philosophy of science

Could the mental be physical?

by Leave a Comment

The brain is obviously physical, but what about the mind? It seems like it shouldn't be, but maybe we're just looking at the idea od physical wrong.

NOTES

  • What does 'physical' mean?
    • P1: 'physical' means 'spatial'
      • I.e., extended in space; has a volume
      • O1: photons are physical, but not spatial
    • P2: 'physical' means 'material'
      • I.e., made out of matter
      • O1: energy is physical, but not material
    • P3: 'physical' means 'describable and explainable using the concepts of physics'
  • What does 'mental' mean?
    • P1: 'mental' means 'describable and explainable using the concepts of psychology'
  • Argument for why the mental can't be physical
    1. Physical things are describable and explainable using the concepts of physics
    2. Mental things are describable and explainable using the concepts of psychology
    3. So, mental things are not physical things
    • O1: the same thing can be described and explained in different ways given the purpose of the scientist
      • S1: biologists and physicists explain and describe the same thing using their own sciences
      • N1: this only proves the mental and physical are not necessarily mutually exclusive, not that the mental is physical
    • O2: four-term fallacy

Further Reading

For more on René Descartes' definition of 'physical' as 'spatial,' read his Meditations on First Philosophy for free here, or get a more recent translation here

 

What should we think when philosophy gets weird?

by Leave a Comment

This week we are talking about the Problem of Material Constitution: how can a material object retains its identity through change? To bring the problem into focus, we looked at the Ship of Theseus, a very strange thought experiment. A tempting thought when things get weird is to punt to skepticism. You might think, “This is exactly why I hate philosophers. Why waste your time on pointless questions like this?!” After all, it seems obvious that material things survive change and if philosophy is going to say otherwise then it’s stupid. What can we say about philosophy when it seems to go off the deep end? Here are three ideas.

1. Breaking you down to build you back up

Socrates, one of the progenitors of Western philosophy, was sentenced to death for moral corruption of the youth. I like to believe the following account is why. In a passage in Plato’s Meno, Socrates interrogates Meno into exposing his ignorance about the nature of virtue. This can easily be mistaken for an attack on the existence of virtue itself, but I think Socrates’ purpose is to bring Meno to a better understanding of virtue because he believes such understanding will steel Meno’s resolve to be virtuous in the face of temptation whereas a faulty understanding will cause him to falter. For example, I might resist trying heroin because my parents told me so, but I’ll be much more likely to reject it if I see its effect on others and learn the staggering statistics of misery.

In the same way, when philosophy gets wacky such as in the case of material constitution, we might not have to construe our inquiry as destructive. Imagine the Ship of Theseus paradox actually happens. Someone takes all the replaced planks, rebuilds the ship, and posts it on eBay. Had you already bought the continuous ship, seeing the eBay advertisement might shake your faith in the existence of material objects. Wouldn’t it be nice to have a theory as to how material objects can retain their identity through time? Maybe that’s all we’re after when we talk about the Problem of Material Constitution.

2. Philosophy takes time

One of my favorite quotes about philosophy comes from Harm J.M.J. Gorris. When evaluating a philosophical theory that would have us reject a common-sense view of the world, Gorris says, “I think philosophy must first do its homework and present an airtight, non-circular argument before it may dismiss such an intuitive insight as mere illusion.” That stuck with me because it resolved an issue that had been haunting me. When he converted to theism, then-renowned atheist A.J. Ayer  gave the rationale that we must, “Follow the evidence, wherever it leads.” What bothered me about that quote was that throughout history people have thought up new arguments for and against God. What if the evidence changes just a little tomorrow so that it slightly favors the opposite? For me, faith is life-changing. Am I to change my life with the academic wind?

Gorris’ quote is important to me because it reminds me that we don’t need to throw out our beliefs just because some new, wacky doctrine comes along. Philosophy actually takes a long, long time to advance, and what is philosophically fashionable today needs some time under its belt before it can be established. Philosophers are working daily to show why philosophical theories are untenable. It could easily be the case that the new, cutting-edge theory of today is the cautionary tale of tomorrow. Maybe when philosophy gets weird, we should just wait.

3. The world is weird

In college, a friend of mine ran into a tree so hard that his legs and arms literally shot out like on a cartoon. It was one of the greatest moments of my life and I still cherish the memory. However, if we are being scientifically accurate, he never did run into the tree. Our best science has led us to conclude all physical objects are actually made up of much smaller particles that never truly touch each other. Both my friend and the tree are made up of a tiny fraction of a percentage of stuff, and the rest is empty space. Instead of hitting the tree, the electrons in my friend were unable to fill the correct role in the atoms of the tree and vice versa due to some bizarre atomic property. When we look at my friend and the tree, however, it certainly doesn’t look that way. It looks like both are totally solid, filled-in objects that smack into each other. In other words, the world is a lot weirder than it initially looks.

Philosophy makes strange claims at times. Sometimes it is only for the sake of better understanding of common sense, sometimes it’s just because philosophy hasn’t had enough time to work things out, but it might be just because the world is weird. If science has established that the world is totally different than it appears, then maybe we should expect the same of philosophy. It would be odd to say that the world isn’t as intuitive as it seems after we’ve done science, but then we do philosophy and it’s totally what we anticipated. Maybe weird is just what we should expect.

Human Choice and 3 Reasons Science Needs Philosophy

by Leave a Comment

This week we explored the ultimate nature of human motivation (see my videos here, here, and here). Let’s say Reyna risks her livelihood to convince her friend Kylo Ron to leave his evil organization and join her good one. Why would she do so? A psychological egoist would say Reyna must do so because she is getting something out of it, even if she doesn’t realize this. It may be that Kylo Ron would be a great asset to her organization or maybe she will just feel good about herself for helping him. Whatever it is, it is ultimately because of the benefit to her that she actually chooses to do so, even if it appears to her that it is for another reason. A psychological altruist believes Reyna might help Kylo Ron s olely for his sake, even if she gets some benefit as well. A final view believes Reyna might help Kylo Ron just because she feels a sense of duty or obligation to help out those in need.

One thing that is interesting about this question is that it is an empirical one, so it’s not solely–or even essentially–the domain of philosophy. It is tempting to project our philosophy onto the situation. We might, for example, want Reyna to act altruistically because we believe acting selflessly is what makes an act moral. Or we might want it to be impossible that Reyna act any way but selfishly because we believe capitalism requires acting in our own best interests. However, if we are asking why someone made a particular choice, there is no pre-theoretical reason to believe one way or the other. Instead, we must look to science for an explanation.

It is the job of the experimental psychologist to determine the actual motivation of a human choice. She must devise experiments in which human agents are presented with a choice and the most reasonable prediction differs given each possible view. Subjects should then be tested accordingly with all appropriate variables controlled (e.g., subjects should probably not know they are being observed at the time). The result will tell us what actually motivates human choice. For example, if the hypothesis is that Reyna isKylo Ron and friendonly helping Kylo Ron because he will help her organization, have Kylo Ron pretend to lose his powers. If it’s that Reyna just wants to feel good about herself for helping, devise a way that she would feel bad for helping (e.g., maybe everybody, including Kylo, would tell her they would hate her for helping him). After whittling away possible motivations, we will hopefully be left with the true one.

We may be tempted to think that if this is the case, why do we even need philosophy? Here are three ways philosophy is important in this question.

First, we use philosophy to clarify the question. I said we are asking what does motivate human choice, but we could also be asking what could and what should motivate our choices. The latter question can be pragmatic or ethical, but it is not a scientific question. However, as we saw on the video, it is easy to confuse these questions. A philosopher can help untangle issues like this.

Second, philosophy can help us clarify our terms. For example, a psychological egoist might claim Reyna is acting selfishly because she is fulfilling her desires. This can’t be right, however, because Reyna might Reyna is savagedesire what is best for Kylo Ron. If that’s the case, then she would be acting altruistically. So, if a scientist were to devise a test to see if Reyna acts without any desires, she would be missing the whole point. Analyzing concepts is a philosopher’s job, not a psychologist’s, so philosophy is an important tool here.

Finally, experimental psychology is not as precise as some sciences, such as physics. Sometimes science gives us great evidence for believing a theory, but that is usually when we can easily measure things. The reasons and desires of people are opaque to observers because they reside in the mind, and we cannot see the minds of others. We can observe our own minds, but only reflectively. It may be the case the experimental psychology gives us some reasons to think one way, but philosophy is needed to push us over the edge into belief. For example, maybe Reyna chooses to help Kylo Ron even to her own detriment, but there is always the possibility that she is self-deceived and subconsciously believes everything will work out alright. However, if philosophy could (and I’m not saying it can) give us a solid account of free will, we could show how Reyna’s altruistic choice is at least possible, and this would give us reason to believe that she really did want what’s best for Kylo Ron. Even if he did kill Don Solo.