Is this an explanation or a description? What is being explained? Why is it that the biological functions that give rise to the experience can never be adequately explained?
Do you think that such experience comes from a source other than the organism? — Fooloso4
That’s the fundamental difference between cognitive science and philosophy. Cognitive science seeks an objective account, treating consciousness and cognition as objective phenomena. But philosophy considers the nature of the subject, what it is to be a subject, which requires an altogether different perspective. — Wayfarer
Some use the term cognitive philosophy. The old divisions are not immutable.Some question the usefulness of such arbitrary divisions. — Fooloso4
You should have said "phenomenology" there instead of "philosophy" and I would have agreed with you. — Janus
Materialism: A philosophy of despair and conflict
The debate between Idealism and Materialism may seem abstract and academic, far removed from everyday life, but on closer inspection the opposite is true. From the Scientific Revolution in the 16th and 17th centuries onward, Materialism has steadily grown into the dominant worldview of Western civilization. As such, Materialism has exerted an enormous – and very harmful – influence in our culture. It is not for nothing that the word “materialism” is synonymous with greed and the exclusive focus on material possessions. The most important cultural consequence of scientific Materialism has undoubtedly been modern individualism, an extreme form of the dualistic belief in the reality of the separate ego.
The seemingly separate ego experiences itself as detached from – and at odds with – an indifferent outside world, in which it must struggle to maintain itself. Materialism naturally leads to belief in separation because this philosophy sees Consciousness as a by-product of the brain. In that case, Consciousness is by definition tied to an individual and mortal body, and thus different from individual to individual. In this way, Materialism is in large part responsible for the suffering that the dualistic belief in separation entails: egoism, greed, exploitation, feelings of inferiority, hatred, abuse, violence… These are all thoughts, feelings and behavioral patterns that originate in the conviction that I – as this person, with this body and this mind – am nothing more than this individual being, separate from the other people around me, separate from nature, separate from the Universe. — Peter Saas
The debate between Idealism and Materialism may seem abstract and academic, far removed from everyday life, but on closer inspection the opposite is true. From the Scientific Revolution in the 16th and 17th centuries onward, Materialism has steadily grown into the dominant worldview of Western civilization. — Peter Saas
To me that debate is pointless, — Janus
Ask the proverbial person-in-the-street. They may not have an articulated or well-thought-out answer but a great many will basically believe the materialist worldview, simply because the alternatives no longer appear credible.very few people even think about.... — Janus
Capitalism, the idea of personal profit pervading every sphere of human life, is more the culprit, it seems to me. — Janus
To me that debate is pointless, because there can be no decidable resolution. From one perspective (the phenomenological) consciousness is fundamental. From another perspective,(the scientific) the physical is fundamental. Phenomenology brackets the question of the external world (the physical) and science brackets the question of the internal world (the phenomenological). We can learn from both inquiries, but why should we choose one over the other, especially since that would be to commit a category error. — Janus
There's a lot of things you say are pointless, but I most often believe there's a point you're not seeing. — Wayfarer
Ask the proverbial person-in-the-street. — Wayfarer
They're all inter-connected - science, capitalism, materialism, individualism. It's the times we live in. — Wayfarer
I agree with the thrust of this. But don't most phenomenologists today incorporate the scientific these days under the rubric of a provisional and fallibilistic intersubjective agreement? — Tom Storm
It's not at all arbitrary and with all due respect I feel there's a major conceptual issue you're not seeing in regards to this issue. — Wayfarer
But don't agree that my criticism amounts to nothing more than polemics. — Wayfarer
There are indications that cross-disciplinary and multi-disciplinary approaches will become more common. Neurophilosophy is a good example. Philosophical biology is another. — Fooloso4
Did I say it did? — Fooloso4
You should have said "phenomenology" there instead of "philosophy" and I would have agreed with you.
— Janus
OK, good point, and generally agree with what you're saying.
But don't agree that my criticism amounts to nothing more than polemics. — Wayfarer
Absolutely! And it is precisely because they have started to incorporate the phenomenological and 'embodied cognition' approaches, which in turn grew out of the movement away from old-school scientific materialism. — Wayfarer
No more than, for example, traffic lights "cause" drivers to step on the breaks or the gas. Simply put, they are only signals which inform habits, and when circumstances warrant they can be overriden (ignored), unlike "causes" which cannot.Do you think that feelings never play a causal role in human behaviour? — bert1
Agreed. That's how it differs from an "physical explanation" – phenomenology describes, not explains (i.e. maps, not models). — 180 Proof
I know Bob Dylan wrote it, but in my view the song belongs to Jimi — Janus
Lucky you having been at Monterey! — Janus
I got into Dylan via Jimi's performance of "Like a Rolling Stone" at Monterey. Blew my fragile little mind. — ZzzoneiroCosm
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.