Refutation/'debunking' of 'Neuroscientific Evidence-Irreducible Mind'

What are the flaws?

I don't know, I'm just trying to play devil's advocate. I'm sure if we had a professional physicist or neuroscientist come in and look at relevant parts of the book, as long as they don't have an angle to play, they'd find something to give constructive criticism over.

I think he's studying neuroscience. And either way the criticisms aren't all around too damning, considering how they're just some cheap shots and at most calling out some actual flaws with Irreducible Mind which yknow isn't a flawless book. His bits on why don't immaterial minds interact with other minds just show the angle he's coming from and his quote about CDs is just pure bad philosophy. Either way, AGAIN, nothing to lose your head over Omni.

I don't think IP's flawed series focuses much on the book of the same name. He only references the book in his NDE video. But yes, I was very surprised he's never heard of Penfield of Kastrup, and is yet another example of a physicalist who ignorantly claims alternative philosophies/theories of mind don't have their own analogies or 'models'.

Also, regarding criticisms of the book, I think they addressed at least some of these in the succeeding ones.

I don't know, I'm just trying to play devil's advocate. I'm sure if we had a professional physicist or neuroscientist come in and look at relevant parts of the book, as long as they don't have an angle to play, they'd find something to give constructive criticism over.

Ah, the way you said it made me think you'd read the book. But Omni says the video isn't about the book, it's about some guy named Inspiring Philosophy (IP) who made some videos for arguments against the reduction of mental phenomena to physical phenomena

Of course IP is an amateur like most lay people - including myself - so this back and forth over Youtube videos seems pretty pointless. Nbtruthman has posted other stuff related to the work of early brain researchers like Penfield and Eccles beyond the video, IIRC one of those was a discussion with Michael Egnor who is a neurosurgeon.

All to say, again, watching the video where Digital Gnosis interviews supposed neuroscientist James Fodor is a waste of time. Even regarding philosophy you can go to actual published papers that IP was, well, inspired by.

Also, regarding criticisms of the book, I think they addressed at least some of these in the succeeding ones.

There are other videos where they discuss the actual book Irreducible Mind?

Do you have links? Timestamps?

And did you find out whether Fodor is an actual neuroscientist or just some hobbyist? If there's no proof of a degree you should change the title to "Some guy refutes..." rather than continuing the claim the guy is actually a neuroscientist.

I mean even if he does have a degree the video seems like a waste of time to me, not worth watching at all, unless he's talking about the book Irreducible Mind.

There are other videos where they discuss the actual book Irreducible Mind?

Do you have links? Timestamps?

And did you find out whether Fodor is an actual neuroscientist or just some hobbyist? If there's no proof of a degree you should change the title to "Some guy refutes..." rather than continuing the claim the guy is actually a neuroscientist.

I mean even if he does have a degree the video seems like a waste of time to me, not worth watching at all, unless he's talking about the book Irreducible Mind.

No Sci, I meant the succeeding books to Irreducible Mind, like Beyond Physicalism. They're continuing this 'series' from what I've been told by Ed Kelly. 

According to the YTber, he is at least an undergraduate physics student currently studying neuroscience. But I am confused by the descriptions of other YT videos he's in if you look him up, which I think mentioned a 'master's degree'.

According to the YTber, he is at least an undergraduate physics student currently studying neuroscience. But I am confused by the descriptions of other YT videos he's in if you look him up, which I think mentioned a 'master's degree'.

A master's degree in neuroscience? Is that even possible - I thought you need an MD or PhD? I mean a master's degree in computer science makes someone a programmer, you need a PhD in Computer Science to be a "computer scientist" by most people's reckoning.

Right now it just seems like James Fodor is a guy who's personal hobby is neuroscience. It reminds me of a 'skeptic' who said he's read so much about the sciences it was like he had a degree in them....only to then be unable to answer anything about statistics as well as letting us know his "reading" of physics skipped all the math.

So....

Any proof James Fodor is a neuroscientist rather than a hobbyist who reads about the brain from time to time?

So....

Any proof James Fodor is a neuroscientist rather than a hobbyist who reads about the brain from time to time?

I assumed based on the description of this video and the claims by the host of that channel, but I could be wrong, so I will adjust the title.

I assumed based on the description of this video and the claims by the host of that channel, but I could be wrong, so I will adjust the title.

I mean here's the description from the other thread that you mentioned:

As of 2020, James Fodor, is a student at the Australian National University, in Canberra, Australia. James' studies at university have been rather diverse, and have at different times included history, politics, economics, philosophy, mathematics, computer science, physics, chemistry, and biology. Eventually he hopes to complete a PhD in the field of computational neuroscience.

Sounds like the "neuroscientist" claim is based on hopes and wishes?

I mean here's the description from the other thread that you mentioned:


Sounds like the "neuroscientist" claim is based on hopes and wishes?

Maybe? I was confused based on the claims from the host, his blog and that video description.