Exploring Kant's Philosophy of Mind with Science

[Tsunami]

How we think is a question for science, but it's also relevant for philosophy of mind. In this thread I want to see how science reflects certain ideas of the philosophy of Kant. That's why I put it in the science forum, I think this is the most appropriate place; if it is not, I apologize.

Kant states that all sensory experiences reach us as a multitude of impressions, which are then synthesized into representations.

Now Kant says that in order to unite representations it is required to have unity of consciousness in the synthesis of these representations.

If consciousness didn't have synthetic unity, then the multitude of experiences couldn't be united in this consciousness. So, I'm wondering if this is supported by science or not. In split-brain experiments, there is no unity of consciousness: does this mean that experiences can't be united. In normal consciousness, are there occurences where experiences can't be united as well? If so, what is the cause of this?
Conversely too of course: is there any evidence that speaks against the condition of synthetic unity?

 

[Tsunami]

I already found some interesting notes about this in the philosophy section of stanford online:

However, claims such as Kant's that a certain form of synthesis and certain links among the contents of experience are required for unity continue to be ignored in cognitive science, though a few philosophers have done some work on them (Brook 2004). The same is true of Kant's views on consciousness of self; cognitive science has paid no attention to non-ascriptive identification of self and the idea of the essential indexical. Here, too, a few philosophers have worked on these issues, apparently without knowing of Kant's contribution (Brook & DeVidi, 2001), but not cognitive scientists.

In short, the dominant model of the mind in contemporary cognitive science is Kantian, but some of his most distinctive contributions have not been taken into it (Brook, 2004).

If this is true: come on guys, I dare 'ya!

 

[ravenprp]

Kant's philosophy of mind is certainly an interesting topic to explore in relation to science. It is true that how we think and perceive the world is a question that has been studied by both philosophy and science.

Kant's idea of sensory experiences being synthesized into representations is similar to the concept of perception in neuroscience. Our brain receives information from our senses and then interprets and organizes it into meaningful representations. This process is constantly happening in our brain and is essential for our understanding of the world around us.

The idea of unity of consciousness in the synthesis of these representations is also supported by neuroscience. Studies have shown that different areas of the brain are responsible for different functions, but they all work together to create a unified experience. In split-brain experiments, where the connection between the two hemispheres is severed, there is a lack of unity in consciousness because the two sides of the brain are not communicating with each other. This supports Kant's idea that without unity of consciousness, experiences cannot be united.

In normal consciousness, there may be occurrences where experiences cannot be united as well. This could be due to various factors such as cognitive biases, emotional states, or limited attention. These moments of disunity in consciousness do not necessarily contradict Kant's philosophy, as he acknowledges that our perception can be influenced by our subjective experiences.

On the other hand, there is also evidence that speaks against the condition of synthetic unity. Some studies in neuroscience have shown that our perceptions can be influenced by external factors, such as expectations or context. This challenges the idea that our consciousness has complete control over the synthesis of representations.

In conclusion, while there is evidence that supports Kant's philosophy of mind, there are also findings in science that may contradict it. It is important to continue exploring and studying the relationship between philosophy and science in order to gain a deeper understanding of how our mind works.