empathy, then you might think that this provides evidence that humans do feel empathy. But my response here is to say, who ever took this view (something like psychological egoism) seriously? Hobbes. and maybe Ayn Rand. I took it as obvious both that people can and do experience empathy. The only question was how this is possible, and mirror neurons provide an interesting explanation. (Analogously, it’s obvious that I am sometimes angry but it might still be undecided the neurological or physical mechanism in virtue of which I experience anger.)
The second way I could imagine that one would find this super interesting is if you were a dualist and thought that empathy and other mental states could not be given physical explanations, because then then mirror neurons would seem to show that empathy does have a physical basis. But my reply here is like the one above. No one, whether it be in philosophy or neuroscience takes dualism seriously these days.
So, the existence of mirror neurons is interesting insofar as we have found the mechanism in virtue of which we experience empathy. But it’s not interesting because it shows that we experience empathy, because that was already obvious. (Furthermore, it cant show that we experience empathy because that gets the methodology all wrong. We first start with various interesting mental states that we know prior to any scientific investigation that we experience: e.g., anger, empathy, affection, disgust, etc.. What the neurologist tries to do, then, is find the physical mechanism that isntantiates these states.)
Long story short, I dont see why mirror neurons are particularly interesting outside of giving the physical mechanism in virtue of which…(you get the point)
Also, Im not sure what you mean by ‘positivism’. If you mean logical positivism, then it should be kept in mind that after Quine, very few scientists and philosophers of science held on to logical positivism. Do you just mean empiricism? Or maybe you have in mind some reductivist doctrine to the effect that everything can be ultimately given physical explanation. But after Fodor’s article “special sciences” most philosophers of science and scientists agree that psychology, economics, social sciences, etc., cannot be reduced to physical theories… (Roughly, this is because we can make interesting generalizations about, for example, monetary transactions, [economists do this] but economic transactions can be realized by various different physical mechanisms which have nothing in common… e.g., cash, credit, gold, etc.. So the physical description of economic generalizations involving monetary kinds would be wildly disjunctive…. Ill tell you more about it if you want..)
anywho, enough blabber…
January 13, 2010 at 4:41 am
Jono, Kabs, and Miro –
Yes you are all pretty much right. I did some minor primary research (wikipedia) only to realize that mirror neurons really are controversial. Anyways, I woke up in a good mood, found this on Ted talks, and thought it was pretty sweet. plus, the guy talks with such an authoritative demeanor, how could he be wrong? (lol) This will be the last time I try and defend something that is clearly an exaggeration of the truth on this blog. Yes, I want to hear more about Fodor, and the other Ted talk was sweet.
I should say that the ‘positivism’ I am referring to may in fact be some watered down version handed to me via sociology, political and international theory, but does refer to ontological dualism. From my understanding, dualism IS alive and well in the social sciences, so maybe philosophy/physics is a few steps ahead of the game.
Also, I found out William Connolly cited mirror neurons in his book ‘Neuropolitics’ which speculates on how Americans experience political events, so I am not the only one who thinks this shit could be cool.
January 13, 2010 at 1:48 pm
The dualists you are thinking of, were they skeptical of whether mental states (such as empathy) are instantiated by physical mechanisms in the brain? I mean, if that were the case, then you might find the existence of mirror neurons really surprising, but I find it odd that anyone would have doubted that mental events are instantiated by physical processes.
Now you might you might hold that mental events cannot be explained by physical processes even though they are instantiated by physical mechanisms. This might be right. (Talking about neural firings doesn’t explain what its like to feel pain.)
January 14, 2010 at 3:23 pm
Well I didn’t mean to gang up on you until you no longer found them fun. It was just you posted it in Darren’s wall, wrote about it on your blog, and Darren had it as his message on Gmail, so I was constantly seeing it, and not getting it.