One thing which strikes me upon reading ... I think many non-philosophers (and some philosophers too, but I think it's more common among non-philosophers who nevertheless grapple with these things) are irrationally scared of the dualist boogeyman.
Many philosophers who have thought about these things (myself included) will happily say that there's lots of important mental stuff that's irreducible to the physical IN THE FOLLOWING SENSE:
- I'll never know what IT IS LIKE to be a bat (to use Thomas Nagel's famous example) no matter how much I learn about bat brains, bat perception and bat behaviour from a third-personal, scientific standpoint. Analogously, there are limits to people's ability to grasp WHAT IT IS LIKE to undergo various psychopathological experiences that they've never had themselves (and some non-pathological too, where people nevertheless differ, like the scale from aphantasia to hyperphantasia - people at one end of the scale might be unable to grasp what it's like to be at the other end), even if they learn all they can from a third-personal and scientific standpoint.
- Still, going as far as we can in the direction of empathy and understanding can be important both for human relationships in general and for clinical treatment. That means we have to TALK ABOUT IT. We can never REPLACE talk and attempts at empathy and empathic understanding with more neuroscience.
- Part of the human condition, as extensively written about by Kant, existentialists, present-day neo-Kantians and others, is the frequent necessity to deliberate about what to do, consciously choose our actions, etc. Whether you wanna call this free will or not depends on your definition of the term. Nevertheless, regardless of terminology, this fact about the human condition won't change no matter how much we learn about genetics, brains, psychology, sociology, and so on. Practical and theoretical reason play different roles in our lives. We'll never be able to replace first-personal deliberations and choices with scientific theory, no matter how much theory we acquire.
I could go on, but I'm not gonna write an entire philosophy essay here. My main point is that none of the above implies the existence of SPOOKY or SCIENTIFICALLY INEXPLICABLE or CARTESIAN DUALIST immaterial souls, free will, or anything of the sort.
But it seems to me that many non-philosophers mistakenly believe that the kind of stuff I wrote above SOMEHOW places us on a problematic slippery slope towards unscientific dualism. They see a problem where there is none.
Good read as usual.
One thing which strikes me upon reading ... I think many non-philosophers (and some philosophers too, but I think it's more common among non-philosophers who nevertheless grapple with these things) are irrationally scared of the dualist boogeyman.
Many philosophers who have thought about these things (myself included) will happily say that there's lots of important mental stuff that's irreducible to the physical IN THE FOLLOWING SENSE:
- I'll never know what IT IS LIKE to be a bat (to use Thomas Nagel's famous example) no matter how much I learn about bat brains, bat perception and bat behaviour from a third-personal, scientific standpoint. Analogously, there are limits to people's ability to grasp WHAT IT IS LIKE to undergo various psychopathological experiences that they've never had themselves (and some non-pathological too, where people nevertheless differ, like the scale from aphantasia to hyperphantasia - people at one end of the scale might be unable to grasp what it's like to be at the other end), even if they learn all they can from a third-personal and scientific standpoint.
- Still, going as far as we can in the direction of empathy and understanding can be important both for human relationships in general and for clinical treatment. That means we have to TALK ABOUT IT. We can never REPLACE talk and attempts at empathy and empathic understanding with more neuroscience.
- Part of the human condition, as extensively written about by Kant, existentialists, present-day neo-Kantians and others, is the frequent necessity to deliberate about what to do, consciously choose our actions, etc. Whether you wanna call this free will or not depends on your definition of the term. Nevertheless, regardless of terminology, this fact about the human condition won't change no matter how much we learn about genetics, brains, psychology, sociology, and so on. Practical and theoretical reason play different roles in our lives. We'll never be able to replace first-personal deliberations and choices with scientific theory, no matter how much theory we acquire.
I could go on, but I'm not gonna write an entire philosophy essay here. My main point is that none of the above implies the existence of SPOOKY or SCIENTIFICALLY INEXPLICABLE or CARTESIAN DUALIST immaterial souls, free will, or anything of the sort.
But it seems to me that many non-philosophers mistakenly believe that the kind of stuff I wrote above SOMEHOW places us on a problematic slippery slope towards unscientific dualism. They see a problem where there is none.