Re: The Identity Theory of Mind

From: Sergio Navega (snavega_at_intelliwise.com)
Date: 09/28/04 

Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 10:17:46 -0300

"Lester Zick" <lesterDELzick@worldnet.att.net> escreveu na mensagem
news:4155e080.19588644@netnews.att.net...
> On Sat, 25 Sep 2004 12:36:46 -0300, "Sergio Navega"
> <snavega@intelliwise.com> in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
>
> >"Lester Zick" <lesterDELzick@worldnet.att.net> escreveu na mensagem
> >news:415586b1.16678949@netnews.att.net...
> >> On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 15:09:39 -0500, Paul Bramscher
> >> <brams006_nospam@tc.umn.edu> in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
> >>
> >> >Lester Zick wrote:
> >> >> On 23 Sep 2004 15:17:25 -0700, zzbunker@netscape.net (ZZBunker) in
> >> >> comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
> >>
> >> [. . .]
> >>
> >> >>>>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.
> >>
> >> Philosophers are turkeys who couldn't make the cut in science. Witness
> >> the penny ante behaviorists who spout philosophy because they're tired
> >> of not getting any respect for training animals and anthropomorphizing
> >> results.
> >>
> >> Your idea of philosophers as scientific visionaries is a pipe dream.
> >> At best they're nothing more than historians of bad ideas. At worst
> >> they're deliberate academic malefactors. Witness, once again, the
> >> philosophy and behavior of behaviorists.
> >
> >Hum...
> >I'm not fond of many philosophers myself, but perhaps your vision is
> >a bit unfair with those unfortunate ones that like to warm armchair
> >seats.
> >
> >I would concur with the substance of your criticisms, if we see
> >philosophers using their reasonings to *restrict* what one can or
> >cannot do in science.
>
> Behaviorism does exactly that. Materialism does exactly that.
> Positivism does exactly that.
>
> > That's often unjustifiable and
unproductive.
> >However, I find that some philosophers investigate things without
> >being afraid of using their heads to play with "far from earth"
> >ideas. Many insightful and thought provoking ideas are the result
> >of such healthy sequences of conjectures. In that regard, I think
> >philosophers are "useful" to science.
>
> I routinely pose this question once a year so I might as well do it
> here. Can you name any philosopher apart from Aristotle and the
> syllogism who contributed anything to the history of ideas and
> science that was demonstrably true and definitively correct?

That's quite an interesting question. There's obviously those
philosophers who made "definitively correct" contributions to
logic, arithmetic and other such things, but they would, in
this case, be called mathematicians. Or one could cite so many
philosophers who introduced insightful ideas on the structure
and evolution of communication among humans, but they would,
in this case, be called linguists. Or then those who found a
way to speculate about some things of an empirical nature,
but they would be called scientists.

That's the problem with philosophers. When they come up with
something that has an empirically strong side, they aren't
seen as philosophers anymore, they are scientists or
mathematicians, or linguists, etc. I believe that philosophers'
task should be to elaborate their abstract thoughts without
being "limited" by reality (and that's why I criticize
philosophies which try to *restrict* empirical work, such
as the ones which try to conceive normative practices).

What philosophers do is to provide "abstract thought patterns"
that can be suggestive or even *analogically useful* to
scientists. A scientist may be positively influenced by such
thought patterns, up to a point where he/she (the scientist)
may come up with an interesting hypothesis to be empirically
tested. The "origins" of this hypothesis may well be the "mental
diversions" of someone else. But what's really important is not
the origins, but the nature of the results obtained by its
serious application. I'm not fond of discussing highly philosophical
themes, but I really appreciate the vast number of insights that
often come from the minds of philosophers.

Sergio Navega.

Relevant Pages

  • 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)
  • Re: death of the mind.
    ... In article, Lester Zick ... >>philosophers. ... >>It's misdirected to think of behaviorists as scientific, Patty, they ... cognitive scientists? ...
    (sci.cognitive)
  • Re: The Identity Theory of Mind
    ... >>but they would be called scientists. ... >>That's the problem with philosophers. ... previous philosophical reasonings led directly to an important ... I think that sometimes this spark comes from ...
    (sci.cognitive)