TPF : Mind vs Brain -- Thoughts

[Gnomon]

No it's just not making a "disregard for known science fallacy" — Garrett Travers

If you are going to insist on referring to "known science", you should at least cite book, chapter & verse. Where is it written that "there are no Thoughts or Minds, only Neural Nets & Brains"? Is that from the Authorized Version, or the Revised Standard Version? The non-specific Appeal to Authority is also a fallacy.

Back to the topic of this thread : Thought. Steven Pinker, a prominent expert in the "soft science" of Psychology, wrote a popular book (not authorized by any ruling power) entitled, The Stuff of Thought. In the chapter on metaphor, he quotes Lakoff & Johnson's Philosophy in the Flesh, the Embodied Mind : "the mind is inherently embodied". To which statement-of-fact Pinker suggests an alternate "we offer the metaphor that the mind is inherently embodied " He goes on to note that, "in the very act of advancing their thesis, they presuppose transcendent notions of truth, objectivity, and logical necessity, that they ostensibly seek to undermine". Note : Pinker is as scientific & empiricist as possible for someone who writes about Mind Stuff.

The abstract notion of Mind, is also a metaphor, imagined as a container for similarly abstract thoughts. But abstractions are like skeletons : de-fleshed.


Philosophy in the Flesh review :
It's funny that, given the authors' explication of metaphors in all the world's philosophies, they should blatantly ignore the metaphorical assumptions which they make themselves. Specifically, they denounce all the metaphysicians for assuming that "there is a category of all things that exist"
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/318 ... _the_Flesh

Opinion :
"Western philosophy, then,is not an extended debate about knowledge, ethics, and reality, but a succession of conceptual metaphors." ___Steven Pinker, The Stuff of Thought

METAPHORS & ANALOGIES ARE "TRANSCENDENT NOTIONS"
http://gnomon.enformationism.info/Image ... artoon.PNG

[Gnomon]

Don't waste your time arguing against the omniscient. — Wayfarer

As a wrap-up review -- to this and the Non-Physical thread -- what do you think of my assessment that the opposing positions are viewed as A> Real Science vs un-real Pseudo-science by conservative hard-liners, but as B> Reductive Science vs Holistic Science by more progressive pioneers of unexplored territory ? The result of such binary framing is that we end-up debating different questions from polarized positions. Unfortunately, the Science=Truth posters, don't accept that there is another way to do scientific research. And of course, it's easy to go wrong, when you go beyond "settled science" into open-ended questions. But that's the difference between tinkering Technology and Progressive Science, otherwise known as Pure Science or Basic Research.

What I'm labeling as a Holistic approach to science, or Systems Science, would in theory include most reductive evidence, but not be limited to it. Yet, some on the holistic side could go the the extreme of "disregard for known science fallacy", as GT put it. However, the pro-thought posters on this thread seem to be merely more interested in "Soft Science" with theoretical evidence (concepts), than in "Hard Science" with empirical evidence (things).

Another way to frame the debate is between Inductive & Deductive reasoning. Empirical science is supposed to be strictly Deductive from direct experience (experiment). But a lot of modern science, especially the Soft Sciences, have little hard evidence to work with, so most of their reasoning is Inductive, from a general hypothesis to a more developed theory (what if?). Yet again, trying to prove a prior belief, without skeptical pruning can result in a self-fulfilling prophecy. So, I can't blame the Realists for their hard interrogation. In fact, that why I invite such challenges for my somewhat fringey notions.


Holism in science, and holistic science, is an approach to research that emphasizes the study of complex systems. Systems are approached as coherent wholes whose component parts are best understood in context and in relation to one another and to the whole.
This practice is in contrast to a purely analytic tradition (sometimes called reductionism) which aims to gain understanding of systems by dividing them into smaller composing elements and gaining understanding of the system through understanding their elemental properties.[1] The holism-reductionism dichotomy is often evident in conflicting interpretations of experimental findings and in setting priorities for future research.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holism_in_science

Empirical vs Theoretical evidence :
Empirical: Based on data gathered by original experiments or observations. Theoretical: Analyzes and makes connections between empirical studies to define or advance a theoretical position.
https://coloradocollege.libguides.com/c ... &p=1911416

Inductive vs Deductive reasoning :
The main difference between inductive and deductive reasoning is that inductive reasoning aims at developing a [new] theory while deductive reasoning aims at testing an existing theory.
https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/ind ... reasoning/

[Gnomon]

↪Gnomon
Is it your position – extrapolating from Pinker's objection to Lakoff & Johnson's thesis ("metaphor") – that mind is disembodied? — 180 Proof

No. Just that non-physical Mind & physical Body are philosophically distinct concepts. The latter is subject to empirical investigation, but the former is subject only to theoretical exploration. Philosophers only do thought experiments, which are always debatable. That may be why Mind is more interesting to them than Brains. You don't have to get your hands mucky.

The notion of a disembodied soul is a legitimate topic for philosophical discussion, but would be absurd for empirical dissection. Personally, I'm skeptical of ghosts & afterlife & reincarnation, but I'm willing to discuss such topics on an intellectual level, without eye-rolling. My interest would be why so many people with normal brains find the notion of disembodied Souls intuitively believable.