mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (01/04/85)
In article <107@decwrl.UUCP> arndt@lymph.DEC writes: > (I said:) > > "Unfortunately, many scientists and interpreters of science don't understand > > the limits of the discipline. They claim much more than they should. They > > argue that someday science will explain values, beauty, love, friendship, > > aesthetics and literary quality. They say: 'All of these will eventually be > > explicable in terms of brain performance. We only have to know more about > > the brain.' That view is nothing more than a superstitution that confuses > > both the public and many scientists. > > (You ans.) > Whoops. Here he goes off the deep end. While advancing his own superstition > of unknowability, he accuses others of his own sin of superstition. > > **** Perhaps "superstition" was a poor choice of word. However, he is not > saying anything more or less than I have read from other brain researchers. > "We hardly know anything about how the brain really works" and words to that > effect. Clearly, it seems to me, to make such wide ranging philosophical > claims (they are not based upon science) about the 'higher' functions of the > brain (imagination, etc.) at this state of investigation is hardly warrented. > Given the current stated of our knowledge about the brain (and HE should know > yes?) I just don't see where you can reasonably say he is "advancing his own > brand of unknowability". We just don't know!!! He's saying those who say > the brain accounts for these things are overreaching - a true statement! > He goes on to say he doesn't think that the brain ever will account for them. > But that is hardly "going off the deep end", unless you've already made up > your mind ahead of the evidence - have you? To have done so is . . . you > don't like the word 'superstitution' so what should we call it? Let's get our positions clear. I think that eventually, science can explain beautry, love, etc. I think that because I don't perceive any obstacles (such as proofs that we cannot.) It sounds to me as if Eccles says (with no justification) that we NEVER can. Not just that our current knowledge is insufficient, but that we never can. That is what I am agruing against. > (You go on to say) > 1) He nowhere supports his claim with anything more than "I feel so". > > (Arndt) *** Bosh!!! Double Bosh! He's speaking about the brain and > from his lifetime of experience. He's not talking about Unix. > Even when he talks about the philosophical meaning of current research, > remember he's written books about it! How many have you written? > He wrote the books with others who ARE expert in the area (Popper). > "I feel so" is merely often another way of saying "based upon my knowledge, > I think . . ." You're reaching! Your presuppositions against 'feelings' > are showing! See my recent reply to Rosen and the enclosed quote. If his lifetime of experience supports his claims, let him explicitly use it to support them. I see no reason to respect unsubstantiated claims: no scientist should. Science should not be based on cults of personality. Nor need I slavishly agree with his ideas of philosophy, any more than I agree with his religious beliefs. > 2) He (and Popper) are both speaking out of their fields of expertise. > Morals, feelings and the like are part of the SOCIAL workings of our > species, since they affect our behavior. An analogy would be a particle > physicist claiming that it would be impossible for us to understand > proteinaceous enzymes. I envision teamups between AI researchers, > sociobiologists, and game theorists to deal with these questions. > > (Arndt) *** Sorry, I can't agree with you here. Sir Karl Popper is > perhaps the premier philosopher of modern science!! Again, what are we > talking about here - not Unix! The brain (Eccles) and what the state of > current research means from a philosophical viewpoint (Popper). Sure these > things have social implications. But are you seriously saying brain > research and the philosophy of science should mover over to the Sociology > Dept.? EVERYTHING in science affects our behavior! Maybe physicists > (following your advice) shouldn't talk about the use of the bomb? It raises > moral questions (the bomb) and feelings. Again, you're reaching to fit your > behaviorist presuppositions! Your reverence for Popper is besides the point. The rest of your argument seems to miss mine: that eventually, sociobiologists and others will be able to explain values. Popper and Eccles cannot justifiably claim that they never will be able to. > (Arndt) Why should AI researchers, sociobiologists (talk about > superstitions!) and game theorists be interested in proteinaceous enzymes? > :- Seriously, you see this gang as those who will cook up our 'morals' > and 'feelings'??? Let me ask you the question Skinner has no answer for! > "WHOSE GOING TO DECIDE HOW WE SHOULD BEHAVE???" ON WHAT BASIS? YOURS? > Sure! Why not mine? Ah, you like yours better. Have the data do you? > What about MY data? What's the court of appeal? Reason? Sure. Whose > reason? What if I don't want to go along? That's an entirely different argument. I won't take it up here. > 3) Finally, according to people like Kuhn (The Structure of Scientific > Revolutions), this sort of argument can be safely ignored as > a probable example of opinions that are no longer at the cutting edge > of scientific thought. There is always an old guard that protests > changes in scientific thought. And other thought too... let's not > forget Shockley. (sp?) > -- > (Arndt)**** What have vitamins got to do with it? :- Kuhn has a nice little > model about what happens but not everyone sees it his way. Look it up. As > far as his statement goes, which ain't far, anyone who repeats it hasn't read > much modern science or even watched 'NOVA' lately. Scientists are heavy into > the implications (philosophical and theological) of their sciences. For > example, brain researchers, et al speaking about what their research means > to 'morals' and 'feelings'! You know, saying we're just a machine and such. (Shockley invented transistors, and holds that there is scientific evidence that blacks are inferior, and advocates eugenics. You're mixing him up with Linus Pauling.) Nor does everybody agree with Eccles or Popper about everything they write. I hang out at Harvard, and know some of the scientists that are "heavy into implications". Stephen Jay Gould (who's been featured on Nova) writes extensively about how scientists' are human, and that their opinions and researches are frequently colored by their political or philosophical presuppositions. Well, both he and his crony Richard Lewontin are excellent examples. Look to their criticisms of sociobiology. (Not In Our Genes is a good recent example from Lewontin.) > Stand by!!! SCIENCE IS A RELIGIOUS TASK!!!!!!! It is based upon certain > assumptions taken a priori and not able of 'proof'. Only those who don't > know what science is, like some grad students for instance, make grandiose > claims for science. I'd give you another quote from Popper which I have > used before, but somehow I don't think it will impress your presuppositions. This too is besides the point (and debateable.) That astrology was a mystical task does not mean that astronomy is also. Likewise, explaining meanings has been a religious task, but doesn't imply that scientific explanations are relgious. Our argument is about the limitations of science. Claiming science is religion doesn't reduce those limitations in any way meaningful to this argument. > By the way, are YOU out of your field??? No, since you ask. I have an extensive biology background from Cornell (computers were my recreation there) including evolution, neurobiology, anatomy, physiology, ecology, etc., not to mention my own readings on sociobiology, game theory, AI, and general science. I keep current with a number of scientific journals, and have a good idea of the current state of most biological and AI research. I frequently discuss these sorts of issues with friends among the faculty at Harvard and Cornell. And all that is besides the point-- address the issue, not the person. -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
franka@hercules.UUCP (Frank Adrian) (01/06/85)
In article <107@decwrl.UUCP> arndt@lymph.DEC writes: > > *** Bosh!!! Double Bosh! He's speaking about the brain and >from his lifetime of experience. He's not talking about Unix. You mean UNIX isn't intellegent? And here I've thought it has been a truely malevolent intellegence (or lack thereof) for some time now. At least it seems that way late at night when things mysteriously die... Frank Adrian