Jul
26
awarded  Notable Question
Apr
1
comment Can science prove or provide evidence that the brain is the source of the mind
@GeoffreyThomas -- Please consider for reopening, as I have added an addendum with clarification. Also please note the number of votes for the question as well as for the two answers with fruitful material. If thiis is all still insufficient, I would be grateful for specific critiques and suggestions. Regards. --David Lewis
Mar
30
comment Can science prove or provide evidence that the brain is the source of the mind
@FrankHubney -- Thanks. I skimmed that Plantinga piece, especially the synopsis. It's a very odd conclusion -- I thought your comment had a typo, substituting "naturalism" for "non-naturalism", but nope, that's what he says. And the argument is even odder. Finally he leans heavily on evolution and says little about brain/mind, so it doesn't really help me much, even if I accept it.
Mar
30
revised Can science prove or provide evidence that the brain is the source of the mind
added 11 characters in body
Mar
30
revised Can science prove or provide evidence that the brain is the source of the mind
added 2389 characters in body
Mar
29
comment Can science prove or provide evidence that the brain is the source of the mind
I like that @Frank -- thanks -- science can't arbitrate between physicalism and non-physicalism; it's a metaphysical assumption. Any published philosophy work along those lines? Maybe it's obvious (it is to me) but there are plenty of people who think science can say things about physicalism, mostly pro -- certainly a lot of scientists, ordinary folks, maybe even some philosophers. So it's a legit topic for philosophers. BTW, I think science might actually have something to say con -- if we spend huge efforts to understand mind by science and utterly fail -- that's inductive evidence IMHO.
Mar
29
comment Can science prove or provide evidence that the brain is the source of the mind
Thanks! I worked through most of those, and they, and your answer, seem to be mostly trying to understand mind with science, with the explicit or implicit assumption that it is possible. I am seeking, however, philosophical treatments of whether such understanding is even possiible, conceivable, etc. Koch has said (in this one or somewhere) that the best theory he knows of, IIT, is still in its infancy. Given that science, by its nature, cannot predict its own future success, I'd call that an admission of a decidedly negative answer thus far. Refs along those lines are what I am seeking.
Mar
28
awarded  Yearling
Mar
28
revised Can science prove or provide evidence that the brain is the source of the mind
deleted 2 characters in body
Mar
28
revised Can science prove or provide evidence that the brain is the source of the mind
edited title
Mar
28
revised Can science prove or provide evidence that the brain is the source of the mind
deleted 13 characters in body
Mar
28
revised Can science prove or provide evidence that the brain is the source of the mind
added 152 characters in body
Mar
28
asked Can science prove or provide evidence that the brain is the source of the mind
2018
Dec
5
awarded  Popular Question
Nov
22
awarded  Popular Question
Mar
13
comment Foucault and Derrida on spiritual liberation
"Thus, there is no place for a transcendent role of truth in Foucault's thinking." -- exactly! But his choice of level of analysis -- sociological, historical, scientific, political, etc -- almost predetermines that conclusion. "Derrida's position of truth is much more difficult to grasp." -- exactly! Hence my question to this forum. But my understanding that Derrida's level of analysis might go "deeper" that Foucault's, might engage the "transcendental" in some way, motivates the question. I suspect not, but it would take a lot of digging to gain any certainty.
Mar
13
comment Foucault and Derrida on spiritual liberation
I think it depends on what you mean by truth. Ultimate truth -- emptiness/shunyata in Buddhism (Madhyamaka) -- is liberation. Conventional truth -- contingent, dependent, etc -- is certainly available to anyone, anytime. Seems to me that what Foucault is saying, in Buddhist terms, is that there is no ultimate truth, only conventional truth (and that the latter is defined by various forms of power -- but I'm not focusing on that here). So he's denying the Buddhist notion of liberation. My question is, would Derrida too, even given his deeper level of analysis?
Mar
13
awarded  Curious
Mar
12
accepted Is the business of science to construct models of objects and processes?
Mar
12
revised Foucault and Derrida on spiritual liberation
added 41 characters in body