Why should a person prefer hylomorphic dualism to competing positions in the philosophy of mind?

[utunumsint]

But do these supposed turf wars between philosophy and science exist outside of internet forums?

They happen whenever a scientist leaps to a conclusion not justified by the empirical evidence they have gathered or makes sweeping metaphysical assertions. A good example of one such work is Stephen Hawking’s The Grand Design.

By this I don’t mean that scientists have no right to put pen to paper and set down their thoughts about what they have discovered or the implications they have. Its just that they often hold views or presuppose views that are not justified by the evidence often because they are held unreflectively. And why we expect them to hold rigorously thought out views when the very nature of science is to focus on empirical evidence?

I’d have thought that philosophers, just like scientists and police officers, are concerned with evidence, and philosophical truth cannot contradict evidential truth.

Agreed. Very much so. But the point is no one has a monopoly on truth.

Sure. The only problem being that it’s all (increasingly) open to investigation. The notion of celestial spheres lasted for centuries, there were great arguments for it, all those books in all those libraries couldn’t possibly be wrong. By they were, and as evidence rolled in during the 16th century, philosophers and theologians dumped the idea. I’m suggesting that during the 21st century, that will happen re. the mind.

This is a promissory note. Lets talks again when it actually happens.

Philosophy of mind was perhaps always a minority sport, with no real interest for centuries until Descartes.

Well, except for, you know, Aquinas, Augustine, Aristotle, Plato. Just to nit pick.

In any event, surely any philosopher worthy of the name is excited to see what can be learned from research and how it might help her, rather than shutting out anything which might challenge her preconceptions?

Agreed. It is interesting to find how much evidence is gathering for an immaterial aspect of the human soul. For example, Mario Beauregard’s The Spiritual Brain: A Neuroscientist’s Case for the Existence of the Soul. Evidence like NDEs, the placebo and nocebo effect, the analysis of prayer under FMRI, and so on. These are all very interesting. And you can also look at purely metaphysical approaches to the question as well to see how well each approach fits with the available evidence.

God bless,
Ut

 

[GEddie]

I’m suggesting that during the 21st century, that will happen re. the mind.

So you hold that between now and 2099, the “men of science” – i.e., persons who live by the mind – will come to conclude that there is no mind?

Don’t hold your breath.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Peter_Plato]

So you hold that between now and 2099, the “men of science” – i.e., persons who live by the mind – will come to conclude that there is no mind?

Don’t hold your breath.

ICXC NIKA

Seems that “scientists” are looking at taking the easy route and simply using magnets to erase minds of pesky thoughts such as “God” or “mass-immigration-might-not-be-such-a-good-thing.”

stream.org/scientists-claim-zapping-brains-with-magnets-can-treat-belief-in-god/

Next stop: magnets to erase the mind of consciousness itself OR to cleanse the brain of mind altogether.

Brilliant, yes?

In a Looney Tunes, Wile E. Coyote kind of way.

http://pages.uoregon.edu/pangburn/mypage/myphotos/rocket.jpg

C.S. Lewis’ The Abolition of Man

 

[thinkandmull]

I think hylomorphic dualism has a lot going for it because idealism and materialism are really two ends of the same Cartesian substance dualism coin. Materialism tries to reduce or eliminate all mental phenomena to physical interactions. Idealism tries to reduce or eliminate all physical phenomena to mental phenomena. This division was mainly created by Descartes. He could never figure out how his two substances could talk to each other (despite his pineal gland theory).

Hylomorphic dualism resolves this problem by postulating a much richer view of the material world with the four causes and by admitting qualitative features of matter. The Cartesian view eliminates anything but the quantitative features of matter and thus you get a truncated view of the physical world.

God bless,
Ut

Scholastics are no more in the clear on how a spiritual substance can affect a material body. However, Descartes’s position is that the body and the soul form one substance. He says this three different times in his Reply to the Fourth Objection

 

[thinkandmull]

I don’t think someone can refute the idea of a soul. Somebody can always claim that the brain’s activity is like blinds on a window, letting the soul think through the body like the sun coming into a room. So the doctrine of a soul is forever safe from modern disbelieving science.

My interest now is: what kind of scientific evidence would conclude that there is a soul?

I think that is were this discussion was going

 

[inocente]

Except that the evidence itself doesn’t “settle” anything. Those “a priori propositions” (AKA Theorems) are required to make sense of the evidence.

This is why good science requires good philosophy: to make sure the theorems (AKA a priori propositions) are sound and valid and properly treat the evidence.

It isn’t an either/or situation. It is both/and.

Math is a priori, science is a posteriori and philosophy is both. Can’t see why science of the mind needs a priori propositions any more than geology:

“The terms “a priori” and “a posteriori” are used primarily to denote the foundations upon which a proposition is known. A given proposition is knowable a priori if it can be known independent of any experience other than the experience of learning the language in which the proposition is expressed, whereas a proposition that is knowable a posteriori is known on the basis of experience. For example, the proposition that all bachelors are unmarried is a priori, and the proposition that it is raining outside now is a posteriori.” - iep.utm.edu/apriori/

If your prediction turns out to be true then it will have been the case of a “fuzzy notion of a thing” (mind or consciousness) discovering its own fuzzy and folky non-existence and irrelevance in the entire enterprise; which itself will turn out to be devoid of the very qualities that could possibly make it a “rigorously defined objective state” since that state (rigorously defined) depends upon consciousness (intelligence) NOT being a fuzzy, folky intuition.

Self-undermining at its core. Knife-in-the back kind of thing. Death-wish stuff, even. :bigyikes:

I didn’t mean people are fuzzy, only that “consciousness” is ill-defined:

“Explaining the nature of consciousness is one of the most important and perplexing areas of philosophy, but the concept is notoriously ambiguous.” - iep.utm.edu/consciou/

 

[Peter_Plato]

Math is a priori, science is a posteriori and philosophy is both. Can’t see why science of the mind needs a priori propositions any more than geology:

"The terms “a priori” and “a posteriori” are used primarily to denote the foundations upon which a proposition is known. A given proposition is knowable a priori if it **can be known independent of any experience **other than the experience of learning the language in which the proposition is expressed, whereas a proposition that is knowable a posteriori is known on the basis of experience. For example, the proposition that all bachelors are unmarried is a priori, and the proposition that it is raining outside now is a posteriori." - iep.utm.edu/apriori/

I think you are missing the point.

If a theory turns out to be true and applicable to reality, then it is and always was true independent of the empirical evidence that led to its being proposed. That is, in order to be “true” in the full and robust sense, no empirical evidence could ever be dug up to falsify a correct and true theorem. Ergo, it becomes a priori and, therefore, independent of the empirical or a posteriori grounds that led to arriving at it initially. To be true in a robust epistemic sense, the theory MUST be known and remain true “independent of any experience” and, only then, can be used to better make sense of further empirical evidence.

The whole point of all the sciences is to arrive at theorems that explain reality by demonstrating beyond a shadow of a doubt that those theorems are true a priori, not merely a posteriori. Otherwise, theorems are merely true ABOUT the mind and the way the mind goes about its business rather than ABOUT reality independent of the mind.

Clearly, you have been charmed and beguiled by scientism rather than by a robust understanding of what the real aim of any science ought to be.

Science could remain a posteriori if its aim is merely to convince scientists about their pet ideas - i.e., that their pet ideas are true “for them.” It needs to go full-blown a priori if it is to be taken seriously as a quest for the truth independent of the smug self-satisfaction with what “scientists” merely conjecture to be the case.

 

[inocente]

They happen whenever a scientist leaps to a conclusion not justified by the empirical evidence they have gathered or makes sweeping metaphysical assertions. A good example of one such work is Stephen Hawking’s The Grand Design.

By this I don’t mean that scientists have no right to put pen to paper and set down their thoughts about what they have discovered or the implications they have. Its just that they often hold views or presuppose views that are not justified by the evidence often because they are held unreflectively. And why we expect them to hold rigorously thought out views when the very nature of science is to focus on empirical evidence?

Agreed that Hawking is notorious for switching without warning between well-founded physics and his personal speculations, but either there’s free speech or there isn’t.

I’d make a big distinction between best sellers and well-founded textbook science.

*Agreed. Very much so. But the point is no one has a monopoly on truth. *

Currently though, all philosophical theories of mind are speculative, none are rigorously based in evidence.

inocente;13374437:

Sure. The only problem being that it’s all (increasingly) open to investigation. The notion of celestial spheres lasted for centuries, there were great arguments for it, all those books in all those libraries couldn’t possibly be wrong. By they were, and as evidence rolled in during the 16th century, philosophers and theologians dumped the idea. I’m suggesting that during the 21st century, that will happen re. the mind.

This is a promissory note. Lets talks again when it actually happens.

Methinks it’s happening already:

*"The PhilPapers Survey was a survey of professional philosophers and others on their philosophical views, carried out in November 2009. The Survey was taken by 3226 respondents, including 1803 philosophy faculty members and/or PhDs and 829 philosophy graduate students.

“Mind: physicalism or non-physicalism?
Accept or lean toward: physicalism 526 / 931 (56.5%)
Accept or lean toward: non-physicalism 252 / 931 (27.1%)
Other 153 / 931 (16.4%)” - philpapers.org/surveys/results.pl*

Well, except for, you know, Aquinas, Augustine, Aristotle, Plato. Just to nit pick.

Then there are the thousands of other philosophers who didn’t work on philosophy of mind.

Agreed. It is interesting to find how much evidence is gathering for an immaterial aspect of the human soul. For example, Mario Beauregard’s The Spiritual Brain: A Neuroscientist’s Case for the Existence of the Soul. Evidence like NDEs, the placebo and nocebo effect, the analysis of prayer under FMRI, and so on. These are all very interesting. And you can also look at purely metaphysical approaches to the question as well to see how well each approach fits with the available evidence.

So it’s OK for a scientist to write a speculative book as long as you agree with him? Has he published the hypothesis in a peer reviewed journal? Have independent teams run his experiments and obtained the same results? If not then the chances are that he’s wrong. As another example, here’s an alternative take on NDEs: scientificamerican.com/article/peace-of-mind-near-death/

 

[inocente]

So you hold that between now and 2099, the “men of science” – i.e., persons who live by the mind – will come to conclude that there is no mind?

Don’t hold your breath.

ICXC NIKA

No, I meant that at the start of the 16th century many philosophers believed in Aristotle’s celestial spheres, then intense evidence-based research in astronomy led to no philosophers believing in celestial spheres by the century’s end.

At the start of the 21st century some* philosophers believe in Aristotle’s hylomorphic dualism, but we’re in a century of intense evidence-based research into the mind, and it would seem wildly optimistic to imagine that will have no effect on philosophers’ beliefs.

• = see survey in post #28

 

[PRmerger]

Except that the evidence itself doesn’t “settle” anything. Those “a priori propositions” (AKA Theorems) are required to make sense of the evidence.

This is why good science requires good philosophy: to make sure the theorems (AKA a priori propositions) are sound and valid and properly treat the evidence.

It isn’t an either/or situation. It is both/and.

Love that good old Catholic both/and.

That’s what makes Catholicism so formidable to refute.

It is only pious fundamentalists who typically insist on ONLYs or either/ors or ALONES.

(And now, just to pre-empt: there are a few Catholic ONLYs or either/ors. So please don’t offer the, “Well, Catholicism says we are saved by the Catholic Church ALONE. So either the Catholic Church OR…not saved”.

Yes…that’s another example of the good old Catholic both/and.

It’s both: both/and AND either/or. Sometimes.)

 

[Peter_Plato]

No, I meant that at the start of the 16th century many philosophers believed in Aristotle’s celestial spheres, then intense evidence-based research in astronomy led to no philosophers believing in celestial spheres by the century’s end.

At the start of the 21st century some* philosophers believe in Aristotle’s hylomorphic dualism, but we’re in a century of intense evidence-based research into the mind, and it would seem wildly optimistic to imagine that will have no effect on philosophers’ beliefs.

• = see survey in post #28

Clustering illusion.

Don’t ignore post #27.

 

[utunumsint]

Agreed that Hawking is notorious for switching without warning between well-founded physics and his personal speculations, but either there’s free speech or there isn’t.

I’d make a big distinction between best sellers and well-founded textbook science.

You seem to think that I’m anti-science. I’m not.

Currently though, all philosophical theories of mind are speculative, none are rigorously based in evidence.

Not true at all. How would you even prove such a claim?

Methinks it’s happening already:

*"The PhilPapers Survey was a survey of professional philosophers and others on their philosophical views, carried out in November 2009. The Survey was taken by 3226 respondents, including 1803 philosophy faculty members and/or PhDs and 829 philosophy graduate students.

“Mind: physicalism or non-physicalism?
Accept or lean toward: physicalism 526 / 931 (56.5%)
Accept or lean toward: non-physicalism 252 / 931 (27.1%)
Other 153 / 931 (16.4%)” - philpapers.org/surveys/results.pl*

Ah, so truth is simply a majority opinion. OK.

Then there are the thousands of other philosophers who didn’t work on philosophy of mind.

I would suspect that 56.5% of all philosophers don’t work in the field of philosophy of mind and probably 27.1% do.

So it’s OK for a scientist to write a speculative book as long as you agree with him? Has he published the hypothesis in a peer reviewed journal? Have independent teams run his experiments and obtained the same results? If not then the chances are that he’s wrong. As another example, here’s an alternative take on NDEs: scientificamerican.com/article/peace-of-mind-near-death/

I think there are scientists who publish books that are well grounded philosophically. I think there are others who publish books that are very badly grounded philosophically. Sometimes this gets picked up in the peer review process. Other times, not so much. It is a free world. I think there is good and solid evidence for non-physical view of the mind.

God bless,
Ut

 

[utunumsint]

Hi inocente,

By the way, what is your position on this question? Are you a reductionist? Emergentist? Would you recommend any books on the subject?

God bless,
Ut

 

[thinkandmull]

The not few cases of people having out of body experiences while in a “state of death”, so to speak, is compelling. I have faith in their testimony. What is science to say when people see things happening in the hospital while they are “dead” that they couldn’t know otherwise? The only option that seems to make any sense at all is that the “meat” of the brain can still have some activity (for awhile or longer) *after *the impulses have ceased. It doesn’t sound like a pleasant afterlife though in that scenario if consciousness is connected to a deceased body. In fact, that sounds rather absurd

 

[inocente]

I think you are missing the point.

If a theory turns out to be true and applicable to reality, then it is and always was true independent of the empirical evidence that led to its being proposed. That is, in order to be “true” in the full and robust sense, no empirical evidence could ever be dug up to falsify a correct and true theorem. Ergo, it becomes a priori and, therefore, independent of the empirical or a posteriori grounds that led to arriving at it initially.

That’s not what the terms mean.

The truth of an a priori proposition is independent of observation and experience of the world. Thus the truth of “all bachelors are unmarried” can be known from the definitions of the words alone. Whereas the truth of an a posteriori proposition cannot be known without observation and experience of the world. Thus the truth of “Jim is a bachelor” can only be known by knowledge of Jim.

A proposition cannot change camps. See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_priori_and_a_posteriori or anywhere else.

To be true in a robust epistemic sense, the theory MUST be known and remain true “independent of any experience” and, only then, can be used to better make sense of further empirical evidence.

The whole point of all the sciences is to arrive at theorems that explain reality by demonstrating beyond a shadow of a doubt that those theorems are true a priori, not merely a posteriori. Otherwise, theorems are merely true ABOUT the mind and the way the mind goes about its business rather than ABOUT reality independent of the mind.
Peter, I’m very surprised you’re making such basic mistakes, this isn’t like you.

Science is about falsifying wrong hypotheses, it’s almost never possible to prove an a posteriori hypothesis. Consider Newton’s theory of gravity. It lasted centuries, then new evidence on Mercury’s orbit was “dug up” and we now know his theory is wrong outside of limits. Scientific knowledge is always provisional since it is based on what we know from observation and experience, which can always change.

*Clearly, you have been charmed and beguiled by scientism rather than by a robust understanding of what the real aim of any science ought to be.

Science could remain a posteriori if its aim is merely to convince scientists about their pet ideas - i.e., that their pet ideas are true “for them.” It needs to go full-blown a priori if it is to be taken seriously as a quest for the truth independent of the smug self-satisfaction with what “scientists” merely conjecture to be the case.*

As above, this is mistaken. I’m not sure what your personal opinions about me and about scientists have to do with the topic (and let’s remember there are a large number of Catholic scientists).

 

[inocente]

Clustering illusion.

Don’t ignore post #27.

Add as many other examples as you like of the impact of new knowledge.

You posted #27 while I was responding to the previous day, and I ran out of time - see #35.

 

[Peter_Plato]

That’s not what the terms mean.

The truth of an a priori proposition is independent of observation and experience of the world. Thus the truth of “all bachelors are unmarried” can be known from the definitions of the words alone. Whereas the truth of an a posteriori proposition cannot be known without observation and experience of the world. Thus the truth of “Jim is a bachelor” can only be known by knowledge of Jim.

A proposition cannot change camps. See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_priori_and_a_posteriori or anywhere else.

Peter, I’m very surprised you’re making such basic mistakes, this isn’t like you.

Science is about falsifying wrong hypotheses, it’s almost never possible to prove an a posteriori hypothesis. Consider Newton’s theory of gravity. It lasted centuries, then new evidence on Mercury’s orbit was “dug up” and we now know his theory is wrong outside of limits. Scientific knowledge is always provisional since it is based on what we know from observation and experience, which can always change.

As above, this is mistaken. I’m not sure what your personal opinions about me and about scientists have to do with the topic (and let’s remember there are a large number of Catholic scientists).

There is no “personal opinion” about scientists. I expressed a personal opinion about “scientists,” meaning those “scientists” who attempt to push the bounds of science beyond its proper sphere by assuming the methods of science to be more than merely methods. They turn methodological constraints into metaphysical assumptions and, thereby, think their conclusions are the entire story of reality.

Merely calling my points “mistakes” won’t cut it, either, I’m afraid. My post still stands.

As to whether a “A proposition cannot change camps.” Is THAT proposition, itself, an a priori or a posteriors one? Are you proposing it to be taken a priori? How would YOU know it to be true, a priori, with any degree of certainty except by assuming it and, thereby, begging the question?

Yes, the “truth of an a priori proposition is independent of observation and experience of the world” and we we may eventually work out that it is, but that does not mean all a priori propositions are instantly recognized or KNOWN to be a priori, as it were, a priori. Human beings recognizing the truth of any a priori propositions comes from experience and observation, but then these are demonstrated to hold independently of those observations.

I am afraid you are being “dogmatic” AND inconsistent in your insistence that never the twain shall meet. At one point you were insisting that mathematical propositions like 2+2=4 were derived from experience, until it was pointed out to you that two raindrops collecting on a window sometimes merge with two others and make one large one. Thus, experience and observation shows that 2+2=1. At some point you, yourself, moved from thinking mathematics were derived from experience to now holding principles of mathematics are axiomatic and a priori, thus disproving by example your own above contention. Do you want me to go back and find the thread?

At some point the intellect, even yours, makes distinctions between what is merely experiential and what is true independent of observation. My own thought is that much more of what modern thinkers have been convinced about, under the influence of Humean distillates - i.e., much of what appears to be merely the result of “consistency” of experience - will be shown to hold in principle and a priori.

 

[inocente]

You seem to think that I’m anti-science. I’m not.

Didn’t mean to give that impression, rather that best-sellers in the science section of the bookstore are not necessarily anything other than the authors’ own opinions, and textbooks are probably more trustworthy, if not as inviting.

inocente;13379852:

Currently though, all philosophical theories of mind are speculative, none are rigorously based in evidence.

Not true at all. How would you even prove such a claim?

The OED has Speculative - the forming of a theory or conjecture without firm evidence.

Take hylomorphic dualism. What is the firm evidence for the proposal that being is the compound of matter and form?

(As an example of another speculative hypothesis, i.e. without firm evidence, take string “theory”, which proposes there is only form, that matter is space-time wrapped up on itself.)

Ah, so truth is simply a majority opinion. OK.

The point wasn’t about truth but about opinion, since you were responding to my “as evidence rolled in during the 16th century, philosophers and theologians dumped the idea [of celestial spheres]”.

Hi inocente,

By the way, what is your position on this question? Are you a reductionist? Emergentist? Would you recommend any books on the subject?

God bless,
Ut

Please see post #10. I can’t see any difference in philosophical terms between the science of the mind and (say) geology. Let the evidence lead. My career is in information, so perhaps that’s why there seems no need for navel gazing: the evidence, and there is now a lot, is for a single entity, which looking bottom-up we call the brain, and looking top-down we call the mind. Don’t know about books, but for anyone interested in seeing patterns at different levels, the classic is amazon.com/G%C3%B6del-Escher-Bach-Eternal-Golden/dp/0465026567.

(I live in the mountains, and two air force Typhoons are playing tag overhead, and twice there’s been a boom-boom when they went supersonic, followed by dogs going crazy, so apologies if this didn’t make sense. That’s my excuse anyways).

 

[inocente]

There is no “personal opinion” about scientists. I expressed a personal opinion about “scientists,” meaning those “scientists” who attempt to push the bounds of science beyond its proper sphere by assuming the methods of science to be more than merely methods. They turn methodological constraints into metaphysical assumptions and, thereby, think their conclusions are the entire story of reality.

Merely calling my points “mistakes” won’t cut it, either, I’m afraid. My post still stands.

As to whether a “A proposition cannot change camps.” Is THAT proposition, itself, an a priori or a posteriors one? Are you proposing it to be taken a priori? How would YOU know it to be true, a priori, with any degree of certainty except by assuming it and, thereby, begging the question?

Yes, the “truth of an a priori proposition is independent of observation and experience of the world” and we we may eventually work out that it is, but that does not mean all a priori propositions are instantly recognized or KNOWN to be a priori, as it were, a priori. Human beings recognizing the truth of any a priori propositions comes from experience and observation, but then these are demonstrated to hold independently of those observations.

I am afraid you are being “dogmatic” AND inconsistent in your insistence that never the twain shall meet. At one point you were insisting that mathematical propositions like 2+2=4 were derived from experience, until it was pointed out to you that two raindrops collecting on a window sometimes merge with two others and make one large one. Thus, experience and observation shows that 2+2=1. At some point you, yourself, moved from thinking mathematics were derived from experience to now holding principles of mathematics are axiomatic and a priori, thus disproving by example your own above contention. Do you want me to go back and find the thread?

At some point the intellect, even yours, makes distinctions between what is merely experiential and what is true independent of observation. My own thought is that much more of what modern thinkers have been convinced about, under the influence of Humean distillates - i.e., much of what appears to be merely the result of “consistency” of experience - will be shown to hold in principle and a priori.

Sorry but I couldn’t get much out of this. Look up the definitions.

I’ve not said anything about 2+2, which btw also equals 10, which I’ve known since I was eleven years’ old, when our teacher took a short course on counting in different number bases and gave us a lesson the very next day to test her own knowledge. 2+2 also equals 2, which I’ve known since I was thirteen when we were taught Boolean arithmetic.

No, don’t go jumping threads, you know that’s against forum rules. As are comments such as your “At some point the intellect, even yours”. I joined this thread to discuss the OP, not to hear your personal opinions of me or of anyone else.

Come on, what do you have to say about the OP?

 

[Peter_Plato]

As are comments such as your “At some point the intellect, even yours”. I joined this thread to discuss the OP, not to hear your personal opinions of me or of anyone else.

I have no control over how you take comments, only over the way I intend them. That comment was intended to mean that all intellects (even yours) do move from observation and experience to apprehending principles concerning reality.

Those principles eventually become known as true independent of (i.e., not dependent upon) experience and observation AND become the lense through which new experiences and observations are understood. That is how human experience/intellect works. The principles that stand up and bear out become understood as applying a priori by the intellect unless they are shown not to be.