Sartre, existentialism, and science

[Kendel]

@mitchellmckain

Not in the traditional sense. Part of the problem is the Plato/Gnostic/Neoplatonic confusion of the mind with the spirit, which I refute. So with regard to the traditional mind/body problem I see an effective dualism in a basically physicalist approach. Specifically, I see the mind as a physical thing but as a living organism distinct from (though dependent upon) the body. Language provides a medium of life for the mind just as DNA provides a medium of life for the body.

With regard to the similar spirit/physical problem I am more of a dualist though mostly epiphenomenal with nearly all the causality going from the physical to the spiritual (when it comes to ourselves, not God of course). And even this is in a broadly monist approach, for it seems to me that dualism is always inferior in that it asserts a difference but fails to explain the difference between two things. Science demonstrates the power of the monistic approach, explaining many phenomenon as different forms of energy.

This (and your related post or posts) will take me quite some time to work through. The thoughts probably took you time to develop as well. At this point, I don’t understand.

@Jay313

@Kendel

I could accept some of the rock-bottom ideas of “essence.” Parameters for DNA, for example. Within these constraints we have a human, rather than a bonobo, or a fish.

Sounds like a biological definition of a species.

Which really was my intent.
If the quesiton is what makes human beings human beings, or what makes human persons persons, there’s a rock bottom suggestion.
It’s objective, doesn’t rely on arguable subjectivities or dogmatic statements.

I suggested, too, that it might be a naive way of dealing with the “essence” of humans (or people or whatever we are), as it includes no philosophical component, unless one were to say that that is reflected in its “scientistic” point of view that relies on a biological definition to determine essence. Likewise my understanding of the biology I suggest could be sufficient to establish “essence”, may be insufficient to reasonably propose what I am proposing.

Nevertheless, my suggestion - a definition of the species - contains no actual personal or individual componant. But as soon as those are brought in, so are dogmas of all kinds.

All of this to say, I think it makes much more sense to talk about what people make of their lives, what they do, that is that existence precedes essence.

But what we do is always subject to the interpretation of cultural norms.

Nothing is simple.

Or very little.

[Jay313 (Jay Johnson)]

@mitchellmckain

You are confusing the brain with the mind.

No, I’m not confused. I’m disagreeing with you, that’s all. The “mind” is the product of the physical brain. It’s simply metacognition, not something with a life of its own (let alone eternal life).

@mitchellmckain

I understand the mind to be a product of language with all the representational capabilities of DNA and more.

The mind isn’t a product of language. Neanderthal likely spoke a proto-language, yet they produced musical instruments and a few symbolic artifacts. They had a mind much like ours and even mated with us in the not-so-distant past.

Chimps, as I noted before, have first-order Theory of Mind just like human toddlers. In other words, both human toddlers and chimps can project their thoughts into the mind of another and imagine what they’re thinking. Male chimps spend most of their free time deceiving and playing tricks on their peers. Chimps even laugh, though it took us humans a long time to realize it because researchers confused their laughter for panting. They don’t have the right vocal tract to laugh or produce speech. In short, previous hominins, chimps and other animals have “mind” without fully modern language, so your premise is flawed.

With apologies to Francis Collins, DNA and language are only roughly comparable.

@mitchellmckain

I understand the mind to be a product of language with all the representational capabilities of DNA and more. This is demonstrable because we can use language to explain DNA and how it functions.

The human mind isn’t a product of language alone. The brain and language co-evolved throughout the Homo lineage. DNA doesn’t have representational capabilities. I have no idea what you mean by that. DNA has some characteristics roughly comparable to language, but language is a product of cultural evolution, while DNA is biological evolution. Two totally different mechanisms.

Your “demonstration” is a non sequitur. The fact we can speak and reason about DNA has nothing to do with whether the “mind” is a product of language.

@mitchellmckain

No there is no evidence that any animals have anything like this. I think it would be great if they did. But all the evidence is that they have communication but not language with any such capabilities.

No, animals don’t have language. They have systems of communication, but that doesn’t preclude them from having rudimentary forms of what you call “mind.”

@mitchellmckain

The difference is important because with capabilities comparable to DNA, language can be a medium for the process of life itself.

Language was simply one step up the ladder toward love and empathy with both God and our fellow human beings.

@mitchellmckain

That so adaptable it amounts to a meaningless claim. So I give you the T_Aquaticus challenge: how can this claim be falsified? I repeat my counter-claim: none of our ideas and concepts have come to us directly from animals.

It’s easy to falsify. Point to a quality you consider uniquely human, and I’ll be glad to point out its roots in the animal kingdom.

Your counter-claim contains the weasel words “ideas and concepts” and “directly from animals.” That allows you to wiggle out of anything because you make everything hinge on abstractions and demand a direct line of abstract ideas from animals, who aren’t capable of such, to humans. That’s a no-lose proposition, which is truly meaningless.

@mitchellmckain

@Jay313

Morality isn’t biological, and other communities of organisms have expected, “normal” behaviors for their species, but that’s not a moral code.

I think that is an example of defining something into being true. The point is the idea of “moral code” can be extended beyond the human use of concept and language to biologically evolved behaviors.

Nope. Among chimps, for example, some behaviors are inborn, but most are learned. That’s cultural learning, not biologically inborn and encoded in DNA. Jane Goodall characterized their society as “order without law.” They don’t have a “moral code” because they are amoral. So when they witness things like infanticide and cannibalism, they go about their business because they have no category for such behavior.

@mitchellmckain

You know… you frankly seem to be contradicting yourself… as if you are putting morality forward as an example of something which has no “roots in the animal kingdom.”

No, I’m doing the opposite. My frank challenge was for you to put forward something uniquely human, such as language or morality, and I would be glad to demonstrate its roots in the animal kingdom.

I think you’re reading your own biases into my words.