A Neuroscience Question about Kant

Phil Nicholls pn8886 at csc.albany.edu
Fri Feb 24 10:08:43 EST 1995

In article <FAIN.95Feb23215917 at cyboscine.etho.caltech.edu>,
Dan Fain <fain at etho.caltech.edu> wrote:
>In article <3i5dj3$29c at ixnews2.ix.netcom.com> mcnerney at ix.netcom.com (Gerald McNerney) writes:
>> According to Kant, these modes reside in our understanding.  Anything we 
>> understand must conform to these categories.
>> If this is so, then there must exist some mechanism of understanding 
>> which forms these categories.  It would be a set of circuit structures, 
>> or chemical messengers or some other neural mechanism that causes this. 
>>  Is there anything in neuroscience that resembles this, that could 
>> account for either the 12 categories of the understanding, or the space 
>> and time modes of perception?
>This metatheory would have to be predictive at lower levels of
>abstraction in order to be tied to neural function.  For example, it
>might predict that people would not make certain distinctions, or
>formulate certain thoughts.  This would be just a starting point, and
>it would be within the realm of cognitive science (see sci.cognitive)
>or symbolic artificial intelligence (see comp.ai.philosophy).
>Even if this theory could be verified through psychological
>experiment, it would be quite hard to relate it to low-level brain
>mechanisms.  For example, phonemes may be thought of as atomic units
>of language--yet no one has explained their perception in terms of
>Dan Fain

That (perception of phonemes in terms of neurobiology) would be a
really facinating line of research.  Are you absolutely certain that
no one has look at this?

Philip "Chris"  Nicholls               	  Department of Anthropology
Institute for Hydrohominoid Studies       SUNY  Albany
University of Ediacara			  pn8886 at cnsunix.albany.edu
"Semper Alouatta"

More information about the Neur-sci mailing list