Re: The Identity Theory of Mind

From: Paul Bramscher (brams006_nospam_at_tc.umn.edu)
Date: 09/24/04 

Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 15:09:39 -0500

Lester Zick wrote:
> On 23 Sep 2004 15:17:25 -0700, zzbunker@netscape.net (ZZBunker) in
> comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
>
>
>>lesterDELzick@worldnet.att.net (Lester Zick) wrote in message news:<4151cbee.32163082@netnews.att.net>...
>>
>>>On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 11:33:30 -0500, Paul Bramscher
>>><brams006_nospam@tc.umn.edu> in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Wolf Kirchmeir wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Paul Bramscher wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>The Sophist wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Paul Bramscher wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Since most philosophical theories of the mind appear to be
>>>>>>>>astoundingly inbred (relatively small number of constantly
>>>>>>>>referenced writers, and all Western/white/academic), there are some
>>>>>>>>important missing critiques to the identity theory:
>>>>>
>>>>>[...]
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Apparently you have not actually read extensively from the literature
>>>>>>>you denigrate. Certainly Parfit is aware of these issues, and the
>>>>>>>Churchlands show more than a bit of sensitivity to them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Literature doesn't solve this problem. One should take a theory and
>>>>>>point it toward empirical evidence. Don't just point toward a theory
>>>>>>or piece of literature as an ends to itself.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Ah, but for philosophers, the literature is the important thing.
>>>>
>>>>Which is odd, since the great philosophers the followers constantly like
>>>>to reference are -- themselves -- the counter-examples! At some point
>>>>they left the library, set aside a book, and engineered their own
>>>>theories -- for better or worse.
>>>>
>>>>I'm not anti-literature (in fact I'm currently sitting in a large
>>>>research library in North America). It's just that you need to set it
>>>>aside at some point and budget your time. I'm more allied to the art of
>>>>design & building, rather than deconstructing or analyzing as an ends to
>>>>itself. The best sources of my own inspiration are other builders and
>>>>engineers, not analysts and intellectual forensics specialists. :-)
>>>
>>>How does one engineer the right without deconstructing the wrong? Why
>>>do you think theories of the mind are so inbred and keep coming up
>>>with the same tired nonsense?
>>
>> It's most likely that Philosophers prefer science-fiction
>> to science, and scientists prefer treatises
>> on Lepto-Quark positivism to thinking, Politicians
>> prefer photo-ops with Bill Gates to engineering,
>> and Literaturists prefer 4000 year-old decaying
>> religous slums to minds.
>
>
> There's some truth to this, ZZ. But I'm more inclined to think that
> academics, politicians, etc. prefer these kinds of esoteric solutions
> because the public prefers them whereas the public is bored silly with
> conventional philosophical wisdom because philosophers and politicians
> are really just talking heads blowing smoke, either explaining the
> obvious ad nauseum or indulging in turgid nonsense.

My vision for philosophers is that of ueber-scientists. Philosophers
could position themselves at the forefront of scientific research,
rejecting Platonism, dualism, abstract and unsolvable paradoxes, etc.
They could look at current research and develop hypotheses in ways that
scientists themselves are extremely hesistant to do. Sometimes hitting,
sometimes missing. For example, the evidence is a little sketchy,
funding isn't yet available, a scientist is worried about his
reputation, it involves too much extrapolation, or is too
interdisciplinary for a specialist to synthesize, etc. Philosopher as
visionary.

Also, since science has embraced logic -- but completely rejected ethics
-- in the Scientific Method, positivism, empiricism,
inductive/deductive, etc. there is still that much-needed philosophical
role.

Philosophers could place themselves ahead of, rather than behind or
outside of scientific advancement.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Pol.Sci. vs. Poli.Sci
    ... Karl Popper, _Logic of Scientific Discovery_ ... Donald Gillies, _Philosophy of Science in the 20th Century_, vol IV ... the scientists and Creationists both get it all wrong. ... He and a bunch of other profeesional philosophers worked out ...
    (alt.usage.english)
  • Re: Scientific Definitions
    ... working scientists usually don't pay any attention to philosophers of ... Most of the philosophy of science is ignored, probably correctly, by ... philosophers have gone off the deep end again with the wide spread ... Except for Popper, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Physicists Losing Their Grip??
    ... the 'speculations' are so logically flawed that they cannot even provide ... I'm not siding with philosophers but let's not be so hard on ... Scientists are also responsible for proving or disproving themselves. ... empiricists *DO* something to test their speculations. ...
    (sci.physics.particle)
  • Re: Physicists Losing Their Grip??
    ... the 'speculations' are so logically flawed that they cannot even provide ... I'm not siding with philosophers but let's not be so hard on ... Scientists are also responsible for proving or disproving themselves. ... empiricists *DO* something to test their speculations. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Physicists Losing Their Grip??
    ... the 'speculations' are so logically flawed that they cannot even provide ... I'm not siding with philosophers but let's not be so hard on ... Scientists are also responsible for proving or disproving themselves. ... empiricists *DO* something to test their speculations. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)