Comment by sigbottle

> A lot of Wittgensteins work, Heideggers work, and later philosophy of mind underlies current neuroscience.

Could you explain the specific neuroscience research programmes informed by these philosophers? I'm not an expert in neuroscience so I would not know. The only thing I know about neuroscience is like, the free-energy principle.

> You can't really investigate the nature of being like Heidegger was doing in a "scientific" way.

OK but I've acknowledged many philosophers and their contributions to general thought, even if they're not strictly "scientific". I was only following the conversation this way because neuroscience was brought up - normally I interpret Heidegger as responding to Western ontology and less through the phenomenonlogical/existential lens. Like, there's the phenomenological vehicle of criticism versus fully buying into it as a program to test cogsci or like any kind of test. I don't think Heidegger was merely saying "you guys are too abstract and heady and you should live in the moment", for example, he had specific claims he was making. Heidegger was definitely making specific claims about the world, otherwise you could dismiss him as art, which is not right, either. The issue is is that he's opaque :/