Dear David,
I have been inviting Members of the Department of Physiology, Development and
Neuroscience at Cambridge University to my 'Three days in Prague devoted to
philosophy'. Before sending them the invitation, I read the entry of each of
them on the departmental website, so as to send my invitation only to those,
who might be interested in contemplating the relevance of their work to human
self-knowledge.
I have
enjoyed the entries very much; it was for me like an investigative journey. To
give an example. Andrea Brand investigates 'how stem cells are
maintained in a multipotent state and how their progeny differentiate into
distinct cellular fates’. She undertakes her investigation as ‘a key step in
the therapeutic use of stem cells to repair tissues after damage or disease.’
She approaches this task by ‘investigating the
genetic networks that regulate neural stem cells in Drosophila.’ What entitles
her to think that her investigation of neural stem cells in Drosophila will be
relevant to the therapeutic use of stem cells to repair tissues after damage or
disease? Wikipedia helps: ‘it was only
recently (the past 15 years or so) that scientists discovered that a basic set
of the same proteins and mRNAs are involved in all of embryogenesis. This is one of the reasons that model systems such as the
fly (Drosophila
melanogaster), the mouse (Muridae),
and the leech (Helobdella), can all be used to study embryogenesis and developmental biology
relevant to other animals, including humans.’
And so I finally came to your website
entry: ‘In order to understand how normal behaviours are
generated, and what happens when things go wrong, we need to understand how
neurons interact in the networks that process sensory inputs, perform cognitive
functions, and program motor outputs.’ You ‘use the locomotor network in the
spinal cord of the lamprey as a model vertebrate system to examine general
principles of network function’. Am I right to think that just as Andrea Brand
presumes that her work on Drosophila will have therapeutic implications for
humans, you presume that your work on lamprey will elucidate cognitive
functions of networks of cells in human brain?
All this compelled me to interrupt my work on Kant
and Aristotle and to return to my ‘Self-knowledge as an imperative’, which, enriched
by your comments, all those who are interested in the role of neurophysiology
in pursuit of self-knowledge could read on my website. In ‘Self-knowledge’ I
wrote: ‘Neurophysiology has changed
profoundly the framework within which we can best begin our pursuit of
self-knowledge. … The forms of objects in the external world that generate
visual stimuli are profoundly transformed as they affect the receptors on the
retina. What we see is in its totality created by us on the basis of
transformations that the oncoming stimuli undergo in the brain. We are the
totality of what we experience, always split in our consciousness into ‘me and
the outside world’. You remarked: I am not sure of the split. While we can relate things as
internal or external, cant people see themselves as being part of and an actor
in the external world, either of themselves or of others? Introspectively this
seems true to me. And we can internalise the external world, imaging people,
places, situations we or even others have experienced, or never experienced. –
Your comment is apposite.
I prefaced the ‘Self-knowledge’
on my website with your words ’I think that debate is what is needed’. In preparation for my ‘Three
days in Prague devoted to philosophy’, I will therefore take the liberty of discussing
the relevance of neurophysiology to self-knowledge on my blog in a few posts
addressed to you.
Regards,
Julius
No comments:
Post a Comment