BPB on Living with Science

This week, I’ve mostly been reading philosophical literature about the brain. Bits from Fodor, Churchland, Chalmers and Rosenberg — all expressing different opinions on whether or not the brain could possibly represent the world in the way we think it does. For example, when I have the concept ‘cat’ (philosophers bloody love talking about cats), it might mean that I am in some brain state that represents that concept — I possess some brain symbols that correspond to ‘cat’. Jerry Fodor would see things this way (if I haven’t misunderstood — which is possible. I am still a mere pupil, wet behind the ears).

Whatever you want to say about Fodor, he speaks about thoughts, concepts, beliefs and desires in a way that we would usually understand them. ‘Folk psychology’ — the way people usually understand other people. Why are you reading this? Because you believed that you may enjoy it and you desired that enjoyment. Beliefs and desires — that seems to be how people work and I can make pretty accurate assumptions about your behaviour based on these.

Alex Rosenberg, on the other hand, gives you a theory about people that violates every single one of your intuitions. In fact, you don’t have any intuitions. Everything you do is just a determined response to environmental stimuli. He basically thinks that we’re much more complicated sea slugs — we just have a few more — well, loads more — neurons and stuff. But otherwise, we just respond to our environment. That’s it. Our language has no meaning, there is no ‘true’ or ‘false’, we could never possess any concepts because our brain could never represent anything — everything can be explained by science and there is nothing else. Even these sentences are just meaningless symbols. Utterly, utterly bleak.

Before you all rush off to sign up for a degree in Philosophy — just stay with me. This is just a little introduction to what I would like to think about this week: to what extent can we live concurrently with everything science is telling us? Rosenberg thinks that if we subscribe to the idea that the universe is entirely physical, then we are committed to eliminativism (his position — that nothing means anything). Science, I suppose, works on the assumption that everything is physical — that there isn’t anything ‘supernatural’, including gods, souls, angels, minds, demons and so on. So are we committed to this bleak eliminativist outcome if we commit to physicalism? And, if so, how could we possibly live with that? (Rosenberg would probably say that you don’t have a choice but to live with it, because everything is determined. Shut up Rosenberg.)

But of course, seemingly to us, this idea (that we couldn’t possibly ever grasp) that our brain doesn’t contain anything meaningful — no facts, language, logic, nothing — just doesn’t give us a complete picture of the world. Things like love, sex, art– they don’t seem reducible to biology and physics. Surely, we do act based on our beliefs and desires; if we didn’t, then how could we account for the accurate predictions of the behaviour of other people or our introspective experiences? Can we get around these problems without introducing something non-physical, perhaps along the lines of Plato’s forms or Descartes’ minds? Or do we have to give up on the idea that humans possess some spark of something different that distinguishes us from other animals, other than just ‘more neurons’?

My hope for the future is that neuroscience will come up with something more palatable. It is true that scientists know relatively little when it comes to the brain. To me (a non-scientist), it doesn’t seem impossible that they might discover some crucial something that gives us some meaning back. (Am I clutching at straws here?) Or we could just all go back to being dualists. I don’t mind that option either.

In any case, the way that we speak and interact with each other very often doesn’t line up with what science tells us. So how can we live comfortably with all this new science without running into these kinds of problems? Rosenberg’s answer seems to be to “think with the learned and speak with the vulgar” — carry on as normal then. Is this worthwhile? Or even possible?

If you’re interested to read about this further — see Rosenberg ‘Eliminativism without Tears’ or Fodor ‘Psychosemantics: The Problem of Meaning in the Philosophy of Mind’.

Thoughts, Questions, Comments:

Tweet: @brainpostblog

Email: brainpostblog@outlook.com