Do Materialism and Evolution Theory Undermine Science?

[arthwollipot]

It all depends on what the definition of "is" is.

 

[Phaedrus74]

It all depends on what the definition of "is" is.

I seem to remember some german dude tried to sort that out, now what was his name?

 

[PixyMisa]

The crux of this side of my argument was that objectivity does help us survive and procreate but that this does not mean that it will similarly help us to understand our world, that it will necessarily be capable of fulfilling our need to know who we are and what our world is.

That is a very, very silly argument then.

The information our senses provide to us, and the means by which we create effective representations of this information, are driven by natural selection.

Correct.

We experience the representation as "me surrounded around by other things" because this perspective is useful for food, defence and sex.

Correct. All the important stuff.

Whether this perspective is useful to fulfil other, later emerging human needs is imo difficult to assess but I see no reason to suppose that it should. The point is arguable for sure.

Nope. It's pure nonsense.

Your senses would be useless for food, defence and sex if they did not accurately represent the real world. You would die.

That you are here to argue the point is in itself strong evidence that you are wrong.

 

[Nick227]

I would say that so far it has yielded quite much, even in areas that aren’t directly involved in fulfilling our basic day-to-day survival needs (albeit perhaps indirectly later on). We simply don’t know how far our progress can go. The rate of new discoveries seems to be increasing rather than levelling out, and also illuminating areas some would have thought weren’t accessible to us at all, ever.

Objectivity is one of the most reliable means we have for understanding the world we live in, even though it seems quite plausible that understanding itself is a kind of physical process, thus making the process of knowing intimately related to the reality we seek for.

Objectivity has clearly yielded a great deal on one level. And it is of course "reliable" in that reliability and objectivity are intertwined. However, to test, at least in a small way, the proposition that objectivity will fulfil our needs for understanding one might ask "Are you fulfilled? Has your need for understanding actually been fulfilled by science?" My guess is that for a lot of people it seems that it has opened doorways but has not yet yielded that which might satisfy this need for understanding.

If this is so then it raises for me a couple of questions...

Firstly, do we just need to do more and more science? Maybe if we just keep studying we will get to a place where the need is fulfilled. Or it is possible that objectivity will never fulfil the need?

Secondly, is it actually realistic to expect objectivity to be able to fulfil this need? In taking a materialist perspective what is evident to me is that the processes which make up a objective, whole human are many. As I mentioned before you need a lot of processes running to really crank up to a full, objective perspective. Yet need and desire seem more primitive in their origination and it is more that they only require objectivity for their articulation. For those needs and desires which are not satisfied through articulation, is it realistic to think that they will be satisfied objectively, or is it possible that their satisfaction only comes with allowing ourselves at least a temporary release from the constraits of this mindset? This seems to me more likely.

Nick

 

[Darat]

...snip... In taking a materialist perspective what is evident to me is that the processes which make up a objective, whole human are many. As I mentioned before you need a lot of processes running to really crank up to a full, objective perspective. Yet need and desire seem more primitive in their origination and it is more that they only require objectivity for their articulation.

...snip...
Nick

In regards to the highlighted bit above - based on what?

 

[Nick227]

Nope. It's pure nonsense.

Your senses would be useless for food, defence and sex if they did not accurately represent the real world. You would die.

That you are here to argue the point is in itself strong evidence that you are wrong.

So you are saying that the real world must be known by the senses and the brain then? There is essentially no possibility of noumena-phenomena. What you see is quite simply what there is.

Nick

 

[Phaedrus74]

So you are saying that the real world must be known by the senses and the brain then? There is essentially no possibility of noumena-phenomena. What you see is quite simply what there is.

Nick

No, (sorry for butting in Pixy) what this means is that our beliefs about the world must be largely true. For them to be knowledge an additional requirement (justification) must be met.

 

[Nick227]

Sorry I really do not follow this - if we are limited to way we can interact with "reality" (whatever it 'is' and of course if that statement even means anything at all) we are limited. We can't both be limited and then somehow not be limited.

You seem to me to be assuming that "we," or "I", is somehow innate. As I see it, materialism clearly points to the realization that selfhood is a process, that the "I" is a process. It is just an aspect of being, not something inviolable. Without thinking, there is no I present.

Nick

 

[Nick227]

No, (sorry for butting in Pixy) what this means is that our beliefs about the world must be largely true. For them to be knowledge an additional requirement (justification) must be met.

Our body is created through natural selection. Our phenomenology the same. What is represented is dictated by natural selection. It is dictated by the ongoing promotion of that which survives and procreates the best. Thus the objective perspective itself must be acutely favoured because it offers the best possibilities for survival and procreation.

This does not mean that the objective perspective is the best for understanding who or what we are. If you experience thoughtless awareness you will be familiar with this sensation of "I"-lessness. Bloody useless for survival and not so much use for procreation! But extremely satisfying nonetheless. What becomes apparent is that we articulate needs objectively because that is what we have learned. We articulate the need as "I need..." But not all needs, not all desires can be met objectively. Simply articulating certain needs objectively can actually preclude their fulfilment, because their fulfilment requires a withdrawing of the objective perspective, not the seeking for some"thing" that will meet the need.

Nick

 

[Phaedrus74]

Our body is created through natural selection. Our phenomenology the same. What is represented is dictated by natural selection. It is dictated by the ongoing promotion of that which survives and procreates the best. Thus the objective perspective itself must be acutely favoured because it offers the best possibilities for survival and procreation.

This remains to be seen. So far, yes, but ask me again in a billion years...
At most we can say that (having) a concept like 'objectivity' is not disastruously detrimental to our survival as a species.

This does not mean that the objective perspective is the best for understanding who or what we are. If you experience thoughtless awareness you will be familiar with this sensation of "I"-lessness. Bloody useless for survival and not so much use for procreation! But extremely satisfying nonetheless.

I very much disagree with this statement, if you are referring to what I think you are referring to: direct action in response to the environment unmediated by conscious thought. Note that, on average, your consiousness is a about 100 milliseconds "behind the times". Note furthermore that in survival (and hence procreation) critical situations a species cannot always afford to lose 100 milliseconds of response time, pre-conscious decision making (which is necessarily "I"-less) is crucial for the success of a species.

What becomes apparent is that we articulate needs objectively because that is what we have learned. We articulate the need as "I need..." But not all needs, not all desires can be met objectively. Simply articulating certain needs objectively can actually preclude their fulfilment, because their fulfilment requires a withdrawing of the objective perspective, not the seeking for some"thing" that will meet the need.

Nick

We only articulate needs objectively when we:
a) are in a position that we can afford to spend time articulating
(Fun(?) experiment: Try starving yourself (just remember to drink water). See how much thinking you will be able to do when your is crying out for nourishment)
b) there is planning required.

As far as I can tell, the concept "I" is nothing more than a side-effect of having brains geared for planning. And the "desire" to ponder the question "Who am I?" is merely an (occasionally dysfunctional) abstracting of the introspection needed for intersubjective coordination when implementing a plan.

 

[Darat]

You seem to me to be assuming that "we," or "I", is somehow innate. As I see it, materialism clearly points to the realization that selfhood is a process, that the "I" is a process. It is just an aspect of being, not something inviolable. Without thinking, there is no I present.

Nick

A process is innate and is just as real as anything else, a tree is just the process of "being a tree".

 

[Nick227]

This remains to be seen. So far, yes, but ask me again in a billion years...
At most we can say that (having) a concept like 'objectivity' is not disastruously detrimental to our survival as a species.

Objectivity is highly essential if you ask me. There's a clear sense of "me." This is "me" and that over there is not me. It's clear. It's strong. OK, it's only being created by a handful of brain processes but it feels real as hell, and through this objective vision of self I can easily defend myself and get needs met. I can't imagine that much life could develop without a decent selfhood module in there.

I very much disagree with this statement, if you are referring to what I think you are referring to: direct action in response to the environment unmediated by conscious thought.

That's not what I'm referring to, actually. I'm referring to the passive "observation" (for want of a less dualistic term) of phenomena without thinking present.

As far as I can tell, the concept "I" is nothing more than a side-effect of having brains geared for planning. And the "desire" to ponder the question "Who am I?" is merely an (occasionally dysfunctional) abstracting of the introspection needed for intersubjective coordination when implementing a plan.

I would agree that one might consider subjectivity or introspection as rather more the results of pathological tendencies and less as real phenomena. I have some leanings to this thinking myself. However, I still experience a desire for self knowledge and for knowledge about the world.

Nick

 

[Nick227]

A process is innate and is just as real as anything else, a tree is just the process of "being a tree".

For sure. But "I" is not even a phenomenal process. It's an inference created as a side-effect to thinking, an apparent centre suggested by peripheral activity.

When you make the statement on which I originally commented...

"We can't both be limited and then somehow not be limited."

...to me you appear to be envisioning "we" as something solid, rather than a mere side effect to thinking.

Nick

 

[Phaedrus74]

Objectivity is highly essential if you ask me. There's a clear sense of "me." This is "me" and that over there is not me. It's clear. It's strong. OK, it's only being created by a handful of brain processes but it feels real as hell, and through this objective vision of self I can easily defend myself and get needs met. I can't imagine that much life could develop without a decent selfhood module in there.

That something is inconceivable does not mean that it is impossible (Yes, I know a platitude). But considering the fact that the most successful species on this planet get by fine without so much as a brain does seem to point in the direction that a "selfhood" module is wholly superfluous.

The mistake of a lot of philosophers and scientists make is that they become way too infatuated with homo sapiens and it's mental capacities. Or for that matter the (highly erroneous) perception that there is perfection to be found in all this.

Natural selection favours slackers: Those that get the most done whilst expending the least amount of energy.

That's not what I'm referring to, actually. I'm referring to the passive "observation" (for want of a less dualistic term) of phenomena without thinking present.

Can you illustrate, the image that popped into my head was playing a computergame whilst in "the zone", meaning when I am not knowing what I am doing and merely doing it.

I would agree that one might consider subjectivity or introspection rather more as pathological tendencies and less as real phenomena. I have some leanings to this thinking myself. However, I still experience a desire for self knowledge and for knowledge about the world.

Nick

I actually don't regard them as pathological in general, if that were the case it would severly impact survivability (Paranoid delusions spring to mind). And I agree with you that being able to discern "self" from "other" is useful. On the other hand I fear that you are making way too much of these concepts, they are important, no doubt, but the earth-shattering gravity you seem to impart on them seems a bit over the top.

Jeroen.

 

[Darat]

For sure. But "I" is not even a phenomenal process.

...snip...

Yes it is.

It's an inference created as a side-effect to thinking, an apparent centre suggested by peripheral activity.

No it is something, you just described it as a something i.e. a process. That is what it is.

When you make the statement on which I originally commented...



...to me you appear to be envisioning "we" as something solid, rather than a mere side effect to thinking.

Nick

It is something "solid", it's in your definition a process. Remember how I like to ask "Where is my ran?" Just because I cannot put my finger on a "ran" does not mean I do not run, that running does not exist, that my ran does not exist.

 

[Nick227]

That something is inconceivable does not mean that it is impossible (Yes, I know a platitude). But considering the fact that the most successful species on this planet get by fine without so much as a brain does seem to point in the direction that a "selfhood" module is wholly superfluous.

How complex is this species?

The mistake of a lot of philosophers and scientists make is that they become way too infatuated with homo sapiens and it's mental capacities. Or for that matter the (highly erroneous) perception that there is perfection to be found in all this.

Natural selection favours slackers: Those that get the most done whilst expending the least amount of energy.

I would say that would depend if you consider genes to be the only replicators. I also appreciate your point. Natural selection doesn't really rate slacker human males, though. The alphas tend to pull more.

Can you illustrate, the image that popped into my head was playing a computergame whilst in "the zone", meaning when I am not knowing what I am doing and merely doing it.

Yes, you can lose awareness of self through being totally immersed in something. It can also go the other way and be completely passive. It's easier to be total than to be without thoughts for most though, I think.

I actually don't regard them as pathological in general, if that were the case it would severly impact survivability (Paranoid delusions spring to mind).

Well, psychologically, paranoia might be considered extreme introspectionism. In my experience, if you identify with and articulate enough internal states then the whole notion of subjectivity starts to dissipate. It feels healthy.

And I agree with you that being able to discern "self" from "other" is useful. On the other hand I fear that you are making way too much of these concepts, they are important, no doubt, but the earth-shattering gravity you seem to impart on them seems a bit over the top.

I guess that depends on how much you put on objectivity to get your needs met and how much that works.

Nick

 

[Nick227]

Yes it is.


No it is something, you just described it as a something i.e. a process. That is what it is.

Well, it's not the best way of describing it I could have come up with! I would rather say that it is an effect created by a process - an apparent centre suggested by coherent peripheral activity. Thus, the "I" requires thinking in order to apparently manifest.

It is something "solid", it's in your definition a process. Remember how I like to ask "Where is my ran?" Just because I cannot put my finger on a "ran" does not mean I do not run, that running does not exist, that my ran does not exist.

To me this is more just a word-play. We use past participles in articulating narratives to communicate actions that have already taken place. You could replace "ran" with pretty much any past participle. I don't see how it's so much relevant. "I" is an ongoing apparent centre suggested by thinking. Whilst thoughts are passing I'm here. No more thoughts, and "I"'s gone!

Nick

 

[Phaedrus74]

How complex is this species?

Not very, considering they're bacteria (OK I cheated, they are several species but you get my point).

But even the complex social interaction seen in ants, bees and termites doesn't seem to need much in terms of individual brain-power.

I would say that would depend if you consider genes to be the only replicators. I also appreciate your point. Natural selection doesn't really rate slacker human males, though. The alphas tend to pull more.

Strange, I thought beta's pulled more.

(You realize that in a serious discussion like this the occasional levity is mandatory, also the pun works better in Dutch...)

Yes, you can lose awareness of self through being totally immersed in something. It can also go the other way and be completely passive. It's easier to be total than to be without thoughts for most though, I think.

I do agree it is a nice sensation...

Well, psychologically, paranoia might be considered extreme introspectionism. In my experience, if you identify with and articulate enough internal states then the whole notion of subjectivity starts to dissipate. It feels healthy.

I think I agree.

I guess that depends on how much you put on objectivity to get your needs met and how much that works.

Nick

Yep, and to get back to the original question you posed: If too much is put on objectivity, then yes it is threatened by evolution and science.

A common theme in the responses to your initial post has been to downplay the importance of objectivity to more mundane levels.

Jeroen.

 

[Nick227]

Not very, considering they're bacteria (OK I cheated, they are several species but you get my point).

But even the complex social interaction seen in ants, bees and termites doesn't seem to need much in terms of individual brain-power.

True. Ants are more Buddhist. Dependant origination rules.

Nick

 

[lupus_in_fabula]

Objectivity has clearly yielded a great deal on one level. And it is of course "reliable" in that reliability and objectivity are intertwined. However, to test, at least in a small way, the proposition that objectivity will fulfil our needs for understanding one might ask "Are you fulfilled? Has your need for understanding actually been fulfilled by science?" My guess is that for a lot of people it seems that it has opened doorways but has not yet yielded that which might satisfy this need for understanding.

Well, some people probably are fulfilled whereas others aren’t. People aren’t necessarily that good at pinpointing what they really want, notwithstanding basic urges like food, water, sex, shelter rest etc., thus much of such introspection is spent on trying to find out what they want. I’m not sure if generalizations are going to be that valid when speaking about fulfilling other than basic needs; the variety is too great.

Firstly, do we just need to do more and more science? Maybe if we just keep studying we will get to a place where the need is fulfilled. Or it is possible that objectivity will never fulfil the need?

Yes, of course. Human curiosity seems to be unstoppable in this respect.

Secondly, is it actually realistic to expect objectivity to be able to fulfil this need? In taking a materialist perspective what is evident to me is that the processes which make up a objective, whole human are many. As I mentioned before you need a lot of processes running to really crank up to a full, objective perspective. Yet need and desire seem more primitive in their origination and it is more that they only require objectivity for their articulation. For those needs and desires which are not satisfied through articulation, is it realistic to think that they will be satisfied objectively, or is it possible that their satisfaction only comes with allowing ourselves at least a temporary release from the constraits of this mindset? This seems to me more likely.

I would say that this, again, is settled by a case-by-case investigation. Generalization about what’s fulfilling and what’s not is probably not going to solve much.

I wouldn’t however be overly surprised if some kind of introspection might be sufficient for at least some people in momentarily stopping the urge to seek more, thus maybe revealing a sort of insight into unnecessary struggling. Such is the pace and stress of everyday life that simply taking a break and actually re-learning how it feels to be at peace could be helpful, just like kids with attention disorder are encouraged to identify the feeling of being focused.

I’m not so sure how much this kind of practise actually reveals about the world thou; it seems to reveal more about how we mange to create unnecessary fuss in our everyday lives, by watching how our thoughts and feelings carry a certain momentum even though the basis for them might have passed away some time ago (which could be regarded as an insight).