If the non-naturalist explanation is that intelligibility is somehow an essential feature of things, even a matter of essences that allow an "agent intellect" to grasp their meaning and significance, would that apply only to symbolic language enabled beings or would it apply to animals also — Janus

Yes, I think it might apply to animals. But we can't talk to them.

The argument pivots on whether physicalism can explain intelligibility. The reasoning for why it can’t is what I’m trying to drill into. See above.

Naturalism or physicalism?

Probably both. But a problem with "naturalism" is that it’s so vague that you can smuggle a lot into it. I think the explanatory gap for intentionality applies to both naturalism and physicalism, because both seem to share the central assumption that everything, including mental states can be explained in terms of physical processes or natural laws.

I’m not accusing you of sidestepping the problem, but you can see how people might call this avoidance. In other words, if I say the model is wrong, I don’t have to engage with it, I can just change the subject. — Tom Storm

Fair point.

I'll try to stay more focused. These were just my first thoughts.

Yes, and this is really the area I’m interested in: understanding the argument, not refuting it or trying to sidestep it. I want the best possible formulation of this argument. We often move so fast on this site that, for the most part, people are playing a kind of tennis with their own preconceptions: you hold this, I return your serve with mine.

Hart’s argument concerns an explanatory gap. Even if every mental state is correlated with a brain state, that only gives a correlation, it doesn’t explain why the brain state represents the world rather than merely being a physical pattern. The point, it seems is that naturalistic accounts struggle to bridge the gap from physical patterns to meaningful content. — Tom Storm

Cool. Sorry for starting out critically, then. It was my first instinct and reactive.

I wouldn't put naturalism in terms of mental states and brain states, though I can understand that rendition. I suppose part of me is thinking that it's easy enough to adapt naturalism in different ways such that there is no explanatory gap.

Which, yes, charitably that means I don't understand the argument.

We often end up in physicalist or naturalist circles claiming that our mysteries are explained by evolution or complexity and emergence, and that time will answer them definitively, or that we’ve described the problem incorrectly, so we simply restate it in a way that makes it disappear.

Which, yes, charitably that means I don't understand the argument. — Moliere

What I potentially like about the argument is its apparent simplicity (although, obviously, I don’t fully understand it). It isn’t talking about consciousness, mind, or any number of tedious philosophical problems; it is simply saying that a mere point of view can’t be explained by naturalistic processes.

Fair point.

I'll try to stay more focused. These were just my first thoughts. — Moliere

Coming back to this. I wasn’t being critical of you or your thinking; I apologize if it came across that way. We’re all just fumbling through this stuff. :up: :up:

Coming back to this. I wasn’t being critical of you or your thinking; I apologize if it came across that way. We’re all just fumbling through this stuff. :up: :up: — Tom Storm

Heh thanks. I didn't know and mostly was just worried that I went out into left field too much.

But a problem with "naturalism" is that it’s so vague that you can smuggle a lot into it. I think the explanatory gap for intentionality applies to both naturalism and physicalism, because both seem to share the central assumption that everything, including mental states can be explained in terms of physical processes or natural laws. — Tom Storm

The critique of naturalism emanating from phenomenology is, as has been mentioned, quite different from Hart’s objections to it. For instance, Merleau-Ponty argues that empirical accounts of perception succumb to the myth of the given. At the core of the myth of the given is not just the idea of “raw sense data,” but the deeper assumption that perception begins with something already fully determinate, such as neural signals, stimulus features and information, that is then processed or interpreted. Many neurological models describe perception as the transformation of incoming signals into representations: edges, contrasts, motion vectors, object files, predictive hypotheses, and so on.

The “input” to the system is treated as if it were already a perceptual unit, already individuated as visual information, when in lived experience there is no such pre-perceptual layer. What the neuroscientist calls “input” is itself a reconstruction abstracted from an already meaningful encounter with the world. The retina does not receive “edges” or “features”; it is we who later describe neural activity as if it were encoding them. The world is perceived in terms of what it affords, not as a neutral array of data awaiting interpretation. No amount of neural description can recover this level, because it presupposes it.

Nice. I don’t think the world in general has caught up to any of this. How long will it take?

But I wonder if it justifies the criticisms against naturalism on the basis of intelligibility. — Moliere

I think this is exactly the right question. And I agree: the point we’ve converged on (truth not collapsing into warrant) doesn’t automatically refute “naturalism” if by naturalism we mean something like methodological commitment to the sciences.

Where it arguably becomes a problem is for a stronger naturalism—one that treats reality as exhaustively describable in the idiom of efficient causation, and treats normativity/intentionality as reducible to that idiom. If what-is-the-case is not constituted by our justificatory norms, then truth is a genuine constraint that isn’t identical with any social practice. But it’s also not obviously the sort of thing that can be captured in purely causal vocabulary.

The reason that normativity purportedly can't be grounded in efficient causality is that causal explanation and normative status come apart. An efficient-causal story can tell us why a belief arose (neural mechanisms, evolutionary pressures, reinforcement histories, etc.), but none of that by itself tells us whether the belief is true, false, valid, invalid, justified, or unjustified. Two people could arrive at beliefs through the same kinds of causal pathways and yet one be right and the other wrong depending on how things actually are. So the causal story underdetermines the normative story. That’s why the worry isn’t that naturalism can’t describe cognition, but that it struggles to account for the binding “ought” of truth and correctness using only the “is” of causal sequence.

So the worry isn’t “science can’t work,” but that the intelligibility presupposed by science (truth, validity, correctness) can’t be ontologically grounded in a picture of the world as fundamentally non-normative. That’s where Hart thinks naturalism quietly leans on what it can’t fully account for.

In other words: the critique isn’t of naturalism as method, but of naturalism as a total metaphysics. The issue isn’t whether naturalism can describe how we reason, but whether it can make sense of why reason is answerable to truth at all.

↪Joshs Nice. I don’t think the world in general has caught up to any of this. How long will it take? — Tom Storm

There are promising signs that mainstream neuropsychological approaches are starting to nibble at the edges of phenomenology. The popular free-energy predictive processing branch of neuroscience used to ignore phenomenology-influenced embodied enactive approaches , but lately there has been a rapprochement between the two camps.

If intelligibility is not intrinsic to reality, then “success” can be explained causally, but it becomes unclear what licenses the further inference to correctness or truth. And that’s exactly where normativity enters. — Esse Quam Videri

I more or less agree with you. But I'm not sure that you can 'explain' anything without positing intelligibility. Rather, intelligibility seems to be the ground for any explanation.