Why is Philosophy like General Motors?

[coberst]

Why is Philosophy like General Motors?

With the aid of new brain scan technology the amalgamation of scientific disciplines that make up what is commonly known as SGCS (Second Generation Cognitive Science) has produced empirical evidence to support theories that challenges two millennia of a priori philosophical speculation.

The three major findings of SGCS that challenges Anglo-American analytic and postmodernist philosophy are as follows:


The mind is inherently embodied.
Thought is mostly unconscious.
Abstract concepts are largely metaphorical.

These newly assimilated (primarily in the last four decades) discoveries require that our Western culture must question and discard some of its most deeply held philosophical assumptions.

We have in our Western philosophy a traditional theory of faculty psychology wherein our reasoning is a faculty completely separate from the body. “Reason is seen as independent of perception and bodily movement.” It is this capacity of autonomous reason that makes us different in kind from all other animals. I suspect that many fundamental aspects of philosophy and psychology are focused upon declaring, whenever possible, the separateness of our species from all other animals.

This tradition of an autonomous reason began long before evolutionary theory and has held strongly since then without consideration, it seems to me, of the theories of Darwin and of biological science. Cognitive science has in the last four decades developed considerable empirical evidence supporting Darwin and not supporting the traditional theories of philosophy and psychology regarding the autonomy of reason. Cognitive science has focused a great deal of empirical science toward discovering the nature of the embodied mind.

The cognitive science claim is that ”the very properties of concepts are created as a result of the way the brain and body are structured and the way they function in interpersonal relations and in the physical world.”

The embodied-mind hypothesis therefore radically undercuts the perception/conception distinction. In an embodied mind, it is conceivable that the same neural system engaged in perception (or in bodily movements) plays a central role in conception. Indeed, in recent neural modeling research, models of perceptual mechanisms and motor schemas can actually do conception work in language learning and in reasoning.

A standard technique for checking out new ideas is to create computer models of the idea and subject that model to simulated conditions to determine if the model behaves as does the reality. Such modeling techniques are used constantly in projecting behavior of meteorological parameters.

Neural computer models have shown that the types of operations required to perceive and move in space require the very same type of capability associated with reasoning. That is, neural models capable of doing all of the things that a body must be able to do when perceiving and moving can also perform the same kinds of actions associated with reasoning, i.e. inferring, categorizing, and conceiving.

Our understanding of biology indicates that the body has a marvelous ability to do as any handyman does, i.e. make do with what is at hand. The body would, it seems logical to assume, take these abilities that exist in all creatures that move and survive in space and with such fundamental capabilities reshape it through evolution to become what we now know as our ability to reason. The first budding of the reasoning ability exists in all creatures that function as perceiving, moving, surviving, creatures.

Cognitive science has, it seems to me, connected our ability to reason with our bodies in such away as to make sense out of connecting reason with our biological evolution in ways that Western philosophy has not done, as far as I know.

It seems to me that Western philosophical tradition has always tried to separate mind from body and in so doing has never been able to show how mind, as was conceived by this tradition, could be part of Darwin’s theory of natural selection. Cognitive science now provides us with a comprehensible model for grounding all that we are both bodily and mentally into a unified whole that makes sense without all of the attempts to make mind as some kind of transcendent, mystical, reality unassociated with biology.

Just as General Moors is headed toward bankruptcy court, likewise is Western traditional philosophy headed for bankruptcy hearings in the court of public comprehension.

Quotes from Philosophy in the Flesh by Lakoff and Johnson

[billl]

Since, using this new approach, everything can be described in terms of body, body processes and the adaptability of these processes to new demands, and that evolution of an individual's 'mind' (excuse the double offense to the strict definition of 'evolution') is a response to a world of perhaps infinite variety, it will be interesting to see how successful attempts to identify and model basic, universal structures are, and how usefully any such results might be applied to various different fully-realized individual 'minds'.

The 'devils' and the 'angels' that dance around to morality's tune might still reside in details too sprawling for science's best net, leaving a mystery that transcendentalists and scientists will still fight over. It seems that the mind might still be outside of the body, at least in part, due to the important role played by our environment in the production of our thoughts. And, regarding the physical environment, a look at the COBE maps makes me think we'd have trouble categorizing everything (including all the relationships in time and space) in a really complete way. Jungians, visionaries, and romantics, etc. might still have a lot to say, for those interested in extending their marvelously adaptable interpretive faculties to them. For a while at least, until we have found some kind of subtle chaotic equation behind all of existence or something.

Will more than a handful ever be able to grok the latest state of research? That's my big concern. We might end up sort of at their mercy, consigned to vague drips and drabs of dense, highly-generalized, 'popularizations', challenging in their own right, sprinkled through with bias, intended or not. (I'm sort of imagining Catholic clergy reading Latin with their backs to their nodding congregation :)...)

Anyhow, it looks like you're reading interesting stuff Coberst. Thanks for the post. I'm kind of following it too, not so closely, though. It's pretty eye-opening, and really accelerating science's 'impact' in these areas, that's for sure.

[backline]

...Will more than a handful ever be able to grok the latest state of research? That's my big concern. We might end up sort of at their mercy, consigned to vague drips and drabs of dense, highly-generalized, 'popularizations', challenging in their own right, sprinkled through with bias, intended or not. (I'm sort of imagining Catholic clergy reading Latin with their backs to their nodding congregation :)...)

Anyhow, it looks like you're reading interesting stuff Coberst. Thanks for the post. I'm kind of following it too, not so closely, though. It's pretty eye-opening, and really accelerating science's 'impact' in these areas, that's for sure.


Psychopharmacology has also just landed on the beach with the whole continent before them as well.

Is it General Motors or an existential buffet?

Exciting times to be living in. My brain, once used to reading long books, now can only hold magazine length articles about scientists making mice fart by holding them up by their tails and tapping on their tummies with a pencil.

That's as far down the buffet line as I ever get anymore.

At some point I'm just going to have to relax and just BE.

[coberst]

Psychopharmacology has also just landed on the beach with the whole continent before them as well.

Is it General Motors or an existential buffet?

Exciting times to be living in. My brain, once used to reading long books, now can only hold magazine length articles about scientists making mice fart by holding them up by their tails and tapping on their tummies with a pencil.

That's as far down the buffet line as I ever get anymore.

At some point I'm just going to have to relax and just BE.

Past generations have you with a muddled mess that may extinguish you and this civilization at any moment. You can not afford the luxury of ignorance and apathy.

[backline]

...You can not afford the luxury of ignorance and apathy.


Is that what I implied?

I read.
I vote.

What would you have me do, kill the last mushwit we had in office to prove I'm not powerless to you?

[Brave Archer]

The mind and body working as one, they needed a computer for this. Besides, I don't believe any computer can duplicate the human psyche, in my opinion. Sometimes, I don't get science, they don't understand the brain in its entirety, but would like to explain to us common folk how it works.

10 years from now, a new magazine article will be published and "popular opinion" will once again change. They need to just need to let people be people.

[coberst]

Is that what I implied?

I read.
I vote.

What would you have me do, kill the last mushwit we had in office to prove I'm not powerless to you?


I would have you become a self-actualizing self-learner.

I have often wondered what the world would be like if adults had the energy level I see constantly displayed by children at play. Perhaps we see a bit of this energy when we see the old tycoon still struggling for more money and grasping for more power even as death appears eminent.

It appears to me that energy is generated in humans when we are in action and when that action meets certain needs. If we extrapolate from the children and adults at play we might very well conclude that when action is play, energy will continue to be generated.

How do we adults make our actions seem to be play rather than work? Action becomes play when we are creating. Also action becomes energy generating when it fulfills our needs for immortality.

I would claim that play, power, survival, and the need for immortality are the four sources of human energy.

In the beginning of civilization thought and knowledge was regarded as valuable things. However, we have discovered that thought and knowledge can also be dangerous and destructive. Today technology, one of our most touted accomplishments, is often presenting us with daunting dangers. “Therefore, with the growth of technology the human race is faced with tremendous crisis.”—David Bohm

“So the kind of thought that’s going on all around us begins to take over in every one of us, without our even knowing it. It’s spreading like a virus and each one of us is nourishing that virus…I’m trying to say that most of our thought in its general form is not individual. It originates in the whole culture and it pervades us.”--David Bohm

A fundamental need of our being is self-activation. The self-activation demanded of me may prove to be without inner friction, i.e. with inner pleasure or it may, contrarily, create inner discord and un-pleasure. The feeling of pleasure with self-activation “is always a feeling of free self-activation”.

Economics is a good example of how some sciences handle human relationships. Economics treats humans like objects and ignores there subjective aspects. Humans are treated as two dimensional rather than like a diamond with multiple facets. Economics is a good example of a science that ignores nonlinear problems, i.e. problems not under the lamp-post.

[billl]

Coberst, I think a lot of that is interesting, but it's too bad you're maybe inadvertently contributing to the oppressive urgings of science and science-centered thought. If we don't recognize our right, and the right of others, to turn away and flip through a book, watch a sunset, do some gardening, jog, meditate, sleep in, etc., then we'll have surrendered what we seem to be scrambling to protect.

I know the post has an empowering sentiment, and there are interesting points about how one might best be. But, after reading the Bohm quotes a couple times, I think he's addressing our infatuation with science as much as anything else. If there's any meme that I think needs to be spread, it's "Let's make sure people will be able to relax in the future." Nothing wrong with actualizing a self that is relaxed. In the face of piles of intriguing articles and discussion pouring out of technology's screens, turning back to one's real life, one's individual experience, and living on one's own terms is not apathy.

I've heard this call for energetic play towards infinity before, even heard calls for a blurring of the boundaries between work and play. It half-way sounds like Orwellian whip-cracking to me, wrapped-up in "it's good for you" sugar. I think it's interesting food for thought, and might help some people out, if they're in a rut. But I think some people are just gonna be more low-key about things. And they'll create good stuff, too.

What I do hope is that somehow, your posts and your cautions, and others like them, find their way to as many as possible, and can contribute to battle against the alarming trends that you're addressing. I applaud your concern over the new landscape that we can see rising up around us, and whether or not it is being shaped to our best interests.

[RichardHresko]

Before we get too crazy here, let's look at the claims:

Quote:
The mind is inherently embodied.
Thought is mostly unconscious.
Abstract concepts are largely metaphorical.

What exactly does the first claim really mean? Can it be proved?

The answer to the second question depends on one's answer to the first. If one chooses to define 'mind' as the consequence of certain biochemical operations that occur in the neo-cortex, then by definition the mind requires a body and the mind is inherently embodied. If by 'mind' one means consciousness then it is hard to see that one can prove that all aspects of the mind are embodied, since there may be parts that are not material, and thus would not show up in a physical test. Rejecting the existence of non-material beings is a metaphysical decision and is not one based on science. Scientific research is predicated on examining only what has physical existence and is neutral on the existence of any other type of being.

Thus it seems that either this statement is true based on its self-proclaimed definitions (and thus tautological) or it is unprovable.

The second statement is certainly nothing new. Nor does it invalidate the importance of conscious thought. Of course, how much thought is unconscious depends on what exactly one wants to mean by 'thought.'

William of Ockham beat the cognitive guys by several centuries on the third claim. Except he would have said that ALL abstracts are metaphorical in the sense that they do not have existence. That was at the heart of his argument with the Scholastics.

[backline]

I would have you become a self-actualizing self-learner...


I see.
You presume I am not.
By what criteria am I being judged?

Y'know what? Let's forget it.

Your opinion of me is none of my damn business.

[coberst]

Richard

It appears to me that CS has two paradigms, symbol manipulation (AI), and conceptual metaphor. When I speak of CS here I am speaking of the conceptual metaphor paradigm.

Cognitive science has radically attacked the traditional Western philosophical position that there is a dichotomy between perception and conception. This traditional view that perception is strictly a faculty of body and conception (the formation and use of concepts) is purely mental and wholly separate from and independent of our ability to perceive and move.

Cognitive science has introduced revolutionary theories that, if true, will change dramatically the views of Western philosophy. Advocates of the traditional view will, of course, “say that conceptual structure must have a neural realization in the brain, which just happens to reside in a body. But they deny that anything about the body is essential for characterizing what concepts are.”

The cognitive science claim is that ”the very properties of concepts are created as a result of the way the brain and body are structured and the way they function in interpersonal relations and in the physical world.”

The embodied-mind hypothesis therefore radically undercuts the perception/conception distinction. In an embodied mind, it is conceivable that the same neural system engaged in perception (or in bodily movements) plays a central role in conception. Indeed, in recent neural modeling research, models of perceptual mechanisms and motor schemas can actually do conception work in language learning and in reasoning.

A standard technique for checking out new ideas is to create computer models of the idea and subject that model to simulated conditions to determine if the model behaves as does the reality. Such modeling techniques are used constantly in projecting behavior of meteorological parameters.

Neural computer models have shown that the types of operations required to perceive and move in space require the very same type of capability associated with reasoning. That is, neural models capable of doing all of the things that a body must be able to do when perceiving and moving can also perform the same kinds of actions associated with reasoning, i.e. inferring, categorizing, and conceiving.

Our understanding of biology indicates that the body has a marvelous ability to do as any handyman does, i.e. make do with what is at hand. The body would, it seems logical to assume, take these abilities that exist in all creatures that move and survive in space and with such fundamental capabilities reshape it through evolution to become what we now know as our ability to reason. The first budding of the reasoning ability exists in all creatures that function as perceiving, moving, surviving, creatures.

Cognitive science has, it seems to me, connected our ability to reason with our bodies in such away as to make sense out of connecting reason with our biological evolution in ways that Western philosophy has not done, as far as I know.

It seems to me that Western philosophical tradition as always tried to separate mind from body and in so doing has never been able to show how mind, as was conceived by this tradition, could be part of Darwin’s theory of natural selection. Cognitive science now provides us with a comprehensible model for grounding all that we are both bodily and mentally into a unified whole that makes sense without all of the attempts to make mind as some kind of transcendent, mystical, reality unassociated with biology.

Quotes from “Philosophy in the Flesh”

[RichardHresko]

Richard

It appears to me that CS has two paradigms, symbol manipulation (AI), and conceptual metaphor. When I speak of CS here I am speaking of the conceptual metaphor paradigm.

Cognitive science has radically attacked the traditional Western philosophical position that there is a dichotomy between perception and conception. This traditional view that perception is strictly a faculty of body and conception (the formation and use of concepts) is purely mental and wholly separate from and independent of our ability to perceive and move.

Cognitive science has introduced revolutionary theories that, if true, will change dramatically the views of Western philosophy. Advocates of the traditional view will, of course, “say that conceptual structure must have a neural realization in the brain, which just happens to reside in a body. But they deny that anything about the body is essential for characterizing what concepts are.”

The cognitive science claim is that ”the very properties of concepts are created as a result of the way the brain and body are structured and the way they function in interpersonal relations and in the physical world.”

The embodied-mind hypothesis therefore radically undercuts the perception/conception distinction. In an embodied mind, it is conceivable that the same neural system engaged in perception (or in bodily movements) plays a central role in conception. Indeed, in recent neural modeling research, models of perceptual mechanisms and motor schemas can actually do conception work in language learning and in reasoning.

A standard technique for checking out new ideas is to create computer models of the idea and subject that model to simulated conditions to determine if the model behaves as does the reality. Such modeling techniques are used constantly in projecting behavior of meteorological parameters.

Neural computer models have shown that the types of operations required to perceive and move in space require the very same type of capability associated with reasoning. That is, neural models capable of doing all of the things that a body must be able to do when perceiving and moving can also perform the same kinds of actions associated with reasoning, i.e. inferring, categorizing, and conceiving.

Our understanding of biology indicates that the body has a marvelous ability to do as any handyman does, i.e. make do with what is at hand. The body would, it seems logical to assume, take these abilities that exist in all creatures that move and survive in space and with such fundamental capabilities reshape it through evolution to become what we now know as our ability to reason. The first budding of the reasoning ability exists in all creatures that function as perceiving, moving, surviving, creatures.

Cognitive science has, it seems to me, connected our ability to reason with our bodies in such away as to make sense out of connecting reason with our biological evolution in ways that Western philosophy has not done, as far as I know.

It seems to me that Western philosophical tradition as always tried to separate mind from body and in so doing has never been able to show how mind, as was conceived by this tradition, could be part of Darwin’s theory of natural selection. Cognitive science now provides us with a comprehensible model for grounding all that we are both bodily and mentally into a unified whole that makes sense without all of the attempts to make mind as some kind of transcendent, mystical, reality unassociated with biology.

Quotes from “Philosophy in the Flesh”

First of all, there is nothing new, and certainly nothing radical, in the idea that the body has something to do with the conception of ideas. From Aristotle, through the Roman proverb "mens sana in corpore sano," through the practices of the Greek monks of the sixth century, through Scholasticism, etc. this has been accepted. While there are others (Descartes, for example) who have held otherwise, it is inaccurate to characterize Western thought in so simplistic a fashion.

Secondly, there is a confusion between a claim and a proof in your argument. A claim is not proof of anything.

Thirdly, the neural modelling does not prove how other systems work (such as the human mind) merely because it can mimic results, any more than I can prove how birds fly by building an airplane. Models are, by their very nature, simplified versions of a more complex reality. They are suggestive but not determinative.

It might be a good idea to do some background reading on the history of western thought, the nature of scientific methods, and the conceptual basis for the use of models.

[The Atheist]

Why is Philosophy like General Motors?

Because they're both victims of technological improvements which neither came to terms with.

[coberst]

Because they're both victims of technological improvements which neither came to terms with.


Beautiful!! What a marvelous insight!!

[Buh4Bee]

The 'devils' and the 'angels' that dance around to morality's tune might still reside in details too sprawling for science's best net, leaving a mystery that transcendentalists and scientists will still fight over.

Everything that has been discussed about research currently developed by cognitive scientists is true. It's logical to think that humans learn by what they experience and perceive in their environment, despite all the empirical evidence.

With that said, it only seems like natural transition in the thread to ask where religion or spirituality falls into this argument? I know that there has been research that maps what happens to the brain while one meditates. There is a very real physiological reaction in the body when one is in this state that can be mapped in the frontal lobes. Therefore, if one is having a divine moment, is it created by the body or is there divine communion? Of course, no one can really answer this(or can they?).

So I appreciate the recognition that this is an argument the transcendentalists and scientists will need to hash out. I think as more research is developed, we will see more of these types of discussions emerging. We are living in a very exciting time! Awesome thread, thanks!

[Buh4Bee]

It might be a good idea to do some background reading on the history of western thought, the nature of scientific methods, and the conceptual basis for the use of models.


For me, it would be helpful to be more specific about what philosophers or philosophy you are deconstructing.

[RichardHresko]

For me, it would be helpful to be more specific about what philosophers or philosophy you are deconstructing.

That was my point. Coberst has made some blanket statements about 'Western philosophy,' as though there were only one tradition in the West.

A more basic problem in this thread is that there is an assumption that what science can reveal about the mind, what we can know about the mind, and what the mind is are all identical. Certainly one can make such an assumption for one's own convenience (or if one has a psychological need to feel that one has THE answer, or at least a way to get there), but intellectual honesty would seem to require that we acknowledge that we are indeed making such an assumption.

[The Atheist]

That was my point. Coberst has made some blanket statements about 'Western philosophy,' as though there were only one tradition in the West.

You don't think there's a reasonably consistent philosophy through what we generally call "the west"?

Seems to me that universities across the English-speaking nations are highly consistent with each other, and those of European universities, not far away.

Obviously, there is no single strand of thought, but describing "western philosophy" seems to me to be as accepted as "western medicine".


A more basic problem in this thread is that there is an assumption that what science can reveal about the mind, what we can know about the mind, and what the mind is are all identical. Certainly one can make such an assumption for one's own convenience (or if one has a psychological need to feel that one has THE answer, or at least a way to get there), but intellectual honesty would seem to require that we acknowledge that we are indeed making such an assumption.

The single again is that everything in the universe is material. I think "presumption" rather than "assumption" is a better description as the presumption is made on enormous evidence, while an assumption requires no input other than a desire to believe the assumption, which I don't think applies to many serious thinkers.

In the case of the human mind, being able to use MRI scans to show that human brains behave consistently in a material way does raise the probability that the mind is as material - and predictable - as a rock.

I'm honestly interested in what your point is, because you certainly stick to it.

You clearly don't accept the presumption that materialism rules the universe, and your objection is centred on the human mind.

Your arguments are very similar to theist reasoning in terms of refusal to accept the material world, but you don't appear an obvious theist. Is it just a philosophical exclusion - that we can't "know" for certain, hence must be agnostic, or do you actually have a specific reason for being anti-materialist?

[billl]

Just to jump in with one possible avenue for materialists to at least consider (and I am IN NO WAY suggesting that this is the case, just passing on an idea I picked up somewhere):

To presume that observed changes in behavior resulting from damage to particular parts of the brain, or that MRI-observed consistency of brain activity during certain mental processes are evidence of the material embodiment of the mind is certainly a strongly defensible position. It is, given the preponderance of cases where materialism succeeds grandly, a simple case of Occam's Razor to give greatest weight to this presumption. I wouldn't really put my money anywhere else (if I had to).

However, until the deal is done, and until the full reach of materialism is completely established (I mean, even after we manage to find the Higgs Boson, we'd still have some more reserch and proving to do...), there's still reason for scepticism--no need for all of science to place their bets on the same numbers, no matter how likely they might be.

For example, if an amateur scientist from the mid-19th century were transported to 1970's America and presented with a TV, s/he might draw certain conclusions about how it works, by observing the effect of cutting wires to the speaker, or altering the position of the electron guns inside it (or disabling one of them). The presumption that the material structure of the TV is responsible for the pictures and sound it produces would be a wise, Occam's Razor type of thing to arrive at. However, the idea that the source of the images and sound is embodied in the television would, in the end, prove to be short-sighted.

Still, a lot would be learned via such tinkering, and what really was learned would be extremely useful, relative to a lot of non-material speculation that might have gone on about the TV, among those less scientifically-inclined.

Finally, I want to make clear that I understand that TV's, TV signals, and TV transmitters are all explainable by materialism. I am not suggesting that people are televisions. I'm just pointing out that the observation of the function of machinery can sometimes be at a surprising step removed from control of it's operation.

[The Atheist]

However, until the deal is done, and until the full reach of materialism is completely established (I mean, even after we manage to find the Higgs Boson, we'd still have some more reserch and proving to do...), there's still reason for scepticism--no need for all of science to place their bets on the same numbers, no matter how likely they might be.

Firstly, I don't think science makes any assumptions beyond what is observable and recordable is really happening, but the more important point is that you've highlighted that strength of science again: nobody gets a free pass, because all experiments are repeatable, and if the results aren't, it ain't science.

I agree that reductionism is a bit of a problem and will eternally be so.

As theists put it - the operation of the same part of the brain in religious thinking could equally be a material phenomenon, or just where the god happened to put his hotline.


For example, if an amateur scientist from the mid-19th century were transported to 1970's America and presented with a TV, s/he might draw certain conclusions about how it works, by observing the effect of cutting wires to the speaker, or altering the position of the electron guns inside it (or disabling one of them). The presumption that the material structure of the TV is responsible for the pictures and sound it produces would be a wise, Occam's Razor type of thing to arrive at. However, the idea that the source of the images and sound is embodied in the television would, in the end, prove to be short-sighted.

I think that's a misreprentation of how a scientist would look at it. Remember, invisible forces have been known for hundreds of years. I can't imagine Newton being satisfied easily that the box was all there was to it.


I'm just pointing out that the observation of the function of machinery can sometimes be at a surprising step removed from control of it's operation.

Which again emphasises why one scientist's discoveries aren't ever trumpeted as discoveries until they've been repeated by anyone wishing to replicate the study/experiment.

[billl]

Thanks for the thorough and reasoned response, theAtheist. I just want to point out that Newton is simultaneously a great example of science's incredible ability to explain profound mysteries, as well as miss subtleties that have profound ramifications for our understanding of the universe. (No knock on Newton, far from it!) I also liked your stress on repeatability, as well as (I think) fixing a realistic scope on claims.

And keeping an open eye for "invisible forces" ;)

[The Atheist]

I just want to point out that Newton is simultaneously a great example of science's incredible ability to explain profound mysteries, as well as miss subtleties that have profound ramifications for our understanding of the universe. (No knock on Newton, far from it!)

Exactly! Although I think most of that came from lack of equipment. Imagine what he might have done with 21st century science.