"Patricia and Paul Churchland, [are] two very real professors of philosophy at the University of California at San Diego,… [and their] advocacy of “eliminative materialism”, the theory that beliefs, desires, and other mental phenomena do not exist and ought to be eliminated from our description of human nature and replaced by concepts derived from neuroscience. Hence, on this view, it is, strictly speaking, always false to say something like “I feel anxious”, for “feelings” and “anxiety” are mental states, and there are no mental states according to eliminative materialism, only brain processes." [Last Superstition, pg 229]The Churchlands’ attempt is to eliminate everything which cannot be explained, materially, by redefining it in material terms. Intentionality, agency, and rationality are all not explainable under material terms, so they must be eliminated to avoid explaining them. But this results in non-coherence and gibberish, as Feser points out. Intentionality is a huge probelm for Atheism and evolution.
…
"The whole eliminative materialist enterprise is founded on the notion that science gives us the only accurate picture of reality. Yet science is in the business of making assertions about the world, developing theories, putting forward explanations, extending our knowledge, and so forth; and every on of these notions is utterly suffused with intentionality, which as we saw... is the central and defining feature of the mind. Insofar as an assertion, theory, explanation or knowledge claim represents, means, "points" to, or is "directed" toward something beyond itself, it is every bit as intentional as the mind is, so that if the mind goes, science goes with it. Indeed, reason in general - another paradigmatically mental phenomenon - goes with it also, and thus so too does any rational argument anyone has ever given, including any argument anyone has ever given or could give for eliminative materialism. Worse, as Hilary Putnam points out, the very notion of truth would have to be abandoned by a consistent eliminative materialist, inextricably tied as it is to the idea of a claim, or belief, or thought that accurtely represents reality. As M. R .Hacker and P. M .S. Hacker put it, the 'eliminative materialist saws off the branch on which he is seated'. In the name of reason, truth, science, he destroys all reason,truth and science.
Eliminative materialists sometimes acknowledge that this may well be, you know, a problem with their position. Their response is to shrug their shoulders and lament that we just don't yet have the resources even to state the theory in an adequate way, since the neuroscientists are still so far from completing their work of discovering all the physiological goings-on that underlie human behavior. But one fine day they'll be through, and then, just you wait. We'll no longer speak in terms of "truth", but rather in terms of what Churchland has called a "successor concept", that will replace truth (though by his own admission he has no idea what this "successor concept" will be. We'll also have "successor concepts" to replace the concept of rationality, and every other concept that science depends on. (Again, don't ask what those might be either, since even the Churchlands don't claim to know.) Presumably we'll also have to have a "successor concept" for the concept of a concept, since talk of "concepts" reeks of intentionality; or rather, I should say, we'll need a "successor something-or-other". Or maybe... well, let's not worry about that now. This Brave New World will be here eventually, and when it is, then all of us, including the Churchlands themselves, will finally know what the hell they're talking about." [Ibid, pg 234]
Tuesday, February 11, 2014
Quote of the Day: Feser on Eliminative Materialism
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Albert Einstein:
"The man of science is a poor philosopher."
I have always been puzzled by that statement by an eminent scientist. How could it possibly be true, given that both scientist and philosopher (supposedly) pursue "truth"?
Then I found this quote in Dr. Feser's book (The Last Superstition, pp. 84-85), quoting from Dr. E. A. Burtt's The Metaphysical Foundations of Modern Physical Science:
"...even the attempt to escape metaphysics is no sooner put in the form of a proposition than it is seen to involve highly significant metaphysical postulates. For this reason there is an exceedingly subtle and insidious danger in positivism. If you cannot avoid metaphysics, what kind of metaphysics are you likely to cherish when you sturdily suppose yourself to be free from the abomination? Of course it goes without saying that in this case your metaphysics will be held uncritically because it is unconscious; moreover, it will be passed on to others far more readily than your other notions inasmuch as it will be propagated by insinuation rather than by direct argument. ... Now the history of mind reveals pretty clearly that the thinker who decries metaphysics... if he be a man engaged in any important inquiry, he must have a method, and he will be under a strong and constant temptation to make a metaphysics out of his method, that is, to suppose the universe ultimately of such a sort that his method must be appropriate and successful. ... But inasmuch as the positivist mind has failed to school itself in careful metaphysical thinking, its ventures at such points will be apt to appear pitiful, inadequate, or even fantastic."
There is the rational empirical method underlying science qua science, separated from the underlying metaphysics which ground and enable science. There is also the rational process of metaphysical investigation, which is a deeper and more fundamental level than empirical science. The abandonment of the metaphysical foundations of science ultimately results in the total destruction of rationality and of science itself.
I've been puzzled by the assertions of rationality, logicality, objectivity, scientific, etc. by those who refuse to acknowledge the validity associated with the results of metaphysical investigations.
In particular, there seems to be almost a sense of resentment when one presents a clearly valid and true metaphysical argument for the existence of God. There is usually a heated (or "snarky") response to the effect that one cannot be forced to accept a clearly valid and true metaphysical demonstration. But that (in a nutshell) is the primary difference between an empirical science contingent "factoid" and a metaphysical demonstration which is necessarily true. The final response is to evade the argument, propose a "red herring," or to demand empirical "evidence" for the metaphysical claim, dismissing it without consideration.
Perhaps this adverse response is due to being totally unaware that there is more than one valid rational method of investigation.
Or, perhaps, it is simply that:
"To a four-year old with a hammer, the whole world looks like a nail."
I think that the resentment you notice is the key. The rejection of theist propositions without reasoning or reasons is another indicator: there is wilfull and conscious blindness to defects in their worldview, because their worldview is emotionally derived due to emotional neediness, and because rational threats to the worldview must be consciously ignored if the worldview is to survive logical scrutiny. It is not important to them that their concepts are self-evidently internally contradictory.
What is important is that their worldview must survive, or their emotional issues will collapse their lives around them. So the "truth" of their worldview, in an emotional sense, does not cohere with logic, and that is the contradiction which they see and defend against. So their war is emotion vs logic, not bad logic vs valid logic.
It devolves to their conceptualization of emotional satisfaction as truth, and any premise which provides emotional satisfaction is also true. Any premise which causes emotional stress is thus false. In their world of irrationality, that is valid logic.
I'm not a young earth creationist, but I was interested in the Ham/Nye debate recently. One thing I took from it was when Nye was asked if there was anything that would ever change his mind. Nye said that evidence for creation would change his mind. But Nye made clear that he was unconditionally committed to a naturalistic worldview, which would make such evidence impossible.
Isn't that a tantamount admission that how he chooses to interpret data will always be a priori rather than a posteriori?
@Stan: while that is certainly one way to put it, wouldn't it be more direct - and no less accurate - to say that they are perpetual children who resent any sort of authority that is not simply their own?
Like a small child who screams and cries tears of rage each time his will is thwarted, but immediately becomes calm and tear-free when the Other gives in. Like a bored teenager whose demand that everyone around him conform to some arbitrary standard of 'cool' reaches the point where the conformity is the point, not the being 'cool'.
The ego likes to treat others as extensions of the self. All men are like this. ALL. It is the natural inclination for a Fallen human being, and this is recognized even if you do not accept Christianity. Some - most - resist this (with varying degrees of success) their whole lives. Some - many - do not, and you can spot them right off.
The person who puts himself at the center of the universe is a narcissist, right? That is at odds with objective reality. Is it any wonder the atheist puts so much effort into maintaining that objective reality does NOT exist? That "what is, is what I make is", acting on it by ignoring such humdrums as actual reason, logic and the fact that he or she is not, in fact, the center of reality?
They retreat into their own version of reality, where they ARE the center. And often the only inhabitant. It is nearly impossible to get some of them out, but even in the most advanced cases, as long as the person has SOME contact with the real world, there is hope.
All that stuff you mentioned is true, but it is true ABOUT something else - which is that the AtheoLeft, secretly in despair, and like Adolf Hitler, is determined that if they cannot rule, no one will.
Abortion, Obamacare, same-sex marriage, etc. You are right, Stan. They are there purportedly to 'help' someone, to exercise the 'rights' they selectively pass out to others, but anyone with a lick of sense can see that a man who is perpetually engaged in cutting of the branch that supports *him* is not going to be concerned with any others who sit on the same limb.
They are here to destroy it all, Stan. They're gonna tear it all down in the world's longest rage-quit. If they're not in charge, no one will be. If they can't have it, no one can. If they're not forever able to move other people around like chess pieces, then no one will enjoy the fruits of civilization.
No one.
They remind me of nothing so much as the random mall shooter, who, having excercised the power of life and death, is now surrounded by the police.
Rather than give up and turn himself in, he (or rarely, she) turns the gun on themselves.
Suicide is the ulimate expression of a swollen ego lost to despair. No one will choose what happens to them but them. They WILL have the last word.
Rikalonius said:
"Nye said that evidence for creation would change his mind. But Nye made clear that he was unconditionally committed to a naturalistic worldview, which would make such evidence impossible."
This is the usual evasion, through using an amorphous term: "evidence." The only "evidence" that a naturalist will accept (by unstated definition) is material evidence.
When confronted with metaphysical evidence demonstrating the truth of creation of the universe, the naturalist asserts that it is NOT "material evidence," and consequently it can (and should) be ignored. If the opponent asserts that it is NOT material evidence but metaphysical (immaterial) evidence, the naturalist asserts that there is no such thing. If confronted with evidence for immaterial entities, the naturalist asserts that (somehow) the immaterial entity actually IS material.
It is a never-ending shell game, played on the basis of a Category error.
"Heads I win, tails you lose."
Rikalonius,
Nye Poisoned the Well with an unprovable position which he holds religiously. As Robert said, he adheres to the Category Error of dogmatically and irrationally restricting the search for [NOT X] in [X] and only [X].
Even so, there is evidence within [X] which no Atheist will address, evidence which indicates no physical influence. If you've been around long enough you have seen their response to the "Miracle at Lourdes", which left a physical artifact, the free flowing spring, for them to examine and refute. They have no intention of addressing that issue, and the sniff and dismiss it. Shortly thereafter, they are gone from the discussion.
They cannot win a rational argument, but they also cannot be swayed by it. Their worldview is emotionally based, not rationally based.
Steven,
Yes, the Child-Man issue is in full play with most Atheists. Most have adopted their rebellion in their adolescence, and that is where their maturity stops because they are fulfilled: with themselves.
I have read of some, a few, Atheists who became Atheists in their early 20's. But that is still in the range of the un-matured frontal cortex, which doesn't fully mature until the age of 27 in some. Rationality is not even available, then, and even for the mature brain rationality must be developed through learning rational processing. An emotionally driven rejection is immune to rationality, though.
Samuel Clemmons (Mark Twain) became an Atheist very late in life, because of the death of his beloved daughter. But Twain's anguish was selfishly based: he, who loved his daughter, had been denied. So his Atheism was pure, virulent God-Hatred, an impregnable emotional state. He kept his state and nourished it until he died.
Eliminative Materialism is guilty of begging the question.They have not only extrapolated their own superstitions onto neuroscience but also omitted studies conducted by neuroscientists proving that the mind effects brain activity.
Here's a study published in National Centre for Biotechnology Information.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19023697
Post a Comment