Why doesn't there seem to be a bridge between philosophy and biology?

[Citizenschallenge]

@PatternChaser

And yet I don’t really think you’re right, or fair, to blame metaphysics for human greed.

Correct. But leaving it unexamined is another thing.

@PatternChaser

Our poor home is in such a bad state because we have taken the world for our use, to do with as we wish, instead of sharing it with the myriad of species who also live(d) here.

Which is why our collective disconnect from our own bodies, and Earth’s systems and story, disturbs me so palpably.

@PatternChaser

And this is so because we always want MORE. This, and the fact that we have built our world to centre on money, and nothing else.

Which upon examination we must admit is a totally natural thing. We’d be buried alive in germs, if their Drive to Thrive were left unchecked.

Still, human are supposed to be smarter than germs - and we’ve been wrestling with human nature long enough. Getting out of the closet and facing our Self-absorbed thinking and our Self-serving nature, using philosophy, rationality, persuasion to temper our greed.
Perhaps some guardrails, like if we actually took anti-trust laws seriously, and not allow greed driven corporations and individuals to become more powerful than government. (But, the runway behind us does us no good.)

Heck, philosophy could have also put some weight behind taking our US Constitution and its inferred obligation more seriously.

Another aside, ah never mind, then again, I was going to bring up how climate scientists were viciously and fraudulently and ruthlessly attacked, and no one spoke in the defense of science or honestly and portraying the facts in a complete and truth manner, doing the best we could with the facts at hand. Appreciating that massive size and complexity of our global climate/oceanic system guaranteed that uncertainties were built in.

Instead, the cynicism was nurtured to the point that now we’ve ripped up the most amazing (if less than perfect) political document humans ever created, our US Constitution and the notion of a democratic government of Laws, a government of the people, by the people, for the people. Definitely not perfect, but now We The People have abandoned it and handed our government over to self serving Lords that believe in nothing but their own illusions and self-aggrandizement and burning it all up just as fast as possible.

Sorry I may have gone too far, but you brought up “our world” a very painful subject. Offering a little context for why I’m as I am.

[AmadeusD]

@Citizenschallenge

I think it would be misleading to claim that ALL cells can do is react.

Ok. There is no evidence a cell even has a function which could involve response, rather than reaction. That’s the claim. There’s no evidence that a cell can do anything but react. I’d like to understand how if the claim is cells can deliberate.

[PatternChaser]

@FlannelJesus

A reduction of something is looking at a chair and ‘reducing’ it, in your understanding, to interactions of atoms and chemicals and physics.

Ah. I assume this is what you mean by “philosophical reductionism”?

[PatternChaser]

@Citizenschallenge

@PatternChaser

Our poor home is in such a bad state because we have taken the world for our use, to do with as we wish, instead of sharing it with the myriad of species who also live(d) here.

Which is why our collective disconnect from our own bodies, and Earth’s systems and story, disturbs me so palpably.

So you think that our attitude to our homeworld leads to a disconnection from it? Perhaps so. Whatever the reason, I agree that it’s heart-rending…

[FlannelJesus]

@PatternChaser

@Citizenschallenge

@PatternChaser

myriad of species who also live(d) here.

Which is why our collective disconnect from our own bodies, and Earth’s systems and story, disturbs me so palpably.

So you think that our attitude to our homeworld leads to a disconnection from it? Perhaps so. Whatever the reason, I agree

afaik that’s what everyone who’s talking about reduction means in the context of this thread.

[PatternChaser]

@FlannelJesus

A reduction of something is looking at a chair and ‘reducing’ it, in your understanding, to interactions of atoms and chemicals and physics.

@PatternChaser

Ah. I assume this is what you mean by “philosophical reductionism”?

@FlannelJesus

afaik that’s what everyone who’s talking about reduction means in the context of this thread.

Oh. I misunderstood, then. Thanks for the clarification.

Reductionists are those who take one theory or phenomenon to be reducible to some other theory or phenomenon. For example, a reductionist regarding mathematics might take any given mathematical theory to be reducible to logic or set theory. Or, a reductionist about biological entities like cells might take such entities to be reducible to collections of physico-chemical entities like atoms and molecules. The type of reductionism that is currently of most interest in metaphysics and philosophy of mind involves the claim that all sciences are reducible to physics. This is usually taken to entail that all phenomena (including mental phenomena like consciousness) are identical to physical phenomena.

Isn’t this ‘philosophical reductionism’ a bit pointless, then? For example, we could say that Micro$oft Word can be reduced to a literal sequence of (executable) binary bits, and it’s true enough … but useless. For we cannot — usefully and meaningfully — bridge the gap between the abstract level of an advanced word processor and those bits. Just as we can’t bridge the gap between brain (neurons and the like) and the mind.

I accept what this ‘reductionism’ is, but I can’t see the point.

[AmadeusD]

To some degree, yes, it is useless. But for those working in relevant fields, it can spell out hitherto unseen problems, or indeed solutions.

If we can reduce a seemingly complex object to a less-complex one, we’re on better footing for getting to grips with its aspects, such that we could harness, protect, encourage etc… the way we do when we have good information about whatever it is in question.

[PatternChaser]

@AmadeusD

If we can reduce a seemingly complex object to a less-complex one, we’re on better footing for getting to grips with its aspects, such that we could harness, protect, encourage etc… the way we do when we have good information about whatever it is in question.

Now I am confused. Your words seem to refer to the scientific reductionism that I initially mistook, and was corrected. To avoid further misunderstandings, have I understood your words as you intended?

[AmadeusD]

I’m not quite understanding what’s confusing, so it’s hard to try to clarify…They are the same, but one is in concept, one is in practice.