I find that neuroscience is filled with terms that simply should not exist. Here are three examples:
1. Executive Function
Journal papers on cognition will describe sensing and perception in great detail, but when they get to the part where real cognition takes place and understanding is thin, they will draw a box and name it “executive function”. Executive function is that dark, opaque space where miracles
happen. It is that space under the rug of knowledge where all ignorance is swept, thus providing the illusion of a spotless explanation.
2. Emergent and Epiphenomenal
Emergent and epiphenomenal are proper words with real meaning. They describe a behavior or property of a system that is not found among the constituent parts of that system. The terms suggest one cannot predict an emergent behavior or property by studying its components in
isolation. It does not mean that a behavior exists without a causal explanation but that to prove causality, one needs to consider all relationships between those components.
The problem I have with the terms emergent and epiphenomenal is when they are used as proxies for explanations—especially when the author should be confessing ignorance. Scientists dislike admitting they are clueless. “I don’t know” is something you will never read in a peer reviewed paper. But you will regularly come across, “… [it] exhibits emergent behavior…”.
We are very much on the same page, especially about "emergence". I look at how it is used now with dismay, especially given that the physics approach to emergence actually requires quite a bit of work.
I find that neuroscience is filled with terms that simply should not exist. Here are three examples:
1. Executive Function
Journal papers on cognition will describe sensing and perception in great detail, but when they get to the part where real cognition takes place and understanding is thin, they will draw a box and name it “executive function”. Executive function is that dark, opaque space where miracles
happen. It is that space under the rug of knowledge where all ignorance is swept, thus providing the illusion of a spotless explanation.
2. Emergent and Epiphenomenal
Emergent and epiphenomenal are proper words with real meaning. They describe a behavior or property of a system that is not found among the constituent parts of that system. The terms suggest one cannot predict an emergent behavior or property by studying its components in
isolation. It does not mean that a behavior exists without a causal explanation but that to prove causality, one needs to consider all relationships between those components.
The problem I have with the terms emergent and epiphenomenal is when they are used as proxies for explanations—especially when the author should be confessing ignorance. Scientists dislike admitting they are clueless. “I don’t know” is something you will never read in a peer reviewed paper. But you will regularly come across, “… [it] exhibits emergent behavior…”.
3. Consciousness
I'm with Eric on this one. It is an adjective posing as a noun...like Vitalism. For a more detailed criticism, see https://tomrearick.substack.com/p/the-end-of-consciousnessism.
We are very much on the same page, especially about "emergence". I look at how it is used now with dismay, especially given that the physics approach to emergence actually requires quite a bit of work.