Interaction of Philosophical Anthropology and Neurosciences in the Context of Natural and Artificial Intelligence

Gluzdov Dmitry Viktorovich ORCID: 0000-0001-7043-5139 Postgraduate Student, Department of Philosophy and Social Sciences, Nizhny Novgorod State Pedagogical University named after Kozma Minin 603950, Russia, Nizhny Novgorod, Ulyanova str., 1 dmitry.gluzdov@mail.ru Other publications by this author

Introduction

In the modern study of the topic of intelligence, two notable and significantly different branches can be distinguished – the study of natural and artificial intelligence. Both of them develop primarily independently, since they require the involvement of scientists and specialists who are necessary for them, related to the relevant categories of tasks (for example, doctors, psychologists, chemists, mathematicians and programmers), and who most often do not overlap with each other in their subjects. But it should be noted that a special place among scientists in the study of natural and artificial intelligence is occupied by philosophers ^[1] who approach the issue not from the standpoint of private sciences, but from the general positions of philosophy or the positions of private philosophies, such as the philosophy of consciousness, the philosophy of artificial intelligence ^[2], etc. And following "Kant's "precepts" here can also be designated the main philosophy – the philosophy of man.

Despite the stated thesis about the independence of development in the study of different intelligences, it should still be understood that the statement is not entirely correct, since both directions undoubtedly affect common issues related to intelligence, and therefore complement each other ^[3]. Moreover, the question of the interaction potentials of these intelligences is one of those that concern both ordinary people and scientists. Consideration of the existence of grounds for the interaction of natural and artificial intelligence, as well as the possibility of the influence of philosophy on the vector of development of sciences related to intelligence, is touched upon to some extent in a number of studies ^{[4, pp.19-20]}. But, in our opinion, in these studies (at least in domestic studies), philosophical anthropology has little identified itself – the most "human" of philosophies.

The problems of studying natural intelligence and the possibility of involvement in solving the issues of artificial intelligence development ^[5] can be considered from the standpoint of analyzing the attitudes of consciousness, cognitive abilities of a person, his role in the ongoing civilizational changes. The problems created by the growing plans and tasks of digitalization of society, the expanding digital format of life, the speed at which the content is growing and changing, as well as the problem of artificial intelligence regularly raised on the agenda are that small list of changes that occur in the human being of our century. The essence and content of these issues are proposed to be considered from the perspective of the interaction of philosophical anthropology and neuroscience, which is the relevance of this study due to the weak, in our opinion, elaboration in the scientific literature.

If we talk about philosophical anthropology and neuroscience, then we can say about both directions that they were formed quite recently, being relatively young disciplines. Although the first studies of the structure and functions of the brain were conducted in the 19th century, it was only in the middle of the 20th century that neuroscience began to form as a dedicated field. Advances in technology, such as the invention of the electroencephalogram (EEG) and the development of brain research methods using radioactive indicators, have helped to advance neuroscience. In the second half of the 20th century, neuroscience began to make significant advances in understanding the brain and its role in behavior and consciousness.

Neuroscience, which represent a popular and developing direction in science, and philosophical anthropology, as a science that studies the nature and being of man, against the background of a qualitatively changing human being, together can be part of an interdisciplinary understanding of the problem. For this reason, the object of research in this article is the problems and prospects of the joint development of neuroscience and philosophical anthropology.

The theoretical significance of the article is connected with the situation of insufficient disclosure in the literature of the topic of interaction between philosophical anthropology and neuroscience. This allows you to pay attention to this problem in order to formulate it and identify possible issues, which will contribute to the further search for solutions.

Literature review

Philosophical anthropology and neuroscience are two fields that at first glance may seem to have little in common. Philosophical anthropology deals with questions about human nature, the purpose of human existence and the nature of human experience. On the other hand, neuroscience is a scientific discipline that studies the structure, functions and development of the nervous system and brain. However, these two areas are increasingly seen as complementary, as both seek to understand the human condition from different perspectives.

Without going beyond the boundaries of philosophical anthropology and focusing only on issues of intelligence from the point of view of the problem of philosophy of consciousness, it can be noted that in European philosophy the question of human nature and his consciousness arose constantly. So in Modern times, questions have been actively raised both about human thinking itself and about the nature of this thinking. And naturally, it is at this time that the comparison of natural human intelligence with a machine takes place. At a time when there was an explosive development of mechanics as a science, it is not surprising that the comparison of intelligence was reduced to a comparison with a clock, as with a machine that was most studied and developed. We find a similar comparison with clocks in various philosophers of Modern times, and first of all in Rene Descartes, Gottfried Leibniz and Julien Ofre de Lamettri.

Turning to the modern formulation of the problem of consciousness, we note that such Western philosophers as K-O. dealt with this issue. Apel, D. Armstrong, S. Blackmore, D. Dennett, W. James, Saul Kripke, W. Van O. Quine, K. McGuinn, T. Nagel, J. Austin, Dev. Papineau, J. Passmore, S. Pinker, Charles S. Pierce, W. Place, K. Popper, G. Ryle, B. Russell, J. Searle, W. Smart, P. Stroson, J. Fodor, G. Frege, Y. Habermas, N. Chomsky, D. Chalmers, J. Eccles, A. Elitzur. Similar issues related primarily to natural intelligence and consciousness have been studied and are being studied by our domestic philosophers such as A. Y. Alekseev, V. V. Vasiliev, D. B. Volkov, I. G. Gasparov, V. V. Gorbatov, D. I. Dubrovsky, A.M. Ivanitsky, D. V. Ivanov, V. A. Lectorsky, S. F. Nagumanova, Yu. V. Orpheev, V. I. Samokhvalova, A. G. Spirkin, V. S. Tyukhtin, T. V. Chernihiv, B. G. Yudin, N. S. Yulina. The issues of intelligence and consciousness are closely related to research conducted in neuroscience.

But the problems of artificial intelligence are also reflected in the works of many foreign scientists, including M. Arbib, J. Weizenbaum, S. Dreyfus, X. Dreyfus, J. McKinsey, X. Putnam, R. Penrose, B. Rosenblum, A. Turing, R. Schenck. Undoubtedly, domestic scientists and philosophers, including A. P. Alekseev, A. Y. Alekseev, I. Y. Alekseeva, V. V. Vasiliev, D. B. Volkov, D. I. Dubrovsky, A. F. Zotov, V. A. Lectorsky, A. P. Ogurtsov, Yu. V. Orpheev, V. I. Samokhvalov, N. M., do not bypass this topic. Smirnova, A. G. Spirkin, V. S. Tyukhtin, N. S. Yulina.

The relationship between mind and body

The relationship between mind and body is probably the central theme inherent in both philosophical anthropology and neuroscience – one of the significant issues. For many centuries, one of the positions of philosophers of the mind has been the perception of it (mind) as a non-physical substance separate from the body. This view is known as dualism, the founder of which can be considered Aristotle and is undoubtedly associated with Rene Descartes. In this case, we mean substantial dualism, when the material and the ideal differ in their fundamental properties. Another form of dualism that does not recognize the existence of a special spiritual substance is the dualism of properties (qualities). According to him, there are no spiritual substances that are "replaced" by the brain, which generates psychic phenomena.

However, in recent years, advances in the field of neuroscience have called into question this point of view. Scientists have discovered that mental states, such as thoughts and emotions, have a physical basis in the brain. One of the key ideas of neuroscience is the concept of neuroplasticity, which refers to the ability of the brain to change and adapt in response to new experiences. This idea challenges traditional philosophical views regarding the mind as an entity separate from the body. Neuroplasticity assumes that the mind is constantly changing in response to the environment and that the brain is an active participant in this process. This has led to the strengthening of the mind-body relationship view known as materialism. Materialists claim that mental states are completely reduced to physical states and that there is no need to postulate a separate non-physical substance to explain the mind.

Although there are still debates among philosophers about the nature of the mind, there is no doubt that the mind and the body are closely related. Our mental state is influenced by the physical state of our body, and vice versa. For example, studies have shown that physical exercise can have a positive effect on mental health, improving cognitive abilities ^{[6, 7]}, reducing symptoms of depression and anxiety ^[8]. Similarly, stress and other mental conditions can have a negative impact on physical health, increasing the risk of chronic diseases such as heart disease and diabetes ^{[9, 10]}.

The relationship between mind and body also affects our attitude towards ourselves and the world around us. If we view the mind and body as separate entities, we are more likely to prefer mental states over physical ones, or to view our bodies as simple tools for using the mind. Conversely, if we view mental states as reducible to physical states, we are more likely to prioritize the health and well-being of our body over the pursuit of mental states such as happiness or enlightenment.

Moreover, our attitude to the mind-body relationship can have serious consequences for how we perceive other people and the natural world around us. For example, if we view the mind and body as separate entities, we are more likely to view other people as disembodied minds, rather than as complex physical organisms with their own needs and desires. Similarly, if we view the natural world as a collection of physical objects, we are more likely to view it as something that can be used for our own purposes, rather than as a complex network of interdependent systems of which we are a part.

In recent years, research has also shed new light on how culture and society shape our attitudes towards the mind-body relationship. Different societies have different ideas about the nature of mind and body, and these beliefs can have a profound impact on people's way of life. For example, in some societies, the mind and body are considered closely interrelated, and physical health and well-being are given a higher priority than spiritual pursuits. In other societies, on the contrary, mind and body are treated as separate entities, and mental states are given higher priority than physical ones.

Philosophical anthropology has also contributed to our understanding of the relationship between mind and body. One of the key ideas of philosophical anthropology is the concept of embodiment ^{[11, p.93]}, which assumes that the body is not just a physical shell in which the mind resides, but an integral part of human experience. This idea opposes traditional dualistic views, according to which the mind is separated from the body, and emphasizes the importance of understanding the body as a place of experience and meaning.

Together, these ideas suggest that the relationship between mind and body is complex and multifaceted and that they cannot be understood only with the help of philosophical anthropology or neuroscience – here they can work together.

Consciousness and intelligence

Consciousness and intelligence are among the most mysterious and elusive aspects of human experience, and it is not surprising that they are topics that are in the field of view and studied by both philosophical anthropology and neuroscience.

One of the key discoveries of neuroscience is that consciousness and intelligence are associated with certain patterns of brain activity. For example, certain areas of the brain, such as the prefrontal cortex and parietal cortex, are constantly activated during conscious experience and are involved in complex intellectual processes. This suggests that there is a direct link between brain activity and conscious experience and intellectual activity, and that consciousness and intelligence are not just a byproduct of brain activity, but also an integral part of it.

You can simply select and copy link from below text field.