Stephen Hawking is wrong

Gary L

The Grand Design page 1: "philosophy is dead, scientists have become the bearers of the torch of discovery in our quest for knowledge"

Big fan of the guy but thought that one was a bit cheeky. Science is philosophy stevie boy, we just had the bright idea to gather empirical data for use in our essentially unchanged logical process.

Sure we'll make it a poll

Lady Chuckles

Gary L wrote: »

Big fan of the guy but thought that one was a bit cheeky. Science is philosophy stevie boy, we just had the bright idea to gather empirical data for use in our essentially unchanged logical process.

... And science doesn't explain everything.
Cheeky is indeed the word for it :pac:

18AD

He's no the first to say it either. I'm pretty sure Hegel and Heidegger and others (I'm unaware of) have all thought, in their time, that they had reached the end of philosophy.

That being said, they thought so as philosophers.

Of course if you decide to philosophise about science and the mechanics of the universe, you had better have your facts straight. There is no doubt that science has overtaken philosophy in that arena.

As Lady Chuckles said, science doesn't explain everything.

Even if it does explain everything, as people, are explanations the total fulfilment of human potential?

A quesition I haven't had time to ponder.
Is certainty truth?

Nabber

Science Vs Philosophy
The old debate goes on. Would it be right to say you can't have one without the other?
Is there a definitive point on where one will end? Could we ever know everything?


Science is philosophy, only science makes use of eqautions and numbers :pac:

18AD

Nabber wrote: »

Science is philosophy, only science makes use of eqautions and numbers :pac:

Science most definitely is not philosophy.

If it is, it is to it what an atom is to an apple. :pac:

Lady Chuckles

I think philosophy can inspire science. I don't think science can provide all the answers, however, especially not to the question "why"?

Playboy

Gary L wrote: »

The Grand Design page 1: "philosophy is dead, scientists have become the bearers of the torch of discovery in our quest for knowledge"

Big fan of the guy but thought that one was a bit cheeky. Science is philosophy stevie boy, we just had the bright idea to gather empirical data for use in our essentially unchanged logical process.

Sure we'll make it a poll

What about the philosophy of science? Intstrumentalists, realists, wavicles etc.

Philosophy questions the very basis of knowing and challenges fundamental assumptions made by scientists.

Morbert

An interesting piece by Weinberg

http://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=against%20philosophy%20weinberg&source=web&cd=1&sqi=2&ved=0CCAQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fdepts.washington.edu%2Fssnet%2FWeinberg_SSN_1_14.pdf&ei=jcwiT7SZO4S7hAeh0tnWBA&usg=AFQjCNG5HW4eg1g1G96Ay2C56P_l9b-WWg&cad=rja

I think Philosophy has great areas to explore in conjunction with science when it comes to fields like the relation between language and consciousness, but it is often horribly misapplied when it comes to physics.

I think the problem is Philosophy can be a great complementary subject. If a Physicist goes off an studies Philosophy, and then comes back to debate whether or not the Hilbert-space structure of Hawking's super-space of topologies constitutes the "nothing" that the excitation we call "the universe" was born from, then more power to them. But the usual "Hawking is wrong because my apple came from a tree and not nothing" philosophical arguments are a burden.

Gbear

Lady Chuckles wrote: »

I think philosophy can inspire science. I don't think science can provide all the answers, however, especially not to the question "why"?

I think what science does do is determine whether there is a "why".
The general mindset that there are things that exist outside the natural world is a rather bold assumption based on literally nothing.

You can postulate about them but by and large they can be dismissed.

While science doesn't know everything now and in a universe where information may be nearly infinite it may not be possible to know everything, science is by far the best way we've discovered to know anything knowable.

Anything outside sciences remit is de facto outside the universe and reality.
As such it's unknowable and irrelevant as far as i'm concerned.

That's not to say philosophy is useless, but as Hawking says, science has superseded it with respect to determining fact and understanding the universe.

Sindri

Metaphysics???

Quantum mechanics???

RubyRoss

Anything outside sciences remit is de facto outside the universe and reality. As such it's unknowable and irrelevant as far as i'm concerned

I can’t imagine many scientists agreeing with this position. Most great advancements have been made – and fiercely resisted – by extending the remit of science and what can be empirically or theoretically proven. On your reasoning, mathematical infinity was de facto outside the universe prior to Georg Cantor and suddenly part of the universe after him. It makes more sense to say that Cantor opened up infinity as a subject for physics. This implies that whatever is deemed within the remit of science is limited at any time.

Science progresses by testing its limits. The value of philosophy is that it has always worked at the upper-limits of what is knowable and while some like Hawkins like to dismiss philosophy, the success of philosophy has been the development of maths and logic.

Gbear

RubyRoss wrote: »

I can’t imagine many scientists agreeing with this position. Most great advancements have been made – and fiercely resisted – by extending the remit of science and what can be empirically or theoretically proven. On your reasoning, mathematical infinity was de facto outside the universe prior to Georg Cantor and suddenly part of the universe after him. It makes more sense to say that Cantor opened up infinity as a subject for physics. This implies that whatever is deemed within the remit of science is limited at any time.

I didn't say the remit of science was fixed or that we'd reached the boundaries of it.

But as Hawking says in the passage, whatever those boundaries are, science is the best tool discovered for discovering them.

The point I was trying to make was that anything that's outside science's remit essentially doesn't exist. By the same token, anything inside reality, whether we currently know of it or not, is within science's remit, and if it's not, then there's nothing else known to man that could understand it any better.

RubyRoss

The point I was trying to make was that anything that's outside science's remit essentially doesn't exist.

But why peg existence to what can be scientifically known when you allow that the remit of science isn’t fixed?


Existence precedes and exceeds what is knowable at any time.

Hawkins is saying that science is best placed to inform us about the universe and existence whereas your position implies that if we can’t know it doesn’t exist.

Precious1

What about Philosophy of Science? Alfred North Whitehead? Why make a dichotomy?
Philosophy of Science examines that which which science presupposes. @Playboy

Gbear

RubyRoss wrote: »

But why peg existence to what can be scientifically known when you allow that the remit of science isn’t fixed?


Existence precedes and exceeds what is knowable at any time.

Hawkins is saying that science is best placed to inform us about the universe and existence whereas your position implies that if we can’t know it doesn’t exist.

I'm arguing that anything that is knowable (in absolute terms) is within the realms of science and anything that isn't can't be detected and is therefore irrelevant and for all intents and purposes, non-existent.

For example, the argument á la Stephen J Gould that there are different "magisteria" is something that I disagree with.
All I'm doing is agreeing with Hawking and disagreeing with the argument that, as a poster above stated, that there is a "why" kind of question that is beyond science's remit.

Lady Chuckles

Gbear wrote: »

I think what science does do is determine whether there is a "why".

If someone wonders "why", doesn't that mean a "why" exist? :pac:

18AD

Gbear wrote: »

I'm arguing that anything that is knowable (in absolute terms) is within the realms of science and anything that isn't can't be detected and is therefore irrelevant and for all intents and purposes, non-existent.

What about something like ethics? Isn't that outside the boundaries of science?
If so, you're saying ethics doesn't exist.

What about art, poetry, fiction, humour?
Humour is an interesting example, because of the common experience that if you have to explain why a joke is funny, you have rendered it immediately unfunny. In this case explanation does a disservice to what it's trying to explain.

RubyRoss

Humour and art are interesting because there is a current trend within cognitive science and neuro-science to explain art. At best, they explain what is happening in the brain during meaning-making but they certainly don't explain why a joke or an artwork is meanigful

18AD

RubyRoss wrote: »

Humour and art are interesting because there is a current trend within cognitive science and neuro-science to explain art. At best, they explain what is happening in the brain during meaning-making but they certainly don't explain why a joke or an artwork is meanigful

Also, surely they would have to find out what the parameters for meaningful art would be? In effect putting limitations on art which seems to hinder its development. In fact most defining art comes as a transcending of previous models.

Any explanation of art or aesthetics is always a counterfactul explanation. The essence of art happens within art, by artists, and the aesthetic judgements come after. In effect, the "science" behind it is only secondary to art itself. This is akin to saying that art is more inmortant than science in any explanation of art. Controversial, or just plain false?

In relation to a joke, even if they could find out why a joke was funny, it would be an inherently unfunny explanation. Is it a useful thing to look for at all, in effect becoming a meaningless explanation. Unless they attempt to write the funniest joke in the world.

Also, to drag in (for the fun) the most blatant existential problem that is unexplainable by science would be death and nothingness. Nothing is precisely that which science is not interested in. The fate of every person on the planet to eventually sumbit to non-existence is a thing that no science attempts or should attempt to explain.

Gbear

18AD wrote: »

What about something like ethics? Isn't that outside the boundaries of science?
If so, you're saying ethics doesn't exist.

What about art, poetry, fiction, humour?
Humour is an interesting example, because of the common experience that if you have to explain why a joke is funny, you have rendered it immediately unfunny. In this case explanation does a disservice to what it's trying to explain.

Ethics is an abstract concept. Can abstract concepts be said to exist in the same way that, for example, a shoe does?
The belief in ethics has physical properties as brain activity but ethics itself isn't really a "thing".

Ethics might be outside science but it also doesn't really deals in facts.
In absolute terms I'm not sure it's possible to establish a factual basis for any moral code in terms of what is morally superiour.

What is practically superiour can be determined with science however (Does the death penalty act as a deterrent? Do a study and find out the answer.) but there still has to be an opinion first set out that deterring murder is good and ultimately that human suffering is bad. I might agree with them but they're not really absolute facts.

I'll confidently state that art, poetry, etc will all be explained as neuroscience progresses.

An example for a neuroscientific understanding of art might go something like this (ludicrously simplified obviously).
Show a person two circles. One is red and one is blue. Ask which he prefers. Measure which one he preferes (with brain science!). You now know what makes a brain decide it likes one colour over another.

Meaning is something we impart onto objects. Anthropomorphism would be an example. Just because we attach meaning to something doesn't indicate that that meaning is innate in the object.

Lady Chuckles wrote: »

If someone wonders "why", doesn't that mean a "why" exist? :pac:

If someone believes in a unicorn, does that mean unicorns exist?;)
They both exist in a sense, but as little bits of brain activity, rather than "real things" for want of a better phrase.

18AD wrote: »

Also, to drag in (for the fun) the most blatant existential problem that is unexplainable by science would be death and nothingness. Nothing is precisely that which science is not interested in. The fate of every person on the planet to eventually sumbit to non-existence is a thing that no science attempts or should attempt to explain.

You're right, it shouldn't. But that's the best we can hope for. Because science can't assess the nothingness and we've no better tool they are unknowable. Any attempt to do so would be ultimately fruitless because with either a philosophical or religious attempt to explore the concept, you might pass some time and maybe enjoy yourself but at the end no new knowledge would have been obtained about the subject.

Morbert

I post this so often that it's almost spam, but here is a good piece by the Physicist Feynmann on "Why" questions

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMFPe-DwULM

18AD

Gbear wrote: »

Ethics is an abstract concept. Can abstract concepts be said to exist in the same way that, for example, a shoe does?
The belief in ethics has physical properties as brain activity but ethics itself isn't really a "thing".

Ethics might be outside science but it also doesn't really deals in facts.
In absolute terms I'm not sure it's possible to establish a factual basis for any moral code in terms of what is morally superiour.

What is practically superiour can be determined with science however (Does the death penalty act as a deterrent? Do a study and find out the answer.) but there still has to be an opinion first set out that deterring murder is good and ultimately that human suffering is bad. I might agree with them but they're not really absolute facts.

But I'll assume you think that ethics is useful even if it doesn't deal in absolute facts? I don't think it makes it any less legitimate because it doesn't deal in facts.

I'll confidently state that art, poetry, etc will all be explained as neuroscience progresses.

An example for a neuroscientific understanding of art might go something like this (ludicrously simplified obviously).
Show a person two circles. One is red and one is blue. Ask which he prefers. Measure which one he preferes (with brain science!). You now know what makes a brain decide it likes one colour over another.

My point is that while the scientific understanding of art may be useful and have good explanatory power, it is itself not art. Although it may explain art, from the perspective of art it has very little to do with it. The science of art is not art, and art is not science.

Edit: I'm not saying either that science can't be aesthetically pleasing, such as the numerous examples of fractal art or neutrino tracks. But these aesthetic aspects are not the goal, nor do they have anything to do with science as science.

To put it another way, I don't think that if we further understand art, in all its forms, that that understanding is going to have any important effect on art itself. It may inform it but it will remain art regardless.
The opposite is the case with science as applied to science, because the aim of sceince to advance knowledge, so those advancements are important when understood in a scienctific framework. Richard Feynman in the video below hints towards a similar point. But he takes it a bit farther. I think he seems to be implying that art is not important because it is not universalisable.

I guess you might be on the side of mind-brain identity theorists. Which I'm not so sure is a correct position.

If someone believes in a unicorn, does that mean unicorns exist?;)
They both exist in a sense, but as little bits of brain activity, rather than "real things" for want of a better phrase.

Sorry, but if the thought is just the brain state, then they do exist. Even if other things exist outside of the brain, you will need more than brain state descriptions to account for their existence. Even if you say that there is a specific brain state that stands for "existing outside the brain" you have the same problem.

You're right, it shouldn't. But that's the best we can hope for. Because science can't assess the nothingness and we've no better tool they are unknowable. Any attempt to do so would be ultimately fruitless because with either a philosophical or religious attempt to explore the concept, you might pass some time and maybe enjoy yourself but at the end no new knowledge would have been obtained about the subject.

So you're saying that knowledge is more important than enjoyment, if said discussion is enjoyable? A knowledgable life with no enjoyment is better than a stupid one with lots of enjoyment, to use the classic extremes. "It is better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a pig satisfied." I'd argue midway between the two extremes, just to be stereotypically balanced.

Is it possible that the enjoyment of such a discussion is precisely what is needed in the face of that question?

@Morbert - That's a great video. The whole series is excellent. My favourite is the light waves/swimming pool analogy. I totally agree with him that science is interesting, but I think he dismisses everything else a little hastily. Again to use the idea of fiction, why would a character in a novel do anything? Obviously there is no factually correct answer, but I don't think that makes the question meaningless or any less interesting than the scientific questions.

Also, if the amount of interest someone has in science is the motivating force behind doing science in the first place, doesn't that lie outside of science itself? I do it because it interests me. That is a perfectly valid unscientific response and reason to pursue it. What do you think?

Again, I'm not saying that you can't come up with a science of interest, but this is not why anyone pursues it.

blatantrereg

His philosophy is that philiosophy is dead.

Gbear

If you're wondering why i've cut out most of your post, it's because I largely agree with it. I'm going to address the other points.

I'd also like to remind you of the OP and the quote of Hawking's:
"philosophy is dead, scientists have become the bearers of the torch of discovery in our quest for knowledge"

What I take that to mean is that philosophy is dead, but only with respect to the second part of that sentence. It's dead insofar as it's no longer "the torch of discovery".

When it comes to really "knowing" things, science is king. Whether "knowing" things is better or not is a different debate.

18AD wrote: »

But I'll assume you think that ethics is useful even if it doesn't deal in absolute facts? I don't think it makes it any less legitimate because it doesn't deal in facts.

It makes it perfectly legitimate. We use it for practical reasons so that society doesn't tear itself apart. There's no absolute universal, scientific principle that states that having a society is a good thing but that doesn't mean that I don't approve of ethics.

18AD wrote: »

I guess you might be on the side of mind-brain identity theorists. Which I'm not so sure is a correct position.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean. The way I view people is that they and their consciousnesses are contained within their brain and their brain is merely a very complex computer. With sufficient technological advancement, we will gain a full understanding of it.

18AD wrote: »

Sorry, but if the thought is just the brain state, then they do exist. Even if other things exist outside of the brain, you will need more than brain state descriptions to account for their existence. Even if you say that there is a specific brain state that stands for "existing outside the brain" you have the same problem.

They do exist, but surely you acknowledge there's a difference between the idea of a unicorn and one running around your garden?
The idea of unicorns exist. Unicorns themselves, do not (so far as we know).

18AD wrote: »

So you're saying that knowledge is more important than enjoyment, if said discussion is enjoyable?

Nope.

18AD wrote: »

Again, I'm not saying that you can't come up with a science of interest, but this is not why anyone pursues it.

My argument here isn't about what is "better". Science is the best at finding out facts. There's nothing that suggests that facts are any better than anything else. Whether we chose to believe in facts or fantasy, the universe doesn't give a monkey's.

18AD

Gbear wrote: »

I'd also like to remind you of the OP and the quote of Hawking's:
"philosophy is dead, scientists have become the bearers of the torch of discovery in our quest for knowledge"

What I take that to mean is that philosophy is dead, but only with respect to the second part of that sentence. It's dead insofar as it's no longer "the torch of discovery".

When it comes to really "knowing" things, science is king. Whether "knowing" things is better or not is a different debate.

I agree that science is undoubtedly the best at discovering facts about the material (and immaterial, forces and fields or whatnot) universe.

But I don't think that knowledge (in all its forms) is only facts. You can have ethical knowledge, even if there is no absolute fact of ethics. You can have artistic knowledge, historical knowledge and so on.

We can even discover knew (non-factual) knowledge through discourse or interpretation (and re-interpretation).

I'm not sure exactly what you mean. The way I view people is that they and their consciousnesses are contained within their brain and their brain is merely a very complex computer. With sufficient technological advancement, we will gain a full understanding of it.

I guess this is a bit of side issue, tapering into philosophy of mind/cogsci.

You were saying that we could come up with a neurological understanding of aethetics (poetry, art, music). My point is that even if we do come up with this it adds very little to artistic knowledge. To say that something like Love is just such-and-such neurons firing doesn't tell us anything if you think that Love just is neurons firing. Because they equate, neither one exaplins the other. So the same can be applied to any experience.

They do exist, but surely you acknowledge there's a difference between the idea of a unicorn and one running around your garden?
The idea of unicorns exist. Unicorns themselves, do not (so far as we know).

Of course. I'm not so sure what the significance of the difference is, it's not somthing I've looked at so much.

The one in my garden doesn't really appreciate my opinions of hir. :pac:

RubyRoss

The science V philosophy issue seems needlessly loaded to me not least because the terms ‘science’ and ‘philosophy’ are broad terms which encompass very different modes of understanding. For example, within science there is a huge difference between biology and physics, and within philosophy there is a huge difference between the traditions of analytical logic and epistemological traditions.

Science, taking the broadest and best meaning of that term, has achieved incredible insight into the world but philosophy, taking the broadest and best meaning of that term, has laid the foundations for science and continues to question those foundations.

In the very spirit of enquiry, it astounds me that people who claim to be ‘of science’ are so closed to the questioning of methods and grounds which philosophy had always stood for. There have been cul-de-sacs in philosophy, to be sure, but the love of learning for the sake of learning remains the definition of philosophy; one which does not preclude scientific discoveries but necessarily questions the grounds upon which they are formed. By definition alone, I would say philosophy could not be at an end.

Gbear

18AD wrote: »

But I don't think that knowledge (in all its forms) is only facts. You can have ethical knowledge, even if there is no absolute fact of ethics. You can have artistic knowledge, historical knowledge and so on.

Well then it just comes down to semantics. I wouldn't classify artistic knowledge in the same way as I would scientific knowledge.
In the sense that i'm talking, I wouldn't call "artistic knowledge" knowledge at all.

Although scientific knowledge isn't absolute either (if it was it wouldn't be science) it gives a greater probability of accuracy than others through prediction and verifiability.

18AD wrote: »

We can even discover knew (non-factual) knowledge through discourse or interpretation (and re-interpretation).

Again I wouldn't class this in the same way as scientific knowledge. I wouldn't call it discovery. It has a value, of course, but it's not as "true" as scientific knowledge.

(Where "true" is as close to absolute truth as we've thus far discovered.)

18AD wrote: »

I guess this is a bit of side issue, tapering into philosophy of mind/cogsci.

You were saying that we could come up with a neurological understanding of aethetics (poetry, art, music). My point is that even if we do come up with this it adds very little to artistic knowledge.

With the caveat that we're defining the word "knowledge" differently, I agree.

18AD wrote: »

To say that something like Love is just such-and-such neurons firing doesn't tell us anything if you think that Love just is neurons firing. Because they equate, neither one exaplins the other. So the same can be applied to any experience.

I'm not sure what you mean. If we have a full understanding of the biological process by which "Love" arises and also understand it's usefulness in an anthropological context, I don't see what else there is to talk about.
I don't consider "love" to be fundamentally anything different to hunger, or pain.

18AD

Gbear wrote: »

I'm not sure what you mean. If we have a full understanding of the biological process by which "Love" arises and also understand it's usefulness in an anthropological context, I don't see what else there is to talk about.
I don't consider "love" to be fundamentally anything different to hunger, or pain.

How do you reduce first person subjective experience to third-person knowledge?

How is your experience of anything the same as such-and-such a physiological response? When you experience pain, is that experience the exact same thing as nerve-fibres activating? How do you reduce one to the other? Would you say that the subjective experience of pain is illusory and that it's actually just nerve-fibre's that I can't experience accurately?

Gbear

18AD wrote: »

How is your experience of anything the same as such-and-such a physiological response? When you experience pain, is that experience the exact same thing as nerve-fibres activating? How do you reduce one to the other? Would you say that the subjective experience of pain is illusory and that it's actually just nerve-fibre's that I can't experience accurately?

Well granted I'm not sure it's possible to get a definitive answer. The logical answer is still the most simple one; that we are what we appear to be.
There's no evidence to the contrary that I've encountered that suggests we are anything other than the sum of our various parts.

18AD

Gbear wrote: »

There's no evidence to the contrary that I've encountered that suggests we are anything other than the sum of our various parts.

One argument to the contrary is that from the subjective point of view we don't operate as parts working in synchrony, we are actually already unified in experience. When you go to stand up you don't first move your leg and then find your balance and then move your arm to help yourself up. You are already a unified totality working towards a goal.

The experience of parts is actually secondary to the unified whole of the above mentioned experience. What we encounter first is an interconnected unity of experience. Only after we attempt to break it down do we find out that there are parts.

I guess it depends where you wish to place the emphasis. Is the original unity there at all or are the parts truer than the whole?

Surely even the language we use hints towards the answer, as we tend to "break things down" or "simplify". That is to say, the whole is the (too complicated) starting point and the discovery of parts is only a tool towards understanding the whole. To put it differently, we can't understand the whole, so we break it down.

Lady Chuckles

Gbear wrote: »

If someone believes in a unicorn, does that mean unicorns exist?;)
They both exist in a sense, but as little bits of brain activity, rather than "real things" for want of a better phrase.

Perhaps it does

This scenario isn't quite what I had in mind in my previous post, but I'll run with it ... How do we know unicorns don't exist? I haven't seen one in real life, but then again I haven't seen a real live bear either. I listen to scientists telling me there are no unicorns, but what if there are and they just haven't found them yet? Or what if they died out along time ago?

Perhaps this example is a little bit silly, my point is that within philosophy you can ask question after question and there are not really any solid answers. Some things don't have answers like; why do we live? What happens when you're dead? How do you know something is true/real?

We don't have the answerse yet - and maybe we never will... But even if we do get them, there will most likely be new philosophical questions and more hows, whys and whats

philologos

18AD wrote: »

Science most definitely is not philosophy.

If it is, it is to it what an atom is to an apple. :pac:

Some of the first natural science that took place in the world was carried out by philosophers ranging from Thales to Aristotle. Natural philosophy was the original name for natural science in most university faculties. I would also say that the word science has taken on a different meaning in the last two centuries than it had before that point. Science was related to the term scientia meaning knowledge. I don't believe the only knowledge we have is scientific.

18AD

Yeah, there's certainly a case to be made for the overlap between the two.

I'm reminded that in the German Wissenschaft is translated as science, but it includes history, science, philosophy etc...

Is scientia the latin? What is the latin equivalent of philo-sophy? Amor Scientia?

Gbear

18AD wrote: »

One argument to the contrary is that from the subjective point of view we don't operate as parts working in synchrony, we are actually already unified in experience. When you go to stand up you don't first move your leg and then find your balance and then move your arm to help yourself up. You are already a unified totality working towards a goal.

I don't see how that is an argument to the contrary.
When you stand up you do it automatically, just the same as you breath without thinking about it. We subconsciously do these things, I would imagine, to free the brain up to bend more power towards more difficult things.

Being the sum of your parts includes your brain - the control center which allows you to very quickly, stand up, get your balance, move your arm, all automatically, so you can be thinking how to make a sandwich.

18AD wrote: »

The experience of parts is actually secondary to the unified whole of the above mentioned experience. What we encounter first is an interconnected unity of experience. Only after we attempt to break it down do we find out that there are parts.

I guess it depends where you wish to place the emphasis. Is the original unity there at all or are the parts truer than the whole?

Surely even the language we use hints towards the answer, as we tend to "break things down" or "simplify". That is to say, the whole is the (too complicated) starting point and the discovery of parts is only a tool towards understanding the whole. To put it differently, we can't understand the whole, so we break it down.

Im not sure how any of this refutes that we are no more than the sum of our parts.

18AD

Gbear wrote: »

I don't see how that is an argument to the contrary.
When you stand up you do it automatically, just the same as you breath without thinking about it. We subconsciously do these things, I would imagine, to free the brain up to bend more power towards more difficult things.

The point is that experientially the unity of experience is primary. The act of breaking things down into parts is secondary. We are not an assemblage of parts, we are a unity that can be broken down into parts.

If you're going for a walk you don't think left foot, right foot. You just do it all together as a whole. Thinking about it actually gets in the way.

Most motor awareness is thought to reside mostly in the body as well. So called muscle memory. The brain I suspect has a lot less to do with movement than you make out. If any one here does cogsci could they maybe back that up? Or maybe I'm still behind the times

If you take the leg of a centipede it automatically readjusts it's whole walking pattern immediately to compensate. It doesn't have to learn how to deal with the loss because the bodily movement is a unity and does not need to be "thought through" or relearned.

Gbear

18AD wrote: »

The point is that experientially the unity of experience is primary. The act of breaking things down into parts is secondary. We are not an assemblage of parts, we are a unity that can be broken down into parts.

If you're going for a walk you don't think left foot, right foot. You just do it all together as a whole. Thinking about it actually gets in the way.

Most motor awareness is thought to reside mostly in the body as well. So called muscle memory. The brain I suspect has a lot less to do with movement than you make out. If any one here does cogsci could they maybe back that up? Or maybe I'm still behind the times

If you take the leg of a centipede it automatically readjusts it's whole walking pattern immediately to compensate. It doesn't have to learn how to deal with the loss because the bodily movement is a unity and does not need to be "thought through" or relearned.

I think we're arguing over nothing again. The "sum of our parts" comment doesn't really imply that there is no "unity", as you're calling it.
What integrates those parts and fashions them into a smoothly running machine is just another part - whether it's all done centrally at the brain or decentrally at different points in the body isn't really relevant. It's still just "stuff".

18AD

Gbear wrote: »

I think we're arguing over nothing again. The "sum of our parts" comment doesn't really imply that there is no "unity", as you're calling it.
What integrates those parts and fashions them into a smoothly running machine is just another part - whether it's all done centrally at the brain or decentrally at different points in the body isn't really relevant. It's still just "stuff".

Quite possibly. I'm partially trying to remember some things I read a while ago and arrange them in my own head again.

I wouldn't say that there is one part that intergrates, but that all the parts together are already intergrated. To use an example that's probably too removed to apply to people. Take something like a jellyfish, where none of the tentacles touch. As far as I know, there is no brain. It is unified across the system but not in any specific part.

Or isn't there specific types of simple organisms that have limited functions, but when they combine together they have more advanced functions than any of the composite parts had? I forget the name of these things now. But it would demonstrate that the whole is more than the sum of its parts. I'm sure there're plenty of other examples of this.

Oh yeah, one of the main points of the previous argument was that the part description of the body in physiology describes a dead body. The first person lived body (your experience of your body) is not experienced as an assemblage of parts and does not function like a machine. (The machine metaphor itself being misleading). It comes back to the earlier point of how you'd go about reducing your first person experience to third person descriptions.