[Philosophy of Social Cognition] Fifth Meeting

[Martyna Meyer]

Dear all,

Good morning and hello after the Easter break! Just a quick reminder: 

The next meeting is tomorrow: Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at NIG (classroom 3B). 
The meeting time is 18:30-20:00 (CET).

You can join online using the link:
Join Zoom Meeting https://univienna.zoom.us/j/65514918078?pwd=cVZTd2Ivb09uSUFVNTZORWFIOTA4UT09
Meeting ID: 655 1491 8078
Passcode: 761834

The text we’re reading:
Gallese, V., & Goldman, A. (1998). Mirror neurons and the simulation theory of mind-reading. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 2(12), 493–501. 
Access: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364661398012625
(If you can’t access the text, let me know!)

This is a really short one! It’s a 9-page, handbook-like introduction to Simulation Theory. 
I’m really excited to discuss it with you!

— — —

I also attach notes on the last session (provided by Andreas).

To push the Churchlands' main point that they would like philosophers to engage with empirical science, neuroscience in particular (to the point of becoming "Neurophilosophers") ;-) 

[Rather than discuss the logical and linguistic possibilities of a highly formalized interpretation of their claims in terms of reference to levels of analysis ;-), superficially non-empirically but of course with empirical (and ethical) claims creeping in all the time]

So here is a recent interview Mark Churchland who I think has inherited/learned from his parents how to discuss complex topics very clearly. It's about the challenges to study motor cortex and what this means for building brain prostheses:
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/68-understanding-movement-with-mark-churchland/id1094746923?i=1000531854690

The second is perhaps the book that helped me the most to reframe our cognitive psychological concepts as particular to our cultural history by taking a hard look at that history:
Danziger, K. Naming the Mind: How Psychology Found Its Language. Sage London, 1997.

[Danziger worked as a psychologist for half his life and then switched to history of psychology and spent the second half of his life there. In my experience most historians of psychology do not ask questions that are all that interesting to working scientists and, vice versa, the (little) historical work that scientists do is often quite amateurish in terms of methodology. So Danziger is still fairly unique here I think, I would highly recommend all of his works.]

Thank you so much, Andreas!

— — —

I am very much looking forward to seeing you tomorrow. If you haven’t attended any of the sessions yet, it’s a great time to join! We are starting a new topic :)

Best regards and have a great start into the week,
Martyna
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.univie.ac.at/mailman/private/socialcognition/attachments/20230417/17c7a6cf/attachment.html>