False Dichotomies?

Forums: Philosophy, Philosophy Of Mind
Email this Topic • Print this Page

... Descartes observes that the mind is distinct from the body - this line of thinking eventually leads to the study of consciousness as the starting point for GOFAI, penetrating its way down by way of the manufactured tools of human thought such as language, logic, symbol processing, etc. ... "No! No! No!" comes a cry from the connectionists - "You need to start from biology!" which leads to the study of networks that can learn to recognize patterns ... "No! No! No!" comes a cry from the roboticists - "You need to take into account how the brain and body are embedded in the world!" which leads to the study of robots with simple brains and complex dynamics.

(Which is how I find myself here ... roboticists and cognitive scientists are starting to take a hard look at phenomonology as a means of informing this perspective of embeddedness as it applies to intelligence ... unfortunately, contemporary works on phenomonology seem to be few and far between - "It can ruin a career" one philosopher comments ... bummer ... ... ...)

So who's right? The GOFAI'ers? The connectionists? The roboticists? The cognitive scientists?

Or is "Who's right?" just another one of those horribly misleading questions? ... maybe they're all right! :shocked: ... consider an emergent line of thinking that goes something like this: particle physics is what chemistry emerges from is what life emerges from is what terrestrial biology emerges from is what learning networks emerge from is what phenomonology emerges from is what dualism emerges from is what consciousness emerges from is what yada yada yada ...

Now, I'm not saying that I've got the sequence right ... nor am I saying that the concept of emergence is necessarily the connective tissue that holds the sequence together ... heck, there might not even be such a sequence! (in which case the answer to the title of this thread is "NO!").

Anyhoo, thoughts?

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 1,255 • Replies: 4

No top replies

@paulhanke,

No one is right. The idea that anyone individual can be right is a logical absurdity. The truth is found in the multiplicity of subjectivity--in other words, the addition of all subjective truths to form the ultimate objective truth created by all individuals influenced by none. Everything has an opposite quality, thus dichotomies are not false, but necessary. Everything can be or not be, therefore dichotomies are necessary consequences of being.

2 Replies

@Theaetetus,

Theaetetus wrote:

... the addition of all subjective truths to form the ultimate objective truth created by all individuals influenced by none

... I'm not sure I understand what your saying ... how can the sum of subjective truths be in any way objective? ... that is, isn't the sum of subjective truths today wildly different than the sum of subjective truths at, say, the year 1000? - and if so, aren't both sums then subjective?

Theaetetus wrote:

Everything has an opposite quality, thus dichotomies are not false, but necessary. Everything can be or not be, therefore dichotomies are necessary consequences of being.

... I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here either ... are you saying that physics is the opposite of chemistry is the opposite of life is the opposite of terrestrial biology is the opposite of learning networks is the opposite of phenomonology is the opposite of dualism is the opposite of consciousness is the opposite of yada yada yada? ...

0 Replies

@Theaetetus,

Paulhanke and Theaetetus,

It sounds to me like you're both describing a structural conception of the emergence of forms of informational organization - what foucault called polyvalent discourse - with an orders of knowledge dynamic thrown in, but the rock upon which everything founders is the concept of truth. It's just so ill-defined - trivial and absolute in the same breath. In my own studies I've found a way around it - and dissolved subject/object and ought from is dichotomies at a stroke. It takes some effort to grasp but I'm willing to explain if you're interested.

iconoclast.

1 Reply

@iconoclast,

iconoclast wrote:

Paulhanke and Theaetetus,

It sounds to me like you're both describing a structural conception of the emergence of forms of informational organization - what foucault called polyvalent discourse - with an orders of knowledge dynamic thrown in, but the rock upon which everything founders is the concept of truth. It's just so ill-defined - trivial and absolute in the same breath. In my own studies I've found a way around it - and dissolved subject/object and ought from is dichotomies at a stroke. It takes some effort to grasp but I'm willing to explain if you're interested.

iconoclast.

... actually, what I'm trying to pry open here is not so much a question of truth as it is a question of layeredness - to put it in your phrasing, something along the lines of an emergence of layers of informational organization ... GOFAI/connectionist/robotics practitioners seem position themselves at odds with one another ... I think this maybe has something to do with the fact that the philosophical schools that provide the direction for their scientific investigations also position themselves at odds with one another ... what I'm wondering is if all the assertions of "I'm right! You're wrong!" are misplaced and that it's rather a case of "Hey! We're both right!" - that is, could each philosophical school (and associated scientific investigation) be on the right track at a particular level of magnification?

To try to make this more concrete, I am very interested in anything that dissolves subject/object, because if there is no subject/object there is no mind-body problem ... this is exactly why I'm interested in phenomonology - the instant of primal experience the moment before reflection starts separating self from other ... but my question is, if phenomonology can solve the mind-body problem, does that necessarily deny dualism? - that is, similar to how chemistry emerges out of particle physics, can dualism emerge out of phenomonology? ... so while I may be very interested in anything that dissolves subject/object, I am very very interested in anything that can bond the different philosophical schools into a molecular chain of emergence (if you will allow the metaphor)!

0 Replies

False Dichotomies?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know