In my view it is characterized by attempts to oversimplify systems that science has shown to be complex, thereby characterized by a disregard for the boundaries of science and thereby unscientific. — Tzeentch

I've studied this very issue for a long time. And as an ardent holist and organicist myself, the great irony has been to discover that life and mind – representing the highest levels of "organismic complexity" – came about by semiosis, or the ability to organise nature by employing the constraints of a mechanistic causality.

This is a still recent revolution being absorbed in the biological sciences. And Exhibit A would be the motor proteins that move stuff about on tiny filament tracks inside every cell. On the smallest scale of molecular biology, you have these little protein gadgets with legs that run up and down paths to deliver gobbets of this, that and the other, to tagged destinations.

We used to think stuff just diffused in random fashion to get where it needed in cells. But no. It is delivered door to door by a nanobot technology, complete with a system of cellular highways and traffic control machinery.

So biology is engineering. And that then makes the modern scientific obsession with seeing reality itself as engineering just a simple natural extension of the central trick that allowed life in the first place.

It is the "right" causal perspective from our embodied point of view.

Metaphysics hasn't really caught up with any of this yet. But meanwhile check out the cool videos of kinesins and dyneins at work.

I don't think it has to be depressing at all.

Another point Desmet makes is that while the mechanistic worldview has brought us many positive things, it has also taken things away.

Essentially, it has put man in a very unnatural environment, towards which we lack an intuitive understanding. Desmet describes this as a lack of resonance, which man would otherwise have in their natural environment.

While a departure from the mechanistic worldview may close some doors in terms of which problems we believe will be solved by science, it also opens doors that science had previously closed.

Consider a depressed person who could not be cured by pills, but was cured by a more holistic approach to their psychological well-being.

I just mentioned something about mechanistic view in the Life Sucks thread. I think a great example of this view is the idea of evolution (Richard Dawkins type emphasis) vs. Schopenhauer's idea of Will.

Will is a constant craving that when manifested in the experiencer, reveals itself as dissatisfaction. Well, the mechanistic view would "poo poo" this "internal-ness" of the idea of Will and craving. Rather, it is the organism's environmental fit, variation of mutation, and population statistics that drive evolutionary change in organisms. For science to "stay in its lane" it should just focus on these empirical things. However, the downfall of just focusing on the mechanistic is not that we focus on scientific findings, but rather that we only focus on scientific findings. But science has nothing to say on something like the concept of desiring/willing/craving/BEING. A mechanistic/scientistic approach IS its own philosophy. That is to say to ONLY focus on scientific findings whilst disregarding any other considerations. And this is the troubling part.

Rather, in this Schopenhauer case, for example, it seems science is simply reinforcing the idea of Will.. That is to say, organisms that need to maintain metabolic functions, work against entropy, find homeostasis. An organism with all these mechanical functions can be said to be a being dissatisfied. And thus, here is a philosophy beyond the science, but makes existential claims. Things science cannot touch, but are important considerations for being a thinking human that has values, has aesthetics, self-reflects, etc. The fact that we put value on science is itself a value, and thus, negates the idea that it is a de facto and sole consideration.

Very interesting topic! And an excellent description! :up:
Both are among the best I have ever come upon!

Below are some points that I liked especially, I can share without reservation and want to stress.
(They belong to the first part, i.e. up to the "What is the alternative?"

- "Today, the scientific worldview is dominant."

- "We have narrowed our understanding of reality down to elementary particles and quantum physics, and the prevailing view is that every phenomenon can be understood as long as we can understand the way these elementary particles interact with one another."

- "The mechanistic worldview contains within it a promise of power. A promise of complete control over our reality. A promise of certainty - of complete understanding."
(Comment: In which it has failed.)

- "The nature of morality changes when its basis is no longer fuzzy debates over thousand-year-old scriptures, but instead reason, rationality and hard facts and logic."

- "The scientific method has brought mankind very far indeed, and it has made good on many of it promises."
(Comment: Indeed, this deserves a big acknowledgment.)

- "However, today we are also increasingly confronted with its apparent limits."

- "While science suggests that we ought to be humble about the extent of our current knowledge, the mechanistic worldview, where it has mostly been faithful to scientific methods and principles, now has departed from it."

- "Increasingly we see that, where once the mechanistic worldview was a source of progress, humility and scientific rigor and critical thought, it instead is becoming a source of arrogance and wishful thinking."
(Comment: Excellent point. I also talk about scientits' arrogance. Very characteristic!)

- "Citizens, meanwhile, are seen as little more than soulless objects, not unlike the machinery that once instilled us with trust in the mechanical worldview."
(Comment: Quite inspiring!)

- "Given the right input, the citizens can be made to exhibit the politically desirable output. Through processes of social engineering man can be constructed to suit the purposes of other men. Man has become a machine."

Consider a depressed person who could not be cured by pills, but was cured by a more holistic approach to their psychological well-being. — Tzeentch

But all the other therapeutic modalities would do well to find evidence to back up what otherwise would just be a mess of testimonials/anecdotes. What gets in the way of this evidence, the gap between the consumer and the understanding of science, is consumer marketing/propaganda among other things. An understanding of mechanism is also what protects us from harming ourselves even more. If we all looked at the statistical evidence of pills versus lifestyle changes we might be surprised at how little pills have to offer aside placebo. What if we had honest drug commercials, showing the statistical effect aside other therapies?

It seems Desmet is drawing concern for the popular narratives and beliefs about science shaped by a profit incentive and public ignorance but it is strange to label it in such a way: "The End of A Mechanistic Worldview." I wouldn't doubt that the public is generally a lot more skeptical of the idealistic promises of for-profit science given current global crises compared to decades ago.

Part 3, “Beyond the Mechanistic Worldview,” explores how our societies can supplement science—which needs serious reform to eliminate corruption, biases, flawed findings, and outright capture by powerful and monied interests—with both traditional and alternative ways of knowing and attaining meaning (community, spirituality, mastery of craft, etc.) and to further develop the humble and mystery-respecting frontiers of science as articulated by giants such as Einstein, Bohr, and Planck. — Leo Aprendi, Amazon Book Review of Psychology of Totalitarnism, Mattias Desmet

evolution (Richard Dawkins type emphasis) vs. Schopenhauer's idea of Will. — schopenhauer1

Apples and oranges. :roll:

Apples andd oranges. :roll: — 180 Proof

Um, that was my point. Don't focus on apples only. There are also oranges. Apples don't exclude the oranges. Apples can inform the oranges and vice versa. In fact, the oranges may be transcendental to apples.. If so, there would need to be oranges to understand the apples. However, from the perspective of apples-only, it would seem you would never even need to learn about oranges.. But that's some bad apples.

The comparison you make is false, schop1, and confuses the issue much more than it clarifies as your post (the one I'd quoted) shows.

The comparison you make is false, schop1, and confuses the issue much more than it clarifies as your post (the one I'd quoted) shows. — 180 Proof

I can't and won't argue against generalized swiping and griping at me. Drive by griping...
What particularly is the problem?
The mechanistic view (not just "science" in general.. but "scientism"), excludes everything but science as truth-bearing. That's how I interpreted it anyways..
So science vs. scientism.. It's similar to other debates I have seen on the forum.

The mechanistic view (not just "science" in general.. but "scientism"), excludes everything but science as truth-bearing. That's how I interpreted it anyways..
So science vs. scientism.. It's similar to other debates I have seen on the forum. — schopenhauer1

No, this is an erroneous view of mechanistic worldview. The scientific community does not approve of this view. It's a view of a handful of philosophers, not science. It's even at odds with the discipline of science because it purports to reduce everything into formulaic existence.

The OP doesn't equate "the mechanistic worldview" with "scientism" (at least, not explicitly as far as I can tell) and the OP frames this thread discussion, so my "drive-by" disnissal of your non sequitur apples to oranges comparison stands. (Btw, no "hypothetical persons" were made to suffer while writing the post ) :smirk:

It's a view of a handful of philosophers, not science. — L'éléphant

this view is the idea of evolution (Richard Dawkins type emphasis) — schopenhauer1

The OP doesn't equate "the mechanistic worldview" with "scientism" (at least, not explicitly as far as I can tell) and the OP frames this thread discussion, so my "drive-by" disnissal of your non sequitur apples to oranges comparison stands. (Btw, no "hypothetical persons" were made to suffer while writing the post ) :smirk: — 180 Proof

Ok, now that I read it again all the way through.. Yeah it's more about the posture of using science as if it can solve all problems and its use in public policy.. The potential of science versus the reality.. It's more modern statistical/chaos/complex variant versus the more straightforward logic of the Enlightenment Age. Using it as a weapon against ideological opponents, and instilling a worldview.. Got it. Not sure where Schop might fit in there. He avoided politics mainly. Carry on.

Btw, no "hypothetical persons" were made to suffer while writing the post — 180 Proof

There isn't even a "they who never suffered". Only being in the condition of born does the condition of harm apply :wink:. And we can intelligibly talk about preventing birth (and suffering) being that we are already born.. All works out there.

the limits of the mechanistic worldview — Tzeentch

Yeah, that's where all the action is, at the limits, oui? It's a trope we often see in movies and novels - machiness, people, animals are stretched to breaking point and only those that/who survive are considered worthy (of love, respect, whathaveyou).

As far as I can tell, science has been by and large an enterprise in thinking to the exclusion of feeling. That in a nutshell is the nub of the issue (ref. Xin aka heart-mind).

:up:

Your point?

No, this is an erroneous view of mechanistic worldview. The scientific community does not approve of this view. It's a view of a handful of philosophers, not science. It's even at odds with the discipline of science because it purports to reduce everything into formulaic existence. — L'éléphant

I wouldn't say the mechanistic worldview is held only by a handful of philosophers.

It seems a large part of western societies have come to view the world this way, whether they fully realize it or not. Perhaps it is precisely their lack of affinity with science that leads them down this path of wishful thinking. To be fair, it is a very optimistic way of viewing the world, however optimism is no safeguard for folly.

It also explains why we see science manhandled to suit political purposes, attempting to use it to explain complex systems. The rampant abuse of statistics for example, and that doesn't limit itself to the political arena, but we also see it used in advertisement to great effect.

I would argue such things could never be so effective if we didn't have a population that readily believes science is capable in proving things that most scientists would raise their eyebrows at.

According to the definitions of scientism I was able to find, I can imagine these topics are related. Feel free to discuss such things, and also alternative worldviews which may be synthesized with the mechanistic worldview to produce something more satisfying.

The mechanistic worldview contains within it a promise of power. A promise of complete control over our reality. A promise of certainty - of complete understanding. — Tzeentch

This is oxymoronic. The mechanistic world view is simply the deterministic view. What it really says is that we have no power over the world, that we are doomed to our fate.

Do you consider the combination of philosophical realism (e.g. immanentism, actualism, disutilitarianism) + methodological naturalism (e.g. physicalism) as belonging to a "mechanistic worldview"?

(Links provided for clarification )

we are doomed to our fate. — Metaphysician Undercover

Fantabulous!

A worldview is a set of opinions and I think the mechanistic worldview is in part characterized by a leap of faith in terms of our current understanding and our future understanding. Perhaps the claim "all is physical" could be said to be a leap of faith, and I can see how it could lead someone towards a mechanistic world view ("all is physical, therefore..."), though not necessarily.

Ultimately I don't think it's specific scientific theories or philosophies that lead to a mechanistic worldview, but rather a failure to acknowledge their boundaries.

IME, one feature of most modern sciences and philosophies that is distinctly modern is the focus "acknowledging their boundaries". That they are often misused results more from intellectual failings (i.e. Hume's habits of mind) than expressing a "worldview". It seems to be, Tzeentch, you're guilty of misusing the concept "worldview" by applying in overly-broad strokes (à la when you're hammer, everything looks like a nail). :chin:

NB: Though a pedantic point, it's significant to note, as the article linked in my last post makes clear, that I referred to methodological physicalism – a criterion for evaluating scientific theories – and not the "all is physical" of metaphysical physicalism.

It seems a large part of western societies have come to view the world this way, whether they fully realize it or not. Perhaps it is precisely their lack of affinity with science that leads them down this path of wishful thinking. — Tzeentch

Then you've gone the wrong path in this thread. Bowing out. Thanks.

I've studied this very issue for a long time. And as an ardent holist and organicist myself, the great irony has been to discover that life and mind – representing the highest levels of "organismic complexity" – came about by semiosis, or the ability to organise nature by employing the constraints of a mechanistic causality. — apokrisis

This is slightly off-topic, but I just read a book review in Philosophy Now magazine (issue 150), which reminded me of this thread. The name of the book is Organicity : Entropy or Evolution. Written by an Architect & Urban Planner, the book proposes an attitude of "organicity", to guide those involved in trying to deal with cultural entropy by aligning with the organic-systems-approach of Nature. This is not a new idea --- in the early 20th century, Frank Lloyd Wright called his design-with-nature approach "organic architecture" --- but the book uses some novel terminology. For instance, he labels Mechanistic Thinking (dominant & competitive) as "machinic" to contrast with "organic" (cooperative & mutual aid).

His political and economic philosophy seems to be openly socialistic. Yet he refers to it as "anarcho-communism", and says its socially-responsible adherents are "communists who won't wait for the state". He also insists, ominously, that "Nature is going to compel posterity to revert to a stable state on the material plane and to turn to the realm of spirit for satisfying man's hunger for infinity". That latter remark doesn't sound like Marx's atheistic prescription for the ills of industrial & mechanistic society. So, I suppose he's merely acknowledging that the human "spirit" cannot live on mass-manufactured bread alone (Matt 4:4). :smile:

Yeah. But what I am saying flips this on its head.

The physical world is already organic in that it is based on self-organising structure that develops by Darwinian selection. This is what was discovered via chaos theory and far from equilibrium dynamics. Physics and chemistry are already organic in the sense of being instability stabilised by emergent informational structure – some evolved set of global constraints.

And then life and mind become the mechanical addition to this base layer of "pure organicism". You get actual encoded information as a machinery of control. Life and mind are a set of switches that get dropped over the top of the natural physico-chemical fluxes, directing them towards the purposes that the biological has in mind.

This is all OK in the end as life and mind are still part of the world in which they must live. They can only exist as the intelligence that breaks down barriers to entropification. They get to exist as the extra little trick which gets the Cosmos over bumps in the road on its way to its Second Law destination.

So the traditional categories are inverted. That is what really does people's heads in.

And then life and mind become the mechanical addition to this base layer of "pure organicism". — apokrisis

Ironically, the emergence of Life & Mind from the heuristics of evolution, is what resulted in Human Culture. And intentional artificial culture is now evolving much faster than the blind groping of the natural process. Anyway, I think the Simplistic Mechanistic products of techno-culture are merely the low-hanging fruit. We may have to climb the organic tree to get at the more functionally-organized systems. Systems Science is still waving a rattle in the cradle. So, there's hope that holistically-designed systems might eventually reach the sophistication of self-organized organisms that took billions of years to create. You might call it "alloyed organicism" :cool:


Evolutionary Design :
Special computer algorithms inspired by biological Natural Selection. It is similar to Genetic Programming in that it relies on internal competition between random alternative solutions to weed-out inferior results, and to pass-on superior answers to the next generation of algorithms. By means of such optimizing feedback loops, evolution is able to make progress toward the best possible solution – limited only by local restraints – to the original programmer’s goal or purpose.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page13.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_programming

It would be easier to engineer an artificial virus than an artificial mind. So fear the nanobot pandemic first.

It would be easier to engineer an artificial virus than an artificial mind. So fear the nanobot pandemic first. — apokrisis

Ouch! Is that why I feel so itchy & drippy around artificial organisms? :joke:

You are welcome!