Philosophy Now Forum

In order to have a philosophical discussion or debate we have to agree to at least some reasonable ground rules. Particularly we will have to agree to what sorts of things count as knowledge and what don't. For short this is called an epistemological framework. So we make up a short list of innocuous, non-controversial statements that all the participants can agree to deem true ahead of time. These assumed-true statements are called axioms. In this way, we have at least some neutral starting ground for discussion.

Unfortunately, in the context of Western Philosophy as it is taught in academic settings, the axioms are grounded first by starting from a Cartesian skeptical crisis. This was first outlined in Rene Descartes' Meditations de prima Philosophia in qua dei Existentia. elaborated mostly in Meditation VI. European writers in the immediate aftermath of this work adopted it as the basis of their epistemic framework. There was a loose line of descendents of this tradition from George Berkeley, to David Hume, and finally to John Locke. Historians now group those three writers together as the Empiricist tradition in western philo. The motto of that tradition was, "All knowledge is derived from sense perception."

The axioms of this tradition have come to dominate the entire framework of academic philosophy as it is practiced even in modern universities. (This is unfortunate in my opinion, more below). We can tentatively characterize a number of these assumed premises.

1. Assume there exists "minds" which are containers of "knowledge"
2. Assume this knowledge is communicated in the form of English sentences.
3. Assume English sentences are pure claims unadulterated by grammar or culture
4. Assume there is a group of people who will make "propositions" in written format.
5. Assume that "minds" exist transcendentally.
6. Assume "sense perceptions" exist transcendentally.
7. Assume "propositions" exist independently of their instantiations in language or by human mouths or human writing tools (pens, pencils, chalk).
8. Assume the "mind" is a tabula rasa, upon which the transcendent sense perceptions act.

These premises may have been received as innocuous and perfectly reasonable to the men of the early 18th century. In today's world, these axioms come across as antiquated, archaic, even mystical. In some cases, they are contradicted by the facts of science. Neuroscientists and evolutionary biologists would not be pleased with several of these premises, and would revolt against any pretension to them being true.

But is there any existing community of writers in 2013, who would find these premises reasonable? I say no. Further, I call for an overthrow of this whole tradition. It should be thrown out entirely replaced with a more modern set of axioms that are harmonious with the facts that our sciences have measured. In my follow-up I will list some tentative replacements.

-----
I.
There is an objective world called the universe, and it is composed of stable atoms.

II.
Energy is conserved in every change and in every reaction in the universe.

III.
All physical systems in the universe tend towards greater disorder, unless energy is inserted into them, in which case disorder may decrease and give rise to local order within that system.

IV.
For the vast majority of daily human life, all aspects are determined by molecular dynamics and the mechanics of physics. (The notable exception is sunlight, which is a product of nuclear fusion).

V.
There is no inherent distinction between a mental realm and an outside world. The "mind" is a product of the brain, and the brain is situated and embodied in space. Even mental events are molecular events.

VI.
Sense perceptions are equal to, in all ontological aspects, the movement of energy through space to interact physically with biological organs of living things. Sense organs are limited by biological traits, and brains which receive translated information are limited by biological traits.

VII.
Define "living thing" as any entity which originates from the process of an embodied entity making a copy of itself, and who persists and exists for making a copy of itself. "Living things" must maintain their own metabolism in an environment. That environment is situated in the physical world. Copies are rarely identical and will contain some variation.
-----

This -- this is what our epistemological framework should look like. Tonight we will not be partying like it is 1699. This is 2013 AD. It is time to wake up. It is time to grow up.


The reader will note that some of these presumed axioms were highly contentious ,theoretical imaginings during the 18th century -- particularly II. In today's world, the very statement appears self-evident.

In framing axioms one always errs on the side of terseness and compactness. Some words are left intentionally vague so as to not commit to some theoretical aspect of physics. I refer to "movement of energy" instead of "light" or "sound waves in air." Some corollaries pop out of these 7 premises almost immediately. Namely, human beings are a form of life like all the rest of life on earth. No life forms violate conservation of energy. Life forms are also aggregates of molecules just as are inanimate objects such as rocks. Living things use the same energy that is sound in sound waves, light, and in sunlight and heat. All energy. All molecules. All the same "Stuff". These statements were not known in the 18th century. Today they are plain facts.


Because of their implied need to remain safe, seek shelter,eat food, and reproduce offspring, living organisms will insert value into the universe. The conspicuous lack of mention of biophysical needs and value is perhaps the greatest failure of academic philosophy.


After abandoning the Cartesian-Empiricist tradition, and adopting this modern system, we can reap the fruits of our endeavors. Armed with these more realistic tools, the results of our investigations dovetail harmoniously with the various sciences. Eventually the arrows begin to line up in a single direction towards a synthesizing theory of life on earth. The puzzle pieces of the various scientific disciplines all snap together. The resulting picture is that life on earth is the product of billions of years of evolution by Natural Selection.


"Minds", "sense perceptions", "propositions", and "knowledge" are macroscopic objects and macroscopic phenomena which are wholey reducible to microscopic interactions between constituent building blocks. The aforementioned "mind" holding its "knowledge" is a product of the brain. The brain is an organ which resulted from the extreme variation brought upon life as a whole by Natural Selection
.
Technically a person could perceive the entire world around them as a collection of fundamental particles all going about their movements according to quantum physics. But no person does this on account of the limitations of brains and sensory organs. These limitations are provencial accidents of evolution operating on our species.

Macroscopic objects are not "greater" than the sum of their parts, rather they are merely more "useful" than the sum of their parts. "Useful" here means allowing a human being, with human limitations, to navigate space, gather food, eat food, seek shelter, pair-bond, raise babies, et cetera.

The world is not as it appears to sense perception. The Empiricists were factually wrong on this point. Macroscopic objects exist only as heuristics allowing animals to navigate the world with responsiveness and agility. Reality remains substances made of particles, despite these useful divsions by animals. The Empiricist tradition had this wrong. ( Reality remains a composite of substances composed of molecules. This consistency remains despite USEFUL divisions by animals. Not "geometrically-motivated" divisions -- useful ones. )


Our minds divide the world into objects on account of these divisions being useful to our values and our livelihood -- not because the geometrical features of the world demand these divisions.

Kuznetzova wrote:-----
...The world is not as it appears to sense perception....

correct... everything is controlled by the Purple Wombats on Jupiter

wait...

-Imp

Kuznetzova wrote:-----
I.
There is an objective world called the universe, and it is composed of stable atoms.

II.
Energy is conserved in every change and in every reaction in the universe.

III.
All physical systems in the universe tend towards greater disorder, unless energy is inserted into them, in which case disorder may decrease and give rise to local order within that system.

IV.
For the vast majority of daily human life, all aspects are determined by molecular dynamics and the mechanics of physics. (The notable exception is sunlight, which is a product of nuclear fusion).

V.
There is no inherent distinction between a mental realm and an outside world. The "mind" is a product of the brain, and the brain is situated and embodied in space. Even mental events are molecular events.

VI.
Sense perceptions are equal to, in all ontological aspects, the movement of energy through space to interact physically with biological organs of living things. Sense organs are limited by biological traits, and brains which receive translated information are limited by biological traits.

VII.
Define "living thing" as any entity which originates from the process of an embodied entity making a copy of itself, and who persists and exists for making a copy of itself. "Living things" must maintain their own metabolism in an environment. That environment is situated in the physical world. Copies are rarely identical and will contain some variation.
-----

This -- this is what our epistemological framework should look like. Tonight we will not be partying like it is 1699. This is 2013 AD. It is time to wake up. It is time to grow up.


The reader will note that some of these presumed axioms were highly contentious ,theoretical imaginings during the 18th century -- particularly II. In today's world, the very statement appears self-evident.

In framing axioms one always errs on the side of terseness and compactness. Some words are left intentionally vague so as to not commit to some theoretical aspect of physics. I refer to "movement of energy" instead of "light" or "sound waves in air." Some corollaries pop out of these 7 premises almost immediately. Namely, human beings are a form of life like all the rest of life on earth. No life forms violate conservation of energy. Life forms are also aggregates of molecules just as are inanimate objects such as rocks. Living things use the same energy that is sound in sound waves, light, and in sunlight and heat. All energy. All molecules. All the same "Stuff". These statements were not known in the 18th century. Today they are plain facts.


Because of their implied need to remain safe, seek shelter,eat food, and reproduce offspring, living organisms will insert value into the universe. The conspicuous lack of mention of biophysical needs and value is perhaps the greatest failure of academic philosophy.


After abandoning the Cartesian-Empiricist tradition, and adopting this modern system, we can reap the fruits of our endeavors. Armed with these more realistic tools, the results of our investigations dovetail harmoniously with the various sciences. Eventually the arrows begin to line up in a single direction towards a synthesizing theory of life on earth. The puzzle pieces of the various scientific disciplines all snap together. The resulting picture is that life on earth is the product of billions of years of evolution by Natural Selection.


"Minds", "sense perceptions", "propositions", and "knowledge" are macroscopic objects and macroscopic phenomena which are wholey reducible to microscopic interactions between constituent building blocks. The aforementioned "mind" holding its "knowledge" is a product of the brain. The brain is an organ which resulted from the extreme variation brought upon life as a whole by Natural Selection
.
Technically a person could perceive the entire world around them as a collection of fundamental particles all going about their movements according to quantum physics. But no person does this on account of the limitations of brains and sensory organs. These limitations are provencial accidents of evolution operating on our species.

Macroscopic objects are not "greater" than the sum of their parts, rather they are merely more "useful" than the sum of their parts. "Useful" here means allowing a human being, with human limitations, to navigate space, gather food, eat food, seek shelter, pair-bond, raise babies, et cetera.

The world is not as it appears to sense perception. The Empiricists were factually wrong on this point. Macroscopic objects exist only as heuristics allowing animals to navigate the world with responsiveness and agility. Reality remains substances made of particles, despite these useful divsions by animals. The Empiricist tradition had this wrong. ( Reality remains a composite of substances composed of molecules. This consistency remains despite USEFUL divisions by animals. Not "geometrically-motivated" divisions -- useful ones. )


Our minds divide the world into objects on account of these divisions being useful to our values and our livelihood -- not because the geometrical features of the world demand these divisions.

I think what you are saying is that the evidence is overwhelming in favour of the physicalist explanation of reality. Everything can be explained in terms of matter in motion(including brains and consciousness). I would disagree with that in light of quantum mechanics. My understanding of your post is that you want to lump Cartesian metaphysics with Humean empiricism. I would also have a problem with that.

Looking forward to your response.

I think what you are saying is that the evidence is overwhelming in favour of the physicalist explanation of reality. Everything can be explained in terms of matter in motion(including brains and consciousness).

At this juncture we are at an epistemological level of inquiry. We are not yet motivated by a goal to "explain" anything. I addressed this in my post, at least in a passive way. I tried to use vague language wherever I would have been committing to something that smells like a theoretical explanation of something. At some later point, the framework could be used to start explaining phenomena in the world. Right now we are carving out a neutral territory and setting down ground rules.

I would disagree with that in light of quantum mechanics.

Right. I agree. However, I specified: "...for the vast majority of daily human life...." I even gave a notable exception to those cases. Sunlight is the product of nuclear fusion. There are other remote, rare examples where quantum mechanics would be needed as a description of a phenomena. But the axiom still stands strong. Most of your day does not involve the splitting of atoms, or events that take place in particle collisions in high-energy labs. There is no appliance in your house that uses a bose-einstein condensate. Day-to-day human life (in rooms, beds, offices, driving to work) is exhaustively captured by molecular dynamics (sunlight is exceptional. Might add radio waves here, but that is hair-splitting).

My understanding of your post is that you want to lump Cartesian metaphysics with Humean empiricism. I would also have a problem with that.

I didn't lump anything together at all. I wrote that a tradition was spearheaded by Descartes' framework of skepticism. David Hume was merely a player within that over-arching tradition. He did not really make any substantially hard breaks with the larger tradition , even if he when he openly disagreed with Descartes on several finer points. However, I think there is still room for your complaint. I might be wrong in claiming there was an historical trend at all. The various online encyclopedias of philosophy apparently deny that there was ever any consistent "tradition" such as Empiricism.

That there is an objective world is certainly a necessary presupposition for epistemology, and if by "atoms" you merely mean everything is reducible to a finite collection of types of fundamental components, then your first axiom does seem reasonable, at least to me.

However, I don't really see conservation of energy, entropy, molecular dynamics, mechanics, nuclear fusion, concepts of mind and life as epistemological assumptions, but rather assumptions of particular scientific or philosophical theories. Most are well supported empirically, but I am not sure it is a good idea to assume even the most general and widely acknowledged scientific and metaphysical propositions are unquestionable facts. Even if we do, none of these assumptions help us deciding between other supplementary theories that are consistent with these axioms, which a good epistemological theory should surely do. There is no mention of logical and inductive inference or falsification, theories of explanation and causation which should surely be the cornerstone of the scientific method. This does not seem to be an epistemological framework, but more a manifesto declaring what scientific theories or paradigms should be taken for granted, without explaining why they should.

Kuznetzova wrote:In order to have a philosophical discussion or debate we have to agree to at least some reasonable ground rules.

Do we? Why?

Isn't establishing any such ground rules already doing philosophy?

Banno wrote:

Kuznetzova wrote:In order to have a philosophical discussion or debate we have to agree to at least some reasonable ground rules.

Do we? Why?

Isn't establishing any such ground rules already doing philosophy?

I believe that in doing philosophy there are certain assumed ground rules. Of course you would also need at least two philosophers engaging in the exchange, one philosopher expounding to the unwashed masses would be a waste of time and effort.

thedoc wrote: I believe that in doing philosophy there are certain assumed ground rules. Of course you would also need at least two philosophers engaging in the exchange, one philosopher expounding to the unwashed masses would be a waste of time and effort.

Having a discussion assumes two or more folk; otherwise it is a monologue. There are plenty of those in philosophy.

So what is specific to a philosophical discussion? What ground rules would you suggest?

Banno wrote:

thedoc wrote: I believe that in doing philosophy there are certain assumed ground rules. Of course you would also need at least two philosophers engaging in the exchange, one philosopher expounding to the unwashed masses would be a waste of time and effort.

Having a discussion assumes two or more folk; otherwise it is a monologue. There are plenty of those in philosophy.

So what is specific to a philosophical discussion? What ground rules would you suggest?

It appears that you assume that I am a philosopher, and I will take that as a complement, Thankyou.

For myself I would ask for civility and a dialogue in plane English, Jargon makes for too much for me to look up. Everything should be clearly stated and nothing assumed that the other parties understand what you mean. Also brevity is a virtue, on another forum I waded through 500+ pages of dross, just so that I could intelligently discuss the subject, and that was not entirely possible. I guess the other thing is that the reply should address the post being replied to, too often I have seen a post that does not relate to the post being referred to. I usually welcome a diversion even just vaguely relating to the original question but the main topic should be addressed first.

Again, clarity and curtesy mark a conversation; but, given my objection to the first sentence of the OP, I want to know what makes such a conversation specifically philosophical.

We will include certain items which count as "knowledge" and exclude those which don't count. This is an exercise called epistemology. We hollow out some neutral ground that everyone can agree to without controversy.

Banno, (in case you forgot already) you happen to be posting in the section of this forum called Epistemology - Theory of Knowledge.

Kuznetzova wrote:We will include certain items which count as "knowledge" and exclude those which don't count. This is an exercise called epistemology. We hollow out some neutral ground that everyone can agree to without controversy.

Banno, (in case you forgot already) you happen to be posting in the section of this forum called Epistemology - Theory of Knowledge.

Sure.

You said "In order to have a philosophical discussion or debate we have to agree to at least some reasonable ground rules".

My point is that setting ground rules - especially of the sort you describe - is already doing philosophy.

These ground rules already assume so much that you would end up begging the question against traditional epidemiologists.

There is an objective world called the universe, and it is composed of stable atoms.
This axiom assumes Kant is incorrect in that it claims knowledge of the noumenon.
Energy is conserved in every change and in every reaction in the universe.
This axiom assume Hume critique of induction is flawed.

What is the justification for accepting these axioms, have we really gotten to the point where we can ignore all modern epistemology?

shmik wrote:These ground rules already assume so much that you would end up begging the question against traditional epidemiologists.

Traditional epistemology is useless today. It is being pushed further and further into a tiny pocket on campus folded into the Humanities Department.

shmik wrote: There is an objective world called the universe, and it is composed of stable atoms.
This axiom assumes Kant is incorrect in that it claims knowledge of the noumenon.

Right except we designed something called an "Atom Bomb" on a chalkboard and then went out in the desert in Nevada and it actually worked. Emmanuel Kant did not live in the 1940s. He may have been correct in the time he lived and published. Unfortunately we now know at least something about the noumenon. We know something to the point where we can manipulate and control it as it is manipulated and controlled in a nuclear weapon. We have the periodic table of elements now. We understand that sunlight is the product of fusion of hydrogen nuclei. We even understand how heavier elements are fused in the deaths of stars. We are not in a medieval position where we "cannot understand" how our sense organs interact with the outside world. We have modern biology.

I am not asking you to pledge allegiance to the wildest theories of science here. What is being asked of you (epistemically) is that you take your Kantian sense organs and place them into the same "ontological set" as the noumenon. i.e. We are inside the noumenon at all times. Our sense organs are the noumenon itself. This is not wild, and this is not crazy, and there is simply no rational reason not to adhere to it as an axiom.

shmik wrote: Energy is conserved in every change and in every reaction in the universe.
This axiom assume Hume critique of induction is flawed.

Except again, David Hume did not live in the 20th century. We have extremely well-grounded rational systems that describe how a law of physics is extrapolated to all points in space. This is not theoretical musings anymore. We describe the fact that mechanical laws are invariant to location by something in our equations called "symmetries". This is not the bleeding edge of science. (It may by for you, but not inside the discipline of physics itself). Today, an entire well-grounded edifice exists in physics regarding symmetries. I would say strongly here (although some might find wiggle-room), that we are not engaging in flights of inductive fantasy when we claim that the laws that exist here in the room are the same laws that operate millions of light years away.

Another note I might add here --> The process of induction has been completely fleshed out as rigorous proof within some exacting branches of mathematics, particularly number theory. Was that the case during Hume's lifetime? I don't know. I would mention to you that there was a revolution in mathematics that gave rise to a branch of math called "Proof Theory". These questions regarding what can be considered "rigorous" proof came out of a revolution around the time of Cantor, Bertrand Russell, David Hilbert, and finally Kurt Godel. Roughly 1880 to 1935 or so. That is a good 150 years after David Hume died. What I'm saying to you, is that some of the quandaries raised by Hume don't apply anymore, because these concepts were not institutionalized or formalized during his lifetime. Today they are in dusty textbooks and we teach them to undergrads. This is not theory anymore. This is common stuff.

For the sake of irony, when you posted here in this thread, you were using a piece of technology (a computer) which was the direct technological product of the revolution in proof theory. Alan Turing was a child of that revolution and many of this theorems appear in textbooks on Proof Theory.

shmik wrote:What is the justification for accepting these axioms, have we really gotten to the point where we can ignore all modern epistemology?

How "modern" is modern epistemology anymore? You are basically reading men from the 18th century, who believed that we have eyes because "God gave us eyes so that we could perceive his creation." Does that sound silly to you? It is silly -- but this is precisely what those men presumed was actually happening. Today, we have a completely different way of looking at this. Organs of perception, ears, eyes, nerves on the skin, perform a function related to the survival and fitness of an organism in its environment.

Ask yourself -- is there anyone on this forum at all who thinks we have eyes "so that we can perceive God's creation"?? Certainly you and I don't. Outside of some wacky evangelicals typing from their cabin in Montana, I don't think anyone on this forum believes this or even frames the situation in this manner. But to be a "good epidemiologist" on campus you have to not just have a belly-feel for this presumption, you have to marry yourself to it as an axiom. That is not reasonable. Humans are the products of natural selection, and their sense organs are directly related to their fitness in an ancestral environment.

You are reading men who are going to tell you that the pituitary gland in the brain is where the "soul interacts with the body" (Descartes). Today we know that there are entire organs in the human brain responsible for mitigating fear responses during fright. So in the presence of a startling loud noise, the human body will have a freezing reaction. This is controlled by a part of the limbic system called the amygdala. What is the point of this example? The point is that the human brains contains entire innate structures related to reactions that are directly responsible for the survival of the body in the environment. These innate reactions, fear responses, salivating around food, being attracted to the opposite sex , etc, etc these are innate tendencies built directly in the brain of the human being, which are directly related to the bodily needs of us as an organism in an environment.

shmik -- Where is the discussion of value in these wigged 18th century writers? Where? Human value extrapolated onto the world. Value regarding us as organisms who must reproduce ourselves. We must eat, drink water, seek shelter, be afraid of predators, pair-bond, baby-raise, etc etc. You were born screaming and hugging your mother and feeling cranky and desiring to suckle a breast for sustenance. You came into the world as an organism with needs that must be fulfilled. You did not deduce these things. The wigged epistemologists are going to have you believing that you are some sort of floating disembodied Tabula Rasa that passively receives its "Sense perceptions". This is a lie. The truth is that you are a mortal organism in an environment and you act in that environment to survive and propagate yourself. This is not theory anymore.

Any epistemological framework that accepts these suppositions would be both well-grounded, as well as wholly consistent with the facts of science. Traditional western philosophy was perhaps building a bridge to the scientific method. Once that bridge is finished, we have to toss the ladder away and give up on mystical floating tabula rasas who "deduce" everything about the world starting from nothing. We must toss away the ladder like Wittgenstein did in the last chapter. It is time to grow up. It is time to move on.