I’ve noticed you do tend to read everything through your long-established habits of thought. And also that you have a dismissive attitude towards philosophy generally. To reduce philosophy to biology is ‘scientism’ although the prophets of that ideology never seem to be able to see that.
Thank you! I’m satisfied and have no further objections.
Well okay and philosophers seem to view everything thought their Ego driven Mind - that in reality lacks the capability to logic out Earth’'s physical v mental natural reality of our existence because we are so wrapped up in our own needs - and are oh so smugly dismissive of every thing outside of their mind bubble.
You derisively label my thoughts “your long-established habit of thought.” Yes, all my life I’ve been concern with figuring out myself. Oh but the curve has been astounding.
I was given a wonderful pass on the theologic indoctrination of human exceptionalism and the child of god thing, which the Descartes-Nagel-Chalmers is steeped in, so okay I’m a freakster for sure. That doesn’t mean my challenges are unfounded!
I’ve always been told philosophy is all about taking on challenges - instead all I’ve gotten for some eight years, and decades before, is attitude because why? … philosophers can’t handle the notion that without incorporating some biological reality you’ll never figure out the true nature of self and thought? (For what it’s worth I’ve also been told many times I’m clueless about AGW - so excuse me for believing your assessment of me is wrong, and more a matter of self-defense, than my lack of knowledge and (scientist taught) insights into biology and evolution and valid University of the Street (with supplemental reading) taught philosophical awareness.
Instead the philosophical community seems to rather argue that it is science that needs to take on philosophical mysterianism. While I’m trying to discuss why it is philosophy that needs to take on a little physical reality, and to temper their tendency to fall into human hubris driven obliviousness/disregard toward all the other living things in our reality.
For instant you could have taken a moment to trying an explain (to the simpleton me) what you see in your three lines of prose. I would think if you knew you’d be proud to share your insight. But you apparent didn’t have that within you. Instead you tell me I’m the problem.
While I’m the one searching for some serious substantive dialogue about the very real discrepancy between what biologists understanding of life, thought and consciousness - and the D-N-C insistence on mysterianism.
Science is incomplete, but (in my view) this has everything to do with science, and little or nothing to do with “mysterianism”. Like any tool, science is not suited to every task, or problem. This is not a criticism of science, of course. No tool, not even philosophy 
, is appropriate to every need.
As an example, in matters metaphysical, we often consider ideas for which there is no evidence available, leaving science with no contribution to make. But in many other problem areas, science is the best tool for the job. No need (or space) for “mysterianism”.
IMO 
Fair enough.
I totally agree. Which is why I feel slightly offended that so many philosophers are pushing for science to adopt wave-gravy, in order to understand consciousness, when the physical evidence is doing very well at both defining origins of “sense of self” down in single celled creatures, with everything else building upon that foundation with ever more amazing complexity. To be clear, cellular sense of self is not to be mistaken with introspection! It started with chemotaxis then time and complex happened and it got complicated.
Nagel for instance: "Mind, I suspect, is not an inexplicable accident or a divine and anomalous gift but a basic aspect of nature that we will not understand until we transcend the built-in limits of contemporary scientific orthodoxy.
Back to the different between science and philosophy and that most fundamental observation we can make, appreciating the Human Mind ~ Physical Reality divide.
{Well that and, “truth” requires a defined frame of reference in order to mean anything.}
Our physical biological body is the product of half a billion years worth of 100% successful generational succession - building upon some 4 billion years of Earth’s geological, chemical, biological processes preparing the ground, so to speak.
Science is a process that’s basically a set of rules for gathering and assessing our observations in an honest, open and disciplined manner that all who understand science can trust. Its rules are intentionally created to minimize human ego and bias, with brutal honesty being Science’s Golden Rule without which the entire project would collapse.
While philosophers are only beholden to the wonders of their minds, encouraged to churn out provocative regardless of how divorced from the constrains physical reality it may be.
As you would point out, that has its place in our lives (and mine) but within science it does not belong.
(Citizenschallenge: The missing key to Stephen Gould’s “Nonoverlapping Magisteria.” )
… Which brings me back to Gould’s magisterium and his missing key. The missing key is appreciating the fundamental “Magisteria of Physical Reality,” and recognizing both science and religion are products of the “Magisteria of Our Mindscape.”Science seeks to objectively learn about our physical world, but we should still recognize all our understanding is embedded within and constrained by our mindscape.
Religion is all about the human mindscape itself, with its wonderful struggles, fears, spiritual undercurrents, needs and stories we create to give our live’s meaning and make it worth living, or at least bearable.
What’s the point?
Science, religions, heaven, hell, political beliefs, even God, they are all products of the human mindscape, generations of imaginings built upon previous generations of imaginings, all the way down.
Here we are, 2018, sober assessment of physical facts is out of fashion and fantasy thinking in the service of ruthless avarice is in.
The thing is, is it? Yes, science offers an impressive and detailed ‘mechanical’ approach to biology, and to life, but does this move us even a nanometre in the direction of understanding consciousness? I suggest not.
If science is expanded to cover stuff like this, it will turn back into philosophy again, and lose its amazing usefulness that is so valuable to us all, I think. There are vague and undefinable things that nevertheless carry meaning and use for us humans, but science cannot deal with them. Airy-fairy nonsense, some might say, and they are entitled to that opinion, with which I strongly disagree.
But I can point out the likes of
Dr. Reber (Cellular Basic of Consciousness),
and as Dr Lane summarizes in his most recent book Transformer,
and As Dr. Solms points out elsewhere: the best way to understand consciousness is, as a reflection of our body/brain communicating with itself.
Would suggest yes.
Thanks for the conversation!
Your understanding of this supposed ‘divide’ depends on what you think science does. But your view of science itself relies on an outdated set of philosophical assumptions dating back more than 300 years. You make no mention of the work of enactivists like Evan Thompson, the genetic epistemology of Jean Piaget or the ideas of biologist Terrance Deacon, whose biological approach is heavily influenced by the philosopher C.S. Peirce.
What at stake in your assertions is less a battle between philosophy and science than the contrast between a biological perspective based on older philosophical presuppositions and one integrated with more recent philosophy.
2 Likes
This is utter bullshit mate. I"m done with you.
Please do add a little detail to that claim.
What is that I’m getting wrong?
Can you back that up with specifics.
How much of what I’ve written have you read.
I’ve had many dismiss me, then admit they hadn’t actually read what I’m writing.
Remember I don’t come at this from a philosophical grounding, I come at this from an experiential grounding deeply steeped in the progress of natural sciences during the past decades.
And yes, I should know Evan Thompson (better than I do) and Jean Piaget and Terrance Deacon, and will get to familiarizing myself with their work as I can. But this isn’t about philosophical nuance, it’s about self-absorbed self-serving nature of humans and our desperate need to hang onto a sense of human exceptionalism to justify disregarding everything upon this planet.
One of the things that pushed me on, is that I’m struggling with why we humans can continue to so easily - and so clearly and openly, destroy our biosphere and society - what flaw in the human character has made our self-cannibalizing self-destructive patterns of behavior all but inevitable. Now there’s a Hard Problem worth struggling with.
You don’t have to get so dramatic mate.
Look at the history of science and the proclamations western scientists and philosophers have made, proclamations that further evidence has repeatedly shown to be fanciful bias driven misunderstanding of the evidence.
It is no bullshit to point it out.
nature has always been vastly more complex & interconnected & competent than the human intellect is capable of imagining.
Show me some example from history that put a lie to that statement.
Furthermore, why do you find it shocking to admit that human are supremely self-absorbed thinking with self-serving actions? Why?
Incidentally, it’s also easy for me to acknowledge that truism is based on biological nature,
so this isn’t about melodrama.
It’s something common to all creatures.
It’s simply facing up to biological reality, and that reality includes that we are animals that are biologically driven.
Unfortunately, the problem is that we humans have achieved the knowledge of God, without a penny’s worth of wisdom to temper our animal avarice for more, more, ever more and bigger and better and more, more, more, it’s never enough. Keep your hands off of my stack. But I digress 
Not trying to upset you @Wayfarer. Not my intention.
I think we’re talking at cross-purposes. My fault, probably. I don’t think that science is a suitable tool with which to study consciousness. Science relies on, among other things, evidence. Evidence of quite a high (demanding) standard. Such evidence, when investigating consciousness, is hard to come by, if it exists at all. And this is why I said what I said.
Does this make sense to you? 
There is evidence of consciousness. When you analyze a person, you can trace control of the vessel to an inner ‘I’.
You may not be able to hold it in your hand. However, you can trace it in photographs of people.
Where are actions spurring from?
Can we determine if a person is conscious/unconscious?
If you were shown two people, one with an I and one without an I, would you observe differences?
In all fairness, I think I can judge whether a person has an I or not by the way they act.
How does one “analyse” a person? Not a Star Trek Vulcan, or a Mr Data, but a human person?
Observe them, compare their person in the recent past to the present person, test the future person, etc.
Does it look like these actions have a core(an I)?
- You can judge that a person is conscious.
- You can judge that a person’s action comes from an I.
Observe, OK. But “compare…”? How?
And “test the future person”? I’m baffled as to how this could be analysis?
Any differences the person of 5 seconds ago, has with the person in the present. Them recorded over a period of time, to study the cause of their actions.
Placing an obstacle in front of the person, to test if there is a core-I, so in the future it either shows a core-I or whether the person is just dead matter.
This is simple stuff- I’m baffled that you use these questions.
You literally just asked me ‘what is analysis’?.
And you’re shooting loads of basic questions. I don’t think I need to address all of them. Perhaps spend some time, more than a few seconds, understanding my post.
‘what is analysis’?, is too much of a stupidity. Might as well as ask ‘what is a screw’?, or something else really beginner.
Analysis is: detailed examination of the elements or structure of something.
So your observations of a “person” include only those things that can be observed, that are visible (allowing observation in the first place)? So anything mental, concerning that person’s mind, doesn’t count?
If so, I suggest that your idea of a “person” may be a little less than complete?
I can judge that someone is conferring with an internal brain source, and that it is the reason for the way their actions commenced.
Then it boils down to a true-I or a false-I.
In my opinion, there’s enough evidence to determine that.
Please don’t be offended but absolutely not.
It may make sense within the D-Nagels-C mental bubble,
but that’s because philosophy’s hurdle for understanding consciousness is that we must be able to personally inhabit another’s inner mental state, before we can say anything about it.
(if you think I’ve reach the wrong conclusion can anyone constructively explain where it fails.)
But, fact is consciousness is reliably demonstrated by behavior. So it isn’t out of the reach of science, even if science will never achieve an idealistic “The Truth, whole Truth and nothing but the Truth” standard - the personal experience level of knowing.
Something that on the face of it is a ludicrous expectation.
Can two items occupy the same space? No, it is physically impossible, but philosophers are choosing to ignore that detail. Why build impossible expectations?
Humanity has always had to do, the best it could, with the information and abilities at hand. Idealistic expectations of perfect to know the “Truth” not withstanding.
So if I follow your logic:
Religion is all about our human condition in relation to some god or other, along with a worship of “God”.
Philosophy is all about the Human Mind and is a worship of our Human Mind in all its creative wonder.
Science is a study of the physical reality that created us and is dedication to a strict set of rules of observation and sharing, that demands brutal honesty.
(I don’t know what part of that has altered over the past three centuries. Please explain.)
But, for some reason, the “consciousness” that nature’s living creatures produce isn’t supposed to be the purview of science? Even when its abilities have achieved a mind boggling state of resolution with today’s modern evolutionary biology.
Your suggestion creates a cognitive dissonance in me that fills me with impulses to pound my head against the wall. It does not compute in the slightest.
Then I get silliness like this, tossed at me:
And philosophy hasn’t married itself to a medieval mindset’s that simply ignore the physical reality that science has been learning to study with amazing success and detail.
My thoughts today are the cumulative product of a dynamic life time of experiencing, reading, musings, asking, being told I’m an idiot, then, further experiencing, reading, musings, asking, and refining.
As Wayfarer has shown us, it’s much easier to simply slam the door in my face than to admit to one self, that they might have something new to learn and add into their own thread of deliberations.
The way science is consistently dismissed as outside the purview of “philosophy” makes me wonder what is philosophy good for?
If all philosophy is, is human self indulgent activity to satisfy dopamine channels, what good is it??? (yes Donald Hoffman talking to you) Excuse the digression.
1 Like