Why is Philosophy like General Motors?

[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.