What does some "philosophical argument" have to do with a well-tested biological theory? :mask:

Indeed, one of the main points at issue. Something to do with philosophical shortcomings of naturalism.

Naturalism is a conceptual paradigm, biology is a natural science, NeoDarwinian Evolution is a scientific model. Try not to confuse, or conflate, them, Wayfarer. 'Objections to naturalism' are irrelevant to biology, chemistry, physics, etc.

But then, biologists may be poor judges of philosophical argument. — Wayfarer

As may mystics and theists.

Any "truth" that lacks a truth-maker or corroborating public evidence is reasonably discountable (Hume, Kant, Clifford, Popper, Sagan) except, at best, as a fiction. — 180 Proof

:up: I really cannot see any reason why this should be denied. It seems to me that those who reject it are those who just don't want to accept it. These interminable arguments that are not really arguments at all ! :roll:

NeoDarwinian Evolution is a scientific model…. — 180 Proof

…which also serves as an ideological attitude, as amply illustrated in many exchanges here.

Yes, yes, we all know there is another framework. What you need to argue for is exclusivity. . . .
As I understand it, you are not proposing an alternative scientific theory, and imagine your quest as challenging a foundational assumption of science. . . .
Your choice then is (1) present your view as a genuine scientific hypothesis; (2) challenge the methodology of science. Mostly theists opt for door number 2, and defend revelation as knowledge producing. . . . .
There is one last alternative, which is not to challenge science but to live alongside it, — Srap Tasmaner

Personally, I don't read 's modest proposals as "challenging science" or arguing for "exclusivity" of philosophical reasoning versus scientific reasoning. Like me, he seems to be content with the pragmatic scientific "revelations" of the material world. But, at the same time, he is keenly aware that the human mind is still a black box*1 for those who seek a material explanation for Mental phenomena, such as Reasoning. That's why he is not proposing "an alternative scientific theory", or "challenging a foundational assumption", but instead, exploring some ancient & modern philosophical theories --- perhaps parallel to the materialistic presumptions, rather than diametrically opposed. Black vs White oppositions are typical of politics, but when philosophy gets into politics, what you get is Sophistry.

Your insistence on a "genuine scientific hypothesis" may reveal an implicit attitude of exclusivity : "Philosophy has nothing important to say about the 'hard problem', so only a scientific hypothesis can be taken seriously". It's true that philosophical theorizing is unlikely to reveal the physical "seat of consciousness". Yet a quick overview of current scientific hypotheses reveals that the imaginary "seat" seems to be all over the place, mostly in the head*2. Each team points to a different "grid" or region of the brain. But, are these localized conjectures any more authoritative than the generalized speculations of philosophers? For example, Chalmers is asking general "why" queries (relationships), instead of specific "what" questions (neurons)*3. FYI : David Chalmers is a professor of philosophy and neural science at New York University,

This is a philosophy forum. So why would you require an amateur philosopher to provide a "genuine scientific hypothesis", when the professional scientists, after years of research, are still arguing among themselves? Why should we force Philosophy to "challenge" Science, when they are so successful in working side-by-side*4? For example, Einstein was not an empirical scientist, but a mathematical seeker after a priori or necessary truths of nature. He postulated hypotheses based primarily on imagination*5, and then waited for the empiricists to provide the hard evidence to support what he already knew to be true : teamwork. Perhaps Wayfarer is already opting for your "last alternative". :smile:

PS___I interpret Wayfarer's "revelations" to be those of Imagination, rather than of divine Inspiration. He has already explained that he is not a theist, as you seem to imply.


*1. What does the mind is a black box mean? :
To behaviorists, the mind is a “black box.” In science and engineering, the term black box refers to any complex device for which we know the inputs and outputs, but not the inner workings.
https://www.td.org/insights/why-the-brain-is-still-a-black-box-and-what-to-do-about-it

*2. Seat of Consciousness :

"The brainstem is the seat of human consciousness"
https://medium.com/@philipodegard/the-seat-of-human-consciousness-6dbce3bfa6de

" At least two regions of the brain decide what we perceive"
https://neurosciencenews.com/neuroscience-consciousness-brain-regions-1362/

"It found that consciousness may emerge from a grid-like interconnection of neurons at the back of the head. . . . The reigning theory is just a first win. The opposing team—which thinks consciousness stems from the executive frontal parts of the brain—is ready to fight back with a new test design."
https://singularityhub.com/2023/06/27/where-does-consciousness-originate-two-leading-theories-go-head-to-head/

*3. Physics vs Experience :
The hard problem of consciousness (Chalmers 1995) is the problem of explaining the relationship between physical phenomena, such as brain processes, and experience (i.e., phenomenal consciousness, or mental states/events with phenomenal qualities or qualia).
http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Hard_problem_of_consciousness

*4. Empirical vs Theoretical Science :
Science is about empirical knowledge; philosophy is often about that but is also about a priori knowledge (if it exists). Science is about contingent facts or truths; philosophy is often about that but is also about necessary truths (if they exist).
https://1000wordphilosophy.com/2018/02/13/philosophy-and-its-contrast-with-science/

*5. PHILOSOPHY IS APPLIED IMAGINATION
To imagine is to represent without aiming at things as they actually, presently, and subjectively are. One can use imagination to represent possibilities other than the actual, to represent times other than the present, and to represent perspectives other than one’s own. Unlike perceiving and believing, imagining something does not require one to consider that something to be the case. Unlike desiring or anticipating, imagining something does not require one to wish or expect that something to be the case.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/imagination/

…which also serves as an ideological attitude, as amply illustrated in many exchanges here. — Wayfarer

When it is presented as a philosophical position it is not so much an ideology as an inference to the best explanation, which is that humans evolved from a common ancestor with other primates to become what they are today. I don't think anyone with half a brain would deny that social and cultural factors also played a huge part in that human evolution, and that language and all it enables sets us apart, for better or worse, from all other animals. To say that the whole thing was somehow planned, a claim for which there can be no evidence, would amount to espousing an ideology.

I don't think Einstein was thinking about imagination as a faculty standing free from science, but rather in its service.

Thank you.

To say that the whole thing was somehow planned, a claim for which there can be no evidence, would amount to espousing an ideology. — Janus

Indeed. Conversely, what philosophical point do you think is being made by this oft-cited trope?

As someone somewhere on this forum once said, the answer to "How long would it take monkeys to compose the complete works of Shakespeare?" is about 300,000 years. That experiment has already been run. — Srap Tasmaner

The philosophical point seems to be that we evolved from ancestral animals along with all the other contemporary species, and that what we are able to do courtesy of language is not something which sets us apart in the sense of being altogether different kinds of beings. Looked at from the perspective of ecology language is one enormous adaptive advantage in one sense, and an enormous disadvantage in another; in that we have been able to continue to overuse resources to our own detriment, whereas other species who do that get knocked back in a timely way.

I took the point to be the claim that life originates as a chance event. The analogy of monkeys typing represents the random combination of elements that just happened to form themselves into organisms.

Considering the number of posdible combinations of English words, not to mention the almost infintely greater number of possible combinations of the letters, punctuations and spaces, the idea that one of Shakespeare's plays could have been produced by random typing is absurd.

On the other hand the elements combine in only very limited, lawlike ways, and there are only four 'letters' in the genetic code. so it seems a poor analogy.

I don't think Einstein was thinking about imagination as a faculty standing free from science, but rather in its service. — Janus

:up:

I took the point to be the claim that life originates as a chance event. — Wayfarer

"Biological evolution" models the development of life just as "Big Bang cosmology" models the development of the universe – neither model explains the "origin" of life or the universe, respectively. However, as reasons to the best explanation, both models (usually) eliminate intelligent reliance on non/super-natural "origin stories".

Right, the chain of explanation is always potentially without end. The child can always endlessly ask 'why?'.

Indeed. Conversely, what philosophical point do you think is being made by this oft-cited trope?

As someone somewhere on this forum once said, the answer to "How long would it take monkeys to compose the complete works of Shakespeare?" is about 300,000 years. That experiment has already been run. — Srap Tasmaner — Wayfarer

Probably not a great number for me to have chosen, since that's the emergence of homo sapiens. Something in the millions for hominids or for simians would have been a better choice.

Looked at from the perspective of ecology language is one enormous adaptive advantage in one sense — Janus

I wasn't making any claim about language, or about the adaptive value of language. The point stands if you ask "How long would it take mammals to produce the work of Shakespeare?" and move the starting-point back even more -- but it's not as picturesque as the monkeys.

I took the point to be the claim that life originates as a chance event. — Wayfarer

Truly bizarre. I am speechless.

The analogy of monkeys typing represents the random combination of elements that just happened to form themselves into organisms. — Wayfarer

Now, see, if you had thought about it for a minute, you might have realized that I was making exactly the opposite point. Evolution gets results in the timeframes that it does by not being random. It threw up mammals, then simians, then hominids, then finally something like us. Took millions of years to keep ratcheting up the complexity that would so dramatically increase our cognitive capacity that we might have among us one -- and even then only one, among all the humans who have ever lived -- with the mind of Shakespeare.

I don't have to claim that the ability to write blank verse revenge tragedies is an adaptive advantage. I'm not insane.

The point I have been making is only that the creature that produced Lear shares, what is it, 99.5% of his DNA with chimpanzees, and more than a little with plenty of other terrestrial life forms. He is a product of the same process that produced every living thing we know of.

Now you want to say that his body is, but his mind -- no, no, that's, I don't know, magic, or whatever it is you think makes humans dramatically different from everything else living. And yet it's perfectly obvious that evolution endowed other creatures with mind as well. We are not so unique as all that. And there's more and more evidence that our minds have little flaws that betray their evolutionary origins, just as our bodies do, just as all animals do. Evolution loves a workable kludge.

Personally, I don't read ↪Wayfarer's modest proposals as "challenging science" or arguing for "exclusivity" of philosophical reasoning versus scientific reasoning. — Gnomon

Did you read the OP?

I wasn't making any claim about language, or about the adaptive value of language. The point stands if you ask "How long would it take mammals to produce the work of Shakespeare?" and move the starting-point back even more -- but it's not as picturesque as the monkeys. — Srap Tasmaner

I took you to be saying that a monkey descendant has produced the work of Shakespeare. and thus that the experiment has already been run. Obviously the work could not have been produced without language, so I took the role of language in the experiment as implcitly given.

I took you to be saying that a monkey descendant has produced the work of Shakespeare. and thus that the experiment has already been run. Obviously the work could not have been produced without language, so I took the role of language in the experiment as implcitly given. — Janus

Sure, sure. I just don't have to commit to anything about the origin of language, I don't think.

It was an ape that wrote Lear. Obviously it was an ape that could write. So he was a member of a species that it is capable of language use, however that happened.

It's just the old "Make an apple pie from scratch" joke.

Sure, sure. I just don't have to commit to anything about the origin of language, I don't think.

It was an ape that wrote Lear. Obviously it was an ape that could write. So he was a member of a species that it is capable of language use, however that happened. — Srap Tasmaner

:up:

You know, if you had seen little Will Shakespeare as an infant, as a toddler, you wouldn't have thought him capable of writing Lear, if only because until he did it, nobody knew it was a thing that could be done. And, of course, because his feet were muddy and he didn't know very many words yet.

But that child does grow into Shakespeare, a wonder of human history.

Well so it is with his species. To see those little furry things skulking about, burrowing underground or climbing trees to avoid being eaten my those freakin' reptiles, you couldn't guess their descendants would include Will Shakespeare, or that they would one day transform this planet's ecosystem or build machines that could take them into space. But we don't have to guess because we know it did happen.

(This isn't a rebuttal of anything you said, just some further thoughts in response.)

Evolution gets results in the timeframes that it does by not being random. — Srap Tasmaner

I took it as a reference to the million monkeys trope https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem, often invoked as an account of how life could have started as a consequence of chance.

The point I have been making is only that the creature that produced Lear shares, what is it, 99.5% of his DNA with chimpanzees, and more than a little with plenty of other terrestrial life forms. He is a product of the same process that produced every living thing we know of. — Srap Tasmaner

Plainly, but the difference makes a difference. H Sapiens has passed an evolutionary threshold with the faculty of reason and language being key to that. That brings with it capabilities which I don’t believe are reducible to biology.

t threw up mammals, then simians, then hominids, then finally something like us. — Srap Tasmaner

I think you will find that any idea of there being progress in this sense is rejected by mainstream biology on account of it being orthogenetic which is defined as the theory that evolutionary variations follow a particular direction and are not sporadic and fortuitous. As it happens the process has turned out h. sapiens, but there's no reason given in the theory as to why that particular outcome. And indeed the fact that there is no reason in that sense is central to the whole argument.

I took it as a reference to — Wayfarer

Good lord, yes, of course it is.

often invoked as an account of how life could have started as a consequence of chance — Wayfarer

Okay, maybe, sure, someone might've said that, but the use of the image for various purposes is long established, it wasn't invented just for talking about abiogenesis or for talking about evolution, though yes it's a favorite crackpot argument of creationists, which is why people like me refer directly to it in rebutting them. Do you really not understand how this works?

evolutionary threshold — Wayfarer

Define. Better yet, define it non-circularly so that Fodor's ghost doesn't haunt you.

capabilities which I don’t believe are reducible to biology — Wayfarer

Neat. Did we acquire these capabilities biologically?

By the way, what does it mean for a capability to be reducible to biology?

t threw up mammals, then simians, then hominids, then finally something like us. — Srap Tasmaner

I think you will find that any idea of there being progress in this sense is rejected by mainstream biology — Wayfarer

You may notice that the connectives there are then's -- not and then even better's. I could have said what you think I said, but, as it happens, I didn't.

But you read it that way, which means you assumed I was talking about progress, which means you ought to be chiding yourself not me. Go easy on yourself though.

Another way to read what I actually wrote was from the general to the specific, just taxonomy spread out chronologically, something speciation tends to do.

Another way to read what I actually wrote was from the general to the specific, just taxonomy spread out chronologically, something speciation tends to do. — Srap Tasmaner

Your use of the word 'finally' clearly suggests goal-directedness.

I have said numerous times in this thread that h. sapiens has plainly evolved in the sense described by the theory of evoluition. But that with the development of language and reason, we transcend purely biological determination in a way that other animals do not. Only humans can consider questions such as whether there are domains of being beyond the sensory world, for example, not to mention more quotidian abilities, such a mathematics, science, and so on.

Only humans can consider questions such as whether there are domains of being beyond the sensory world, for example, not to mention more quotidian abilities, such a mathematics, science, and so on. — Wayfarer

Perhaps and yet I envy animals who are self-sufficient and need no cars or porn or bad movies by Disney; who have no reason and no governments and no jails and no persecutions or prejudices nor layered psychological cruelties or stupid dead end jobs. I can't help feel that it is animals who often live the superior life, precisely because they don't need to speculate, think or fester and can live in the moment, taking no more than they need, as they need it. :razz:

Your use of the word 'finally' clearly suggests goal-directedness. — Wayfarer

'Finally' clearly suggests 'last', the last item in my sequence, since we have not seen further speciation since modern humans emerged.

This little inquisition to determine whether I have sinned against Science is pointless anyway. I was not telling the story of evolution but of the story of Shakespeare, beginning from the first mammals, so I know where my story ends (or 'finishes') and the plot highlights those events that lead there.

But that with the development of language and reason, we transcend purely biological determination in a way that other animals do not. — Wayfarer

A quick search yielded a couple of nice popular articles on the problem-solving abilities of crows: one at Ars Technica on a specific experiment and one from the BBC that ranges somewhat wider. Both articles struck me, as a layman, as pretty balanced. Both seemed to assume, more or less as I do, that our intelligence is on some kind of continuum with other animals. "Continuum" is not a great word there, though, because it may not be a matter of having more or having less of one thing, general intelligence, but of having more or having fewer cognitive skills, particular abilities. (I think the BBC article mentioned that chimps seem to have better short-term memory than we do, which I didn't know.)

I don't know how to fit your talk of "transcendence" with the way scientists and science journalists talk about intelligence in animals, including us. Language, for example, allows displacement, the ability to communicate about objects not in our present surroundings; you could describe that as "transcending" the limit of referring only to what other animals can or do perceive. What's not clear is in what sense displacement would transcend "purely biological determination," since it's not clear what that is, and if we have transcended it what other sort of determination is at play in what we actually do in our humble, biological way.

I think I could turn and live with animals, they are so placid and self-contain'd,
I stand and look at them long and long.

They do not sweat and whine about their condition,
They do not lie awake in the dark and weep for their sins,
They do not make me sick discussing their duty to God,
Not one is dissatisfied, not one is demented with the mania of owning things,
Not one kneels to another, nor to his kind that lived thousands of years ago,
Not one is respectable or unhappy over the whole earth. — Whitman

↪Gnomon
I don't think Einstein was thinking about imagination as a faculty standing free from science, but rather in its service. — Janus

Of course! I posted the quote only because Wayfarer's "revelations" were being implicitly compared to divine revelations, in the service of religion instead of science. I just wanted to remind forum posters that informed imagination is not a no-no on a philosophy forum.

Both philosophical and scientific theories are imaginary conjectures (speculations), not empirical observations. As Einstein noted, imagination points the way to future knowledge. And, as the OP implied : our current knowledge of the human Mind --- as contrasted with the Brain --- is quite sketchy, and based mostly on guessing. Moreover, the provenance and role of Reason (rational imagination) is suspect in some quarters, perhaps due to its being subject to the whims of Emotion. So, I think Way was being accused of being driven by passionate Emotion, instead of dispassionate Reason. I beg to differ. :smile:

David Hume on Reason :
"Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them."
https://sites.pitt.edu/~mthompso/readings/hume.influencing.pdf