Reply
Wed 27 May, 2009 02:11 pm
Why is Philosophy like General Motors?
With the aid of new brain scan technology the amalgamation of scientific disciplines that make up what is commonly known as SGCS (Second Generation Cognitive Science) has produced empirical evidence to support theories that challenges two millennia of a priori philosophical speculation.
The three major findings of SGCS that challenges Anglo-American analytic and postmodernist philosophy are as follows:
[Quote]The mind is inherently embodied.
Thought is mostly unconscious.
Abstract concepts are largely metaphorical.[/quote]
These newly assimilated (primarily in the last four decades) discoveries require that our Western culture must question and discard some of its most deeply held philosophical assumptions.
We have in our Western philosophy a traditional theory of faculty psychology wherein our reasoning is a faculty completely separate from the body. "Reason is seen as independent of perception and bodily movement." It is this capacity of autonomous reason that makes us different in kind from all other animals. I suspect that many fundamental aspects of philosophy and psychology are focused upon declaring, whenever possible, the separateness of our species from all other animals.
This tradition of an autonomous reason began long before evolutionary theory and has held strongly since then without consideration, it seems to me, of the theories of Darwin and of biological science. Cognitive science has in the last four decades developed considerable empirical evidence supporting Darwin and not supporting the traditional theories of philosophy and psychology regarding the autonomy of reason. Cognitive science has focused a great deal of empirical science toward discovering the nature of the embodied mind.
The cognitive science claim is that "the very properties of concepts are created as a result of the way the brain and body are structured and the way they function in interpersonal relations and in the physical world."
The embodied-mind hypothesis therefore radically undercuts the perception/conception distinction. In an embodied mind, it is conceivable that the same neural system engaged in perception (or in bodily movements) plays a central role in conception. Indeed, in recent neural modeling research, models of perceptual mechanisms and motor schemas can actually do conception work in language learning and in reasoning.
A standard technique for checking out new ideas is to create computer models of the idea and subject that model to simulated conditions to determine if the model behaves as does the reality. Such modeling techniques are used constantly in projecting behavior of meteorological parameters.
Neural computer models have shown that the types of operations required to perceive and move in space require the very same type of capability associated with reasoning. That is, neural models capable of doing all of the things that a body must be able to do when perceiving and moving can also perform the same kinds of actions associated with reasoning, i.e. inferring, categorizing, and conceiving.
Our understanding of biology indicates that the body has a marvelous ability to do as any handyman does, i.e. make do with what is at hand. The body would, it seems logical to assume, take these abilities that exist in all creatures that move and survive in space and with such fundamental capabilities reshape it through evolution to become what we now know as our ability to reason. The first budding of the reasoning ability exists in all creatures that function as perceiving, moving, surviving, creatures.
Cognitive science has, it seems to me, connected our ability to reason with our bodies in such away as to make sense out of connecting reason with our biological evolution in ways that Western philosophy has not done, as far as I know.[/b]
It seems to me that Western philosophical tradition has always tried to separate mind from body and in so doing has never been able to show how mind, as was conceived by this tradition, could be part of Darwin's theory of natural selection. Cognitive science now provides us with a comprehensible model for grounding all that we are both bodily and mentally into a unified whole that makes sense without all of the attempts to make mind as some kind of transcendent, mystical, reality unassociated with biology.
Just as General Moors is headed toward bankruptcy court, likewise is Western traditional philosophy headed for bankruptcy hearings in the court of public comprehension.
Quotes from Philosophy in the Flesh by Lakoff and Johnson
@coberst phil,
Not so much bankruptcy, but western philosophy is in the process of serious overhaul.
This seems perfectly normal to me. There have been several similar periods in western philosophy - times when established accounts are overturned.
@Didymos Thomas,
This is all cool and such but all it really says is that the brain's structure and function is required for any mind/spirit to express itself, you know them being all incorporeal and stuff. It has always been assumed that the body must function the way it does for the mind/spirit to express itself/inhabit/animate the body or whatever. Because the brain fires a synapse when stimulus is introduced shows little more than it is a black box.
This is not a pro-dualist post by the way, neither is it an anti-dualist post, only noting that an explanation of brain function in no way disproves duality.
@GoshisDead,
If the mind can be explained (and explained quite well) without the use of duality, then why posit duality at all?
Modern research into the brain may not
disprove duality, but it does seem to eliminate the explanatory value of duality and make duality appear to be highly unlikely.
@Didymos Thomas,
Thomas:
Quite true, but when has humanity ever really shaken a tradition so easily. That is why my above post was not a pro-dualist post. Why has humanity ever proposed dualism when it is quite obvious the body dies? Explaining the brain is really no different than what has happened empirically throughout history. The body exists, it has its processes and passes away. It is called duality because in the dualist tradition the body and its functions have no relevance on the existence of the spirit/mind's existence. They are dual, two seperate things. If you explain the body and brain the spirit/mind still exists. It has always been empirically improbable that the spirit/mind existis on its own but that hasn't stopped the tradition. Until second generation cognitive science can reproduce a mind, hard line dualists will likely not be swayed.
@Didymos Thomas,
Didymos Thomas;65397 wrote:If the mind can be explained (and explained quite well) without the use of duality, then why posit duality at all?
Modern research into the brain may not disprove duality, but it does seem to eliminate the explanatory value of duality and make duality appear to be highly unlikely.
Personally I believe its perfectly possible for a reasoning mind to have no "soul" and even that humans around me have no "soul", but I dont think thats true for myself. The reason is because I do not believe dead as in "extinction of the self" is possible.
@manored,
manored;65417 wrote:Personally I believe its perfectly possible for a reasoning mind to have no "soul" and even that humans around me have no "soul", but I dont think thats true for myself. The reason is because I do not believe dead as in "extinction of the self" is possible.
I've still not seen any evidence for an eternally existing soul or self. There sure are a great many theories about these things.
What do you consider the "self" to be? It can be understood in so many ways.
GoshisDead;65409 wrote:Thomas:
Quite true, but when has humanity ever really shaken a tradition so easily. That is why my above post was not a pro-dualist post.
Sure, traditions are often difficult to remove.
GoshisDead;65409 wrote:Until second generation cognitive science can reproduce a mind, hard line dualists will likely not be swayed.
You are right. People will continue to cling to dualism for some time. Even though Descartes' mind/body thought has been pretty well refuted, Cartesian philosophy remains attractive to students, especially those who's study of philosophy is limited to a course or two as an undergrad.
It's just that dualism has lost its explanatory value, and reproducing a mind should be unnecessary. The hard line dualists have already had their theory ripped to shreds.
@coberst phil,
Quote:It's just that dualism has lost its explanatory value, and reproducing a mind should be unnecessary. The hard line dualists have already had their theory ripped to shreds.
It has always been tenuous at best, hard line dualism is more about faith/belief than logic. Descartes IMO was popularized simply because he started from the dualist perspective to begin with and that matched western belief systems as they stood anyway.
@Didymos Thomas,
Didymos Thomas;65432 wrote:I've still not seen any evidence for an eternally existing soul or self. There sure are a great many theories about these things.
What do you consider the "self" to be? It can be understood in so many ways.
With "self", I mean mind, and with mind, I mean my sucession of thoughs.
I dont have any proof, but I believe this because it doesnt seens possible to me the mind could end, as its ending would have no meaning winhout the mind to see it. Also, it wouldnt make sense that things that are born once out of nowhere are not born again.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace