ABSTRACT
Is it
possible to naturalize semantics? Starting from Libet’s 1983 studies, current
research developments in neuronal bases of behavior reduce the mind to the
brain, with significant implications in reference to issues of free will,
imputability and individual behavioral responsibility. However, many criticisms
can be made at this approach. This paper shows the limits of Cognitive
Neuro-reductionism, especially in the light of Varela’s Systemic Cognitive Neuroscience or Neurophenomenology and the current theoretical revision process of social systems as complex—dynamical, emergent and unpredictable—social systems, or Complex Realism Sociology. Here, there is an agreement point. The conception of
living systems as complex system as well as that of social system
as complex systems acknowledge the autonomy of human reflexivity capability and
free will be able to initiate the chain of events that triggers the process of
adaptation to environment and change and social emergence ones, and, in so
doing, problematize a neuro-reductionist determinism of cognitive life and
behavioral processes, with its dilemmatic consequences on individual social
responsibility and, ultimately, on social order possibilities. This being
stated, this paper reflects on dialogue possibilities between Varela’s neuroscientific
revolution and Complex Realism Sociology. Going beyond the Parsonsian
functionalism’s social homeostasis and maintaining the point firm of social emergence and
relationship between reflexivity and social morphogenesis, Complex Realism Sociology can dialogue well with
Varela’s Neurophenomenology. Lieb’s disciplined analysis shows to be
a fruitful ground for interlocution about the understanding of that Organism
which cannot be liquidated but must be reinterpreted in its function, about the
understanding of neuronal circuits that mediate free will and
intersubjectivity, conscious deliberative intentionality and awareness of
oneself and others, self-control, perception of time and risk, in other terms,
about the understanding our ability to give meaning to the world, to adapt or
change it, to know, remember, desire, empathize, socialize and interact. In Varela’s revision, stripped of problematic reductionist
claims, Neuroscience can provide to Sociology a wealth of observations that
contribute to the understanding of the bodily basis of social interactions and
social order. This paper is within Piaceri’s
research.