A debate on science and the humanities; Wiesltier takes on Pinker

[Nick Capozzoli]

I agree with you about there being no compelling reductionist explanation for human consciousness. Indeed, I'd go further and say there is no compelling explanation for human consciousness, reductionist or otherwise. But I think that reductionist explanations have a better grip on explaining thinking. For instance, chess computers can now beat the world's best chess players and I think it's reasonable to say they are better thinkers when it comes to chess. Isn't thinking, mostly, a logical process, and can't that just as well be done by machines? But are chess computers conscious? That I don't know. I kind of doubt it, but maybe that's just my human bias.

We both agree on this point! there are some folks who believe that there is no reductionist explanation for consciousness. These folks seem to be willing to accept less intellectually rigorous "explanations," which I consider to be "holistic" hypotheses of consciousness. These holistic hypotheses range from religious/philosophical arguments, such as de Chardin's notion that consciousness "emerges" at a certain level of material "complexity," to the more "scientifically plausible" notions of folks like Rose who assert, with little justification and verifiability of their claims, that quantum physical principles can explain how consciousness "emerges" from brain structure. Rose and de Chardin may be onto something, but neither has given us an intellectually satisfying answer to the problem.

I remain hopeful that someone will be able to come up with a satisfactory explanation. As I said earlier, anyone who does come up with such an explanation would deserve our highest praise, no less than the praise we have for such great scientists as Newton, Darwin, and Einstein.

[mal4mac]

... there are some folks who believe that there is no reductionist explanation for consciousness. These folks seem to be willing to accept less intellectually rigorous "explanations," which I consider to be "holistic" hypotheses of consciousness. These holistic hypotheses range from religious/philosophical arguments, such as de Chardin's notion that consciousness "emerges" at a certain level of material "complexity," to the more "scientifically plausible" notions of folks like Rose who assert, with little justification and verifiability of their claims, that quantum physical principles can explain how consciousness "emerges" from brain structure...

Is that Stephen Rose the biologist? I know of The Quantum idea through Penrose's work, and I agree it is unconvincing. I can see it might be an emergent property, but I'm wary of de Chardin's mystifications. I guess I'm very close to the reductionists. I favour the idea that consciousness is like the human appendix, just a useless by product of evolution, with no function, and no ultimate meaning.

[Nick Capozzoli]

Is that Stephen Rose the biologist? I know of The Quantum idea through Penrose's work, and I agree it is unconvincing. I can see it might be an emergent property, but I'm wary of de Chardin's mystifications. I guess I'm very close to the reductionists. I favour the idea that consciousness is like the human appendix, just a useless by product of evolution, with no function, and no ultimate meaning.

Roger Penrose (I think he's a physicist but could be wrong) was the guy who came up with the catchy phrase, "the god of the gap." Stephen Rose, the UK biologist, seems to have taken up some of these ideas to argue against a materialist/reductionist theory of mind, and he does seem to have a certain sociopolitical point of view. I was actually thinking about a master's thesis in philosophy written by a Stephen Rose in Canada. The thesis is available on line and discusses, quite well IMHO, the various theoretical approaches to the understanding of consciousness. I should have made it clear that Penrose, and not Stephen Rose, coined the term "the god of the gap." In any case, that is, essentially a "mysterian" way of thinking about consciousness, much like de Chardin's.

[SFG75]

I’m not sure it’s stressed any more now than in previous decades. During the Cold War, America was obsessed with beating the Russians to the moon, and developing the best technology. If anything, science was stressed MORE in (for example) the 1960s than it is today.

In reading Pinker, perhaps the better term for "stressed" would be "running roughshod over" other areas. Take psychology. Cognitive-behavioral therapy and psychoanalysis are on their heels, figuratively speaking, as neural research has led to the creation of various SSRI medications and examinations of the organic cause of mental disorders. There has been a fear that insurance companies and the public at large would clamor for a pill, as opposed to time with a therapist. Granted, both items are most beneficial, but I have yet to hear of a breakthrough in the study of psychology that isn't related to brain research and medication. The good members who have replied to this thread have mentioned the CERN research. We could also add the accomplishment of the mapping of the human genome to the ever growing accomplishments of science. Could we name one for the humanities? Another post-modern paper?? Pinker's account of what the dean told him in regards to who hits the office door is interesting, an anecdote for sure, but one that I have heard before as well.

Ecurb:

In fact, there is probably less optimism about science and technology today than there has been in a century. Pollution, global warming, the reduction of the fossil fuel supply (and more) have reduced our faith in the notion that science is inevitably progressive in terms of helping people lead better lives.

If you are having a pint with a Ph.D. economist, you generally know the construct of which he/she will attack your position. If you are sitting across from a psychologist, you can expect an argument about underlying causes. If you are sitting across from a philosophy major, you will get their position, as well as be annoyed. Place all of these individuals across from a biochemist and you won't find one of them that has a powerful construct to attack or take down the position of the scientist. At least, a coherent construct or vantage point. To me, science is flawed and does have weak points, I'm not sure anyone at this point has the best argument to expose those flaws, though vaguely, you, me, and other members here are aware of some of those blights. I would venture vaguely to say that when it comes to "meaning" and other existential questions, the floor under science disappears.

Faith in scientific reductionism is, I think, shakier than it has been for decades. We are moving from a modernist world, typified by grand, reductionist explanations in science, history and other fields, to a post-modernist world, typified by the rejection of master narratives, and their replacement with localized and contingent theories. The post-modernist critique of modernism seems valid; where we go from here seems problematic.

I would like to relate this part to Pinker's premise of the demise of the humanities. The enlightenment, romanticism, and the progressive era of the late 19th and early 20th centuries bravely pointed "the way" for...well....humanity. As I look around now, I don't see a humanities viewpoint that does this. I think if anything, that is what is needed now more than ever. Pinker is correct, the humanities appear to be ebbing in the face of *techno progress* I'm not certain who the next William James or Voltaire is, but he/she is desperately needed. Would you agree?

[mal4mac]

We could also add the accomplishment of the mapping of the human genome to the ever growing accomplishments of science. Could we name one for the humanities? Another post-modern paper??

Difficult to think of a great post-modern paper; but this is rather unfair. Don't films, symphonies and novels count as accomplishments in the humanities?

I would venture vaguely to say that when it comes to "meaning" and other existential questions, the floor under science disappears.

That seems a bit overly dramatic; many scientists seem to get their "meaning" from doing science, they find it fun and society rewards them for it, what further meaning do they need?

Pinker is correct, the humanities appear to be ebbing in the face of *techno progress* I'm not certain who the next William James or Voltaire is, but he/she is desperately needed. Would you agree?

Having just read Willam James' "Will to Believe" I think we need someone better than him (and in fact I think there are several people who *are* better, including Pinker.)

[The Atheist]

... I would venture vaguely to say that when it comes to "meaning" and other existential questions, the floor under science disappears...

That's not the way I see it.

The best analogy of all time is Deep Thought's search for the answer to the Great Question of Life, The Universe, and Everything. The answer, which was of course 42, was inexplicable to the beings who created the computer, because they didn't know how to ask the right question.

You're blaming science for not being able to give a packaged answer, but what is the actual question?

"Easy!" says the philosopher "What is the material explanation for consciousness"?

"No problem" says the scientist, "Please give me a description of what consciousness is, so we I can answer?"

"Uhhhhh...." The philosopher scratches his head and asks about "Thoughts!"

The scientist goes on to explain which bits of the brain produce which thoughts, which bits light up when the subject thinks about certain subjects and again asks what the question actually is.

At this stage, the philosopher wanders off, pulling out tufts of hair.

If you formulate a simple, coherent question on what this consciousness is, you'll be a very smart person indeed, since I've never seen much agreement on the subject.

[Melanie]

...says the philosopher "What is the material explanation for consciousness"?...The scientist goes on to explain which bits of the brain produce which thoughts, which bits light up when the subject thinks about certain subjects.

That's just a cause and effect of what God created. Oops, sorry, I thought this was the religious thread.

[DamonWest]

That doesn't seem to be correct. Doesn't "reductionism" refer to the process of trying to explain "complex" phenomena by seeking out
"simple" rules/mechanisms and extrapolating from these in a way that we can go from the "simple" to the "complex?" A good historical example
of this "reductionist" approach would include the way that the Copernican heliocentric view of the solar system explained retrograde planetary
motion, without the need for the geocentric "epicycles." Newtonian mechanics is certainly a "reductionist" approach to cosmology, in that it did a
good job of explaining a hodgepodge of astronomical observations based on very simple and ingenious mathematical/physical assumptions (Newton's
laws of motion and the gravitational equation). Indeed, Newton was able to derive the elliptical orbits of planets from his simple laws of motion and
the gravitational force, and thus explain Kepler's astronomical observations. This was quite brilliant, and in its day as remarkable as the verification
of Einstein's theory of relativity by astronomical observations during a solar eclipse...

"Holistic" scientific explanations are essentially limited to efforts to explain "complex" phenomena that we have been unable to explain by extrapolating
from "fundamental" principles that describe the behavior of the "parts" of material system. In such cases one is tempted to argue that the "unexplainable"
complex phenomena somehow "emerge" from the material system A good example of such a complex system would be the human brain, which is an organ
composed of well-defined neurons in a fairly complex structure (the brain). This structure is dimensionally finite (it fits within the human cranium). Nonetheless,
it is clear that this finite organ, composed of a finite number of interconnected neurons, whose physiological function is also fairly well understood, somehow
leads to what we call human "consciousness."

How consciousness "emerges" from this neuronal assembly is something that we have not been able to adequately explain, so far, in a "reductionist" way.

Because we haven't been able to explain consciousness by a reductionist approach, some folks have taken the "holistic" approach, which basically comes down to
a claim that "the whole is greater than the parts," and that the complex behaviors we can't explain by extrapolation from simple principles ought to be explained by something less "scientific," e.g. the mysterious emergence of the "unexplainable" phenomenon, say consciousness. Such an approach is more in line with religious belief than science.

We need to follow scientific approach..These holistic way is too complex and must not be followed