3 ms·

For a philosopher you seem really combative and defensive of a really specific philosophical position. Isn't the whole physicalism vs otherwise (Cartesian dual

by mxkopy 5y ago

For a philosopher you seem really combative and defensive of a really specific philosophical position. Isn't the whole physicalism vs otherwise (Cartesian duality?) debate inherently unfinishable? It would be quite a statement to say that physicalism is a fallacious position that's "only popular", while other positions aren't. >Do you make an effort to compensate for own biases?

strogonoff 5y ago
It’s fallacious when adopted uncritically and especially with the claim that it is somehow backed by natural sciences (even though it is not). I am combative when I encounter such attitudes but otherwise I hope I’m open to constructive discussions. > Isn't the whole physicalism vs otherwise (Cartesian duality?) debate inherently unfinishable? “Otherwise” could be Cartesian duality, though I am in particular looking at idealism. Kant, Leibniz (minus the religious-sounding aspects). More recently D. Hoffman[0] seems to be digging in that direction (or adjacent). None of those, including physicalism, seem to be provable with experimental method at this time, but it doesn’t mean they offer no utility. The map vs. territory distinction, for example, may have big implications for medicine and mental/physical well-being. > Do you make an effort to compensate for own biases? I’m trying to fight my bias towards physicalism (with varying success). [0] https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00577/full https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.0057...
- mxkopy 5y ago
  I think physicalism helps the natural sciences a lot with our current understanding of experimentation, and other positions help endeavors like phenomenalism. I am really having difficulty imagining an understanding of the natural sciences that is implied by something other than physicalism. But I am open to such hypotheticals, maybe you could give a concrete example?
  - strogonoff 5y ago
    One way of thinking about it is by treating consciousness as the territory, and space-time as a simplified and accessible map of that territory. Not “neurons fire, hence we think”, but “we think, which shows itself as neurons firing”. In a very, very poor analogy, natural sciences could be seen as studying the map with a magnifying glass, then based on those findings coming up with and performing some magic rituals which somehow end up changing the territory (and thus updating the map). We are unaware that those rituals involve stomping around on land, which is what that map describes in a simplified two-dimensional way; we don’t really know that territory exists at all, it’s all covered in darkness and we only see the map. Our dances grow more sophisticated and more precise at causing map updates that we desire (via changes in the territory that we don’t know about), so we really invest in those rituals. Naturally, when it comes to that patch of territory where the map physically resides (a.k.a. medicine), the rituals don’t work so well; sadly, suggestions that territory exists are generally discarded as crackpot theories.

by mxkopy 5y ago

strogonoff 5y ago

It’s fallacious when adopted uncritically and especially with the claim that it is somehow backed by natural sciences (even though it is not). I am combative when I encounter such attitudes but otherwise I hope I’m open to constructive discussions. > Isn't the whole physicalism vs otherwise (Cartesian duality?) debate inherently unfinishable? “Otherwise” could be Cartesian duality, though I am in particular looking at idealism. Kant, Leibniz (minus the religious-sounding aspects). More recently D. Hoffman[0] seems to be digging in that direction (or adjacent). None of those, including physicalism, seem to be provable with experimental method at this time, but it doesn’t mean they offer no utility. The map vs. territory distinction, for example, may have big implications for medicine and mental/physical well-being. > Do you make an effort to compensate for own biases? I’m trying to fight my bias towards physicalism (with varying success). [0] https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00577/full https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.0057...

mxkopy 5y ago
I think physicalism helps the natural sciences a lot with our current understanding of experimentation, and other positions help endeavors like phenomenalism. I am really having difficulty imagining an understanding of the natural sciences that is implied by something other than physicalism. But I am open to such hypotheticals, maybe you could give a concrete example?
- strogonoff 5y ago
  One way of thinking about it is by treating consciousness as the territory, and space-time as a simplified and accessible map of that territory. Not “neurons fire, hence we think”, but “we think, which shows itself as neurons firing”. In a very, very poor analogy, natural sciences could be seen as studying the map with a magnifying glass, then based on those findings coming up with and performing some magic rituals which somehow end up changing the territory (and thus updating the map). We are unaware that those rituals involve stomping around on land, which is what that map describes in a simplified two-dimensional way; we don’t really know that territory exists at all, it’s all covered in darkness and we only see the map. Our dances grow more sophisticated and more precise at causing map updates that we desire (via changes in the territory that we don’t know about), so we really invest in those rituals. Naturally, when it comes to that patch of territory where the map physically resides (a.k.a. medicine), the rituals don’t work so well; sadly, suggestions that territory exists are generally discarded as crackpot theories.