Yes, love will not disappear if it's proven to be nothing more than a biological mechanism....but it sure will lose a high percentage of its glorious luster. And in what way does such a result enrich the enjoyment of our lives?
It would be really nice if someone could caption or subtitle this video. I'd love to know what Churchland is saying on Eliminative Materialism, but I'm deaf and this video isn't accessible to folks like me without captions or subtitles. If anybody could post the transcript to this video, I'd be deeply appreciative, please let me know if this ever happens! (Thanks in advance!)
Yes, this is a nail in the coffin of dualism, indeed!
"The will" - just the process of decision making. Science decides that, not a philosopher, thinking in an armchair.
I enjoyed this. I always enjoy experts talking about their field. Good analogy of understanding what light is, doesn't change it, and understanding the processes in the brain, accompanying "falling in love" won't change falling in love.
Not that philosophy has no value, but I agree that science, and not philosophy, solves big questions such as these. Otherwise we'd still think that "atom" signified not divisible any further (not true!).
// understanding the processes ... won't change falling in love //
True. That's something that many theists seem incapable of grasping. They are such an unimaginative, unromantic lot!
I see philosophy as a science in the same way as theoretical physics. Theoretical physics depend on experimental physics for their data, but then use their abilities to think and analyze and come up with theories.
I guess neurophilosophy is similar to theoretical physics in that regard. It relies on neurobiologists to gather data, but then anlizes these by utilizing philosophical methods of inquiry and logics.
I find this trend, as opposed to methaphysical philosophy, to be quite interesting
Yes, but theoretical physics devolves into philosophy if its theories cannot be experimentally tested -- string theory, for example. Theoretical physicists say so themselves.
Look at how far metaphysical speculation advanced knowledge. Not very far, and mostly into utter nonsense, until science came along.
It all depends on perspective, and I think philosophy can engage the data natural science puts forth by using different methods.
Take Einstein and his theories. The data had been there all along, but he created a theory. But there where also much metaphysical speculation by other writers that he had read which lead him to his conclusions (at least a biography I read on him claimed so).
I think some philosophy has to look to natural science, and utilize philosophical methods (cont.)
On the other hand, metaphysical speculation can lead to experiments. I don't think much of the experiments that have been done would be possible if it weren't for our speculative nature.
I agree though that metaphysics don't lead us far. But philosophy to me should never be about finding out the ultimate TRUTH, or something like that. It should be about asking epistemological questions like, what is truth, how do we define truth, and what methods do we use to find it.
1. YT's latest stunt is to make it difficult to discern the order or timing of comments. I take it that this is your latest.
Certainly hypothesizing leads to experiments, but effective experiments are built upon a foundation of scientific understanding rather than upon mere metaphysical speculation. Otherwise, scientists would still be flailing in the dark.
2. Philosophers could speculate on epistemic questions such as "what is truth?" forever. If it were not for scientists (theoretical and applied), we'd literally be flailing in the dark without computers or an internet.
I'm not saying that philosophy has no value, merely that philosophical metaphysics made almost no gains until scientists provided material for further speculation. I think that both have a place, but that scientific approaches produce greater yields.
@EvolvedAtheist Again it depends on perspectives i guess. A lot of the ideas in applied ethics, linguistics and political philosophy is "all around us". I agree on mere metaphysics, but that's what I find interesting about neurophilosophy, and the likes, since this entails theories that are built upon empirical evidence.
Are you a scientist by the way? I am not, so maybe we have vested interests in how we define value and so forth of a way of thinking.
Well, none of those ideas exist in a vacuum, but metaphysics is certainly built more upon empirical evidence.
My degrees are in science, but I have lots of interests. I agree that our education determines our vested interests somewhat. However, I think that the reverse operates too -- we choose to study according to our natural interests and patterns of thought. I believe that education should be as broad-based as practicable.
@EvolvedAtheist I just wanted to kind of further our talk. Don't you think Descartes in his meditations came to a conclusion of what we can be completely certain of through methaphysics, and that he is ultimately right? And further, would you be willing to accept the theory of ethical realism? That ethics as a system, like mathematics, is something that we "discover" not create ourselves? Does this sound completely far-fetched?
I don't think that Descartes was correct. His argument was governed by his prior assumptions and his stated purpose. Given what happened to Giordano Bruno, Rene's obsequy was understandable. It can be difficult to tease a posteriori assumptions from innate capacities, but I'd say that we "discover" very little. We have no difficulty following our "instincts", but following inculcated rules can be difficult.
@EvolvedAtheist You don't think that Descartes was correct in formulating that what we ultimately (100% certainty) can know is that we (the self) exist. I mean, there is a probability that we live in matrix (cheezy example, I know). Who was Bruno?
In a word, no. There is no *probability* to the matrix notion. At the most, there is a vanishingly small *possibility*.
Imagine that you come upon an inferno at an oil refinery. Are you willing to test the possibility that the blazing fire is a figment of a an evil genie's imagination by walking into the "illusory" flames? You seem sane, so I'll assume that your answer is "no." In any case, please don't.
@EvolvedAtheist Hehe, of course I accept that reality is real. But I also accept the Cartesian doubt that we can't for certain know that it is real. There is, however small, a probability that our ontological reality is an illusion. Nobody accepts this because you just have to stop debating anything if you accept it.
It's just like the God hypothesis. There is a, however small, chance that something like a God exists. A creator if you wish, or a Spinozian being.
Yes, love will not disappear if it's proven to be nothing more than a biological mechanism....but it sure will lose a high percentage of its glorious luster. And in what way does such a result enrich the enjoyment of our lives?
CribNotes 8 months ago
Comment removed
American9660 9 months ago
Comment removed
American9660 9 months ago
It would be really nice if someone could caption or subtitle this video. I'd love to know what Churchland is saying on Eliminative Materialism, but I'm deaf and this video isn't accessible to folks like me without captions or subtitles. If anybody could post the transcript to this video, I'd be deeply appreciative, please let me know if this ever happens! (Thanks in advance!)
American9660 9 months ago
Yes, this is a nail in the coffin of dualism, indeed!
"The will" - just the process of decision making. Science decides that, not a philosopher, thinking in an armchair.
I enjoyed this. I always enjoy experts talking about their field. Good analogy of understanding what light is, doesn't change it, and understanding the processes in the brain, accompanying "falling in love" won't change falling in love.
Favourited.
dewinthemorning 2 years ago
@dewinthemorning
// not a philosopher //
Not that philosophy has no value, but I agree that science, and not philosophy, solves big questions such as these. Otherwise we'd still think that "atom" signified not divisible any further (not true!).
// understanding the processes ... won't change falling in love //
True. That's something that many theists seem incapable of grasping. They are such an unimaginative, unromantic lot!
EvolvedAtheist 2 years ago
I see philosophy as a science in the same way as theoretical physics. Theoretical physics depend on experimental physics for their data, but then use their abilities to think and analyze and come up with theories.
I guess neurophilosophy is similar to theoretical physics in that regard. It relies on neurobiologists to gather data, but then anlizes these by utilizing philosophical methods of inquiry and logics.
I find this trend, as opposed to methaphysical philosophy, to be quite interesting
ihatekhomeini 1 year ago
Yes, but theoretical physics devolves into philosophy if its theories cannot be experimentally tested -- string theory, for example. Theoretical physicists say so themselves.
Look at how far metaphysical speculation advanced knowledge. Not very far, and mostly into utter nonsense, until science came along.
EvolvedAtheist 1 year ago
It all depends on perspective, and I think philosophy can engage the data natural science puts forth by using different methods.
Take Einstein and his theories. The data had been there all along, but he created a theory. But there where also much metaphysical speculation by other writers that he had read which lead him to his conclusions (at least a biography I read on him claimed so).
I think some philosophy has to look to natural science, and utilize philosophical methods (cont.)
ihatekhomeini 1 year ago
to construct theories.
On the other hand, metaphysical speculation can lead to experiments. I don't think much of the experiments that have been done would be possible if it weren't for our speculative nature.
I agree though that metaphysics don't lead us far. But philosophy to me should never be about finding out the ultimate TRUTH, or something like that. It should be about asking epistemological questions like, what is truth, how do we define truth, and what methods do we use to find it.
ihatekhomeini 1 year ago
@ihatekhomeini
1. YT's latest stunt is to make it difficult to discern the order or timing of comments. I take it that this is your latest.
Certainly hypothesizing leads to experiments, but effective experiments are built upon a foundation of scientific understanding rather than upon mere metaphysical speculation. Otherwise, scientists would still be flailing in the dark.
... contd
EvolvedAtheist 1 year ago
2. Philosophers could speculate on epistemic questions such as "what is truth?" forever. If it were not for scientists (theoretical and applied), we'd literally be flailing in the dark without computers or an internet.
I'm not saying that philosophy has no value, merely that philosophical metaphysics made almost no gains until scientists provided material for further speculation. I think that both have a place, but that scientific approaches produce greater yields.
EvolvedAtheist 1 year ago
@EvolvedAtheist Again it depends on perspectives i guess. A lot of the ideas in applied ethics, linguistics and political philosophy is "all around us". I agree on mere metaphysics, but that's what I find interesting about neurophilosophy, and the likes, since this entails theories that are built upon empirical evidence.
Are you a scientist by the way? I am not, so maybe we have vested interests in how we define value and so forth of a way of thinking.
ihatekhomeini 1 year ago
@ihatekhomeini
Well, none of those ideas exist in a vacuum, but metaphysics is certainly built more upon empirical evidence.
My degrees are in science, but I have lots of interests. I agree that our education determines our vested interests somewhat. However, I think that the reverse operates too -- we choose to study according to our natural interests and patterns of thought. I believe that education should be as broad-based as practicable.
EvolvedAtheist 1 year ago
@EvolvedAtheist I just wanted to kind of further our talk. Don't you think Descartes in his meditations came to a conclusion of what we can be completely certain of through methaphysics, and that he is ultimately right? And further, would you be willing to accept the theory of ethical realism? That ethics as a system, like mathematics, is something that we "discover" not create ourselves? Does this sound completely far-fetched?
ihatekhomeini 1 year ago
@ihatekhomeini
I don't think that Descartes was correct. His argument was governed by his prior assumptions and his stated purpose. Given what happened to Giordano Bruno, Rene's obsequy was understandable. It can be difficult to tease a posteriori assumptions from innate capacities, but I'd say that we "discover" very little. We have no difficulty following our "instincts", but following inculcated rules can be difficult.
EvolvedAtheist 1 year ago
@EvolvedAtheist You don't think that Descartes was correct in formulating that what we ultimately (100% certainty) can know is that we (the self) exist. I mean, there is a probability that we live in matrix (cheezy example, I know). Who was Bruno?
ihatekhomeini 1 year ago
@ihatekhomeini
In a word, no. There is no *probability* to the matrix notion. At the most, there is a vanishingly small *possibility*.
Imagine that you come upon an inferno at an oil refinery. Are you willing to test the possibility that the blazing fire is a figment of a an evil genie's imagination by walking into the "illusory" flames? You seem sane, so I'll assume that your answer is "no." In any case, please don't.
EvolvedAtheist 1 year ago
@EvolvedAtheist Hehe, of course I accept that reality is real. But I also accept the Cartesian doubt that we can't for certain know that it is real. There is, however small, a probability that our ontological reality is an illusion. Nobody accepts this because you just have to stop debating anything if you accept it.
It's just like the God hypothesis. There is a, however small, chance that something like a God exists. A creator if you wish, or a Spinozian being.
ihatekhomeini 1 year ago