The Brain=Mind Fallacy

[Tempus]

Philosophy and science aren't mutually exclusive. Science and philosophy feed into each other. Epistemology and logic, for example, are relevant to science. The results science yields can also inform philosophy. I'm curious as to how some people imagine science working with no philosophy. If people are not familiar with making sound and valid arguments, that would surely be to the detriment to science. I don't agree with the view that science is somehow updated philosophy.

[Epimethean]

I think the point is, science evolved from philosophy. It continues to carry around some of its trappings by necessity, but fewer and fewer as it emerges. Some aspects will always attend it, but not all.

[Anomalocaris]

Philosophy and science aren't mutually exclusive. Science and philosophy feed into each other. Epistemology and logic, for example, are relevant to science. The results science yields can also inform philosophy. I'm curious as to how some people imagine science working with no philosophy. If people are not familiar with making sound and valid arguments, that would surely be to the detriment to science. I don't agree with the view that science is somehow updated philosophy.

Science is a very particular subset of philosophy that has been both uniquely and extraordinarily successful. But other parts of philosophy will continue to exist so long as men feel the need to overreach his own knowledge and teach what he does not know at the expense of his fellow men.

[Brian37]

Philosophy and science aren't mutually exclusive. Science and philosophy feed into each other. Epistemology and logic, for example, are relevant to science. The results science yields can also inform philosophy. I'm curious as to how some people imagine science working with no philosophy. If people are not familiar with making sound and valid arguments, that would surely be to the detriment to science. I don't agree with the view that science is somehow updated philosophy.

Science is a very particular subset of philosophy that has been both uniquely and extraordinarily successful. But other parts of philosophy will continue to exist so long as men feel the need to overreach his own knowledge and teach what he does not know at the expense of his fellow men.

No, one lead to the other and the newer replaced the older. No one that has a car who needs to drive to the next state is going to take a horse and buggy unless they are Amish.

Philosophy is merely a fancy word for brainstorming, but it is totally meaningless now that scientists have much more than their thoughts alone.

---

I may have already said it in this thread, but I will say it again.

"Philosophy" is to science what an abacus is to math today.

Science is a tool, not a philosophy. Just like a hammer is a tool and not the house itself.

I hate the word "philosophy". It is a stupid word to use for today's much higher standards in science.


"Philosophy" merely means to think about something. Ideas can and do lead to real things, certainly. But merely saying "I have an idea" or "I think we should do it this way" MEANS NOTHING now, it does not work as an objective.

Philosophy is mere dreaming while method is applied universally. We don't need philosophy now. The only thing it is good for now is a study in human history of thought. It did produce some good guesses, but there was also tons of bad philosophy too. Plato's philosophy of "essences" still plagues humanity today.

I warn people not to get stuck on that word and it should NOT be confused with modern science.

Why? Because religion and politics are also philosophies and once you start treating something as dogmatic as those, you fuck up the guide of method and by treating it as a philosophy and not a tool, can can lead scientists to become dogmatic too.

Method isn't a philosophy, it is a tool. When you treat it as a tool that maximizes your ability to go where the evidence leads and not where you want it to go.

We DO NOT NEED old thought now. Once you have a cell phone you'd be stupid to want to use what Edison did, and not all of Edison's inventions went somewhere. Philosophy is only good for a study in human psychology and history of thought. We have modern science now.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Brian37, no one forced you into this conversation. If you believe philosophy is outdated and pointless then do not contribute to the Philosophy section of AF.

[Brian37]

No one forced you to start the post. Not my baggage if you cant handle or don't like my replies. And FYI, the thread title is about brain/mind, but since you cant prove your original post a derail fits quite well for you because if you can change the topic it deflects you from defending bullshit original post.

So if you want to get back to the original post we can because that is the topic, not whether we should call science a philosophy.

SO lets review the OP

You, "brain is separate from the mind"

Me "Bullshit. It is no more separate than speed can be separated from a car in motion".

Now, does that make you happy now that we are back on topic?

[Tempus]

We don't need philosophy now.

What an interesting philosophy you have.

"In order to live, man must act; in order to act, he must make choices; in order to make choices, he must define a code of values; in order to define a code of values, he must know what he is and where he is—i.e., he must know his own nature (including his means of knowledge) and the nature of the universe in which he acts—i.e., he needs metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, which means: philosophy. He cannot escape from this need; his only alternative is whether the philosophy guiding him is to be chosen by his mind or by chance." - Ayn Rand

[Angrboda]

I'm not going to go into this debate, because I've had it before, and usually doing so only highlights what my opponents don't understand about science and philosophy. It was only the mid-twentieth century that the philosopher Karl Popper and Rudolph Carnap developed the standard of falsifiability and how it should be used to strengthen development and testing of scientific theories. Many people act like falsifiability just dropped out of the sky, or has always been there. It has not. And you cannot discover the principle of falsifiability by the scientific method; it's a philosophical product. Prior to falsifiability, the views of the Vienna Circle — philosophers — ruled scientific theory, and the test of a good theory or hypothesis was verifiability, a standard we crow about being weak and terribly vulnerable to confirmation bias today. But if it hadn't been for the philosophical work or Popper and Carnap, scientists would likely still consider it the gold standard, and our science and progress would be hobbled by that inferior philosophy.

I don't feel like getting in a fight, and I'm going to withdraw, but people who blithely argue that science is independent of philosophy, or even superior to it, are just stupid and ignorant about BOTH science and philosophy, in my view. In my opinion, our modern scientific world is resting on what is essentially a three legged stool: science, math, and philosophy are all dependent on each other to create the whole, and the thought that you can remove one without affecting the others, imho, would simply leave you with a broken world.

And you know what's funniest? I find that practicing scientists, and people well versed in science, tend to be the most myopic and ignorant of the connections between philosophy and science; they should be the most knowledgeable, not the least.

[Brian37]

We don't need philosophy now.

What an interesting philosophy you have.

"In order to live, man must act; in order to act, he must make choices; in order to make choices, he must define a code of values; in order to define a code of values, he must know what he is and where he is—i.e., he must know his own nature (including his means of knowledge) and the nature of the universe in which he acts—i.e., he needs metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, which means: philosophy. He cannot escape from this need; his only alternative is whether the philosophy guiding him is to be chosen by his mind or by chance." - Ayn Rand

Holly shit now I have lost what little respect I had for Ayn Rand. She was simply the oposite of Marx and Just as utopian in thought. She was a social Darwinist who would love how the top 1 percent is fucking the rest of us over.

There is no such thing as "metaphyisics", that is just si fi woo. Even more reason to hate her.

[Whateverist]

Science is a very particular subset of philosophy that has been both uniquely and extraordinarily successful. But other parts of philosophy will continue to exist so long as men feel the need to overreach his own knowledge and teach what he does not know at the expense of his fellow men.

But unless philosophy continues where will the next branch of science come from? Philosophy is how we find our way into new questions. Interestingly some questions resist settling out into science.

---

Mind : brain = listen : hear

Mind : brain = experience : happen

Mind : brain = who : what

Mind : brain = digestion : stomach

It is obtuse to keep saying they are the same. We don't go in to have a tumor removed from our mind. We don't ask what's on your brain. The brain sure seems to be where the processes of mind arise just as the stomach (and G.I. tract more generally) is where digestion goes on.