Podcast Summary
Challenging our everyday understanding of history and human behavior: Philosopher Alex Rosenberg argues against relying on stories about beliefs and intentions in history and human behavior, suggesting instead a focus on observable facts and the physical world.
Challenge of reconciling the way we understand the world through everyday experiences with the scientific understanding of the world. Philosopher Alex Rosenberg argues that our stories about history, which often involve ascribing beliefs and intentions to individuals, are fundamentally flawed. He claims that these stories have been an empirical failure and are inconsistent with what neuroscience tells us about the brain. Instead of relying on such stories to understand historical events or human behavior, Rosenberg suggests that we focus on observable facts and the physical world. This perspective raises deep philosophical questions about how we conceptualize ideas like beliefs and intentions if we don't believe in an immaterial soul or unembodied mind. The search for answers to these questions is a crucial endeavor for naturalists trying to understand human beings. While this idea may be provocative and challenging, it's an important topic for anyone interested in the intersection of science, philosophy, and human behavior.
Philosophers' Reluctance to Engage in Public Discourse: Despite philosophy's significance, some philosophers shy away from public engagement due to complexities and potential criticism from peers. The host advocates for more accessibility and public sharing of philosophical ideas.
There seems to be a reluctance among some professional philosophers to engage in public discourse about their work due to the perceived disconnect between their abstract ideas and the general public's interests. This reluctance may stem from the difficulty of making complex philosophical concepts accessible to a wider audience, as well as potential envy and jealousy from peers. However, the host argues that philosophy is just as exciting and significant as other disciplines, and that more effort should be made to bring philosophical ideas into the public sphere. The host also mentions his personal experience with philosophers' reactions to popular books in their field, such as Alex Rosenberg's "The Atheist Guide to Reality," which was criticized by some philosophers despite its accessibility and relevance to broader audiences. The book, while titled as an "Atheist Guide," primarily focuses on the doctrine of scientism and the role of science in understanding reality.
Defending the Importance of Empirical Science in Understanding Reality: Dennett advocates for a clear distinction between science and scientism, emphasizing the importance of empirical science in understanding reality, even if it contradicts common-sense understanding, and believes most philosophical questions can be answered by natural and biological sciences.
The author, Daniel C. Dennett, defends a view called disenchanted naturalism, which emphasizes the importance of empirical science as our best guide to reality, even if it contradicts our common-sense understanding of the world. He wrote a book called "Breaking the Spell of Incrementalism," but was pressured to add the word "atheism" in the title for sales purposes. He believes that most philosophical questions, including those about consciousness and free will, can be answered by natural and biological sciences, even if our everyday understanding of these issues is dramatically undermined. He clarifies that he does not deny the existence of consciousness or free will but questions their significance and privileged status in understanding reality. Dennett has advocated for a clear distinction between science and scientism, the latter being an exaggerated respect for science's findings and the mistaken belief that it's the only way to understand reality. He has written extensively on consciousness and free will, and his works are considered seminal in these areas.
The usefulness of free will in society: Despite philosophical doubts about free will, it's a valuable concept for maintaining social order and cooperation.
According to the speaker, free will may not exist from a philosophical standpoint, but it serves a useful purpose in society. The speaker believes in determinism and does not support the concept of contra-causal free will. He acknowledges that most philosophers, even those who are naturalists and hard determinists, still endorse the idea of free will as a useful concept. The speaker admits that he is in the minority in this belief, but he believes that society functions better when people believe in free will. He also mentions that there are resources available online, such as the "Moving Naturalism Forward" workshop, where this topic was discussed in depth. The speaker identifies Daniel Dennett as someone who has acknowledged the usefulness of the concept of free will in society, despite his personal beliefs. Overall, the speaker argues that while free will may not be a scientific reality, it is a valuable concept for maintaining social order and cooperation.
Exploring the Reality of Free Will: Free will is a useful concept for understanding human behavior, even if it's not a fundamental feature of the physical world.
While the concept of free will may not be grounded in the fundamental laws of physics, it remains a useful and accurate way to describe and understand human behavior at a higher level. The speaker argues that the idea of free will is not just a construct for social control, but a reflection of reality. They suggest that free will is as real as objects like chairs, even if it's not a feature of the physical world at its most fundamental level. The speaker also emphasizes that the physical facts fix all facts, and that when we have a complete understanding of physics, there may not be room for the existence of free will. However, they acknowledge that this is a theoretical perspective and that the debate is ongoing. Ultimately, the speaker sees value in continuing to explore the concept of free will, despite its limitations and the uncertainty surrounding its reality.
The existence of free will is debatable like chairs: The concept of free will and its connection to language and reality is a complex philosophical question.
During the discussion, it became clear that the existence of free will is as debatable as the existence of chairs or any other physical object. While we can agree on the facts of a situation, we may still disagree on whether an action was performed freely. The speaker also emphasized the importance of understanding the concept of aboutness or representation in language, which has been a topic of debate in philosophical circles for centuries. He argues that in a purely physical world where physics fixes all the facts, there is no room for free will or content, leading to the doctrine of eliminative materialism. The speaker's perspective challenges the common understanding of free will and invites us to consider the deeper philosophical questions surrounding language and reality.
Everyday experiences provide insights into deeper philosophical questions: Understanding everyday experiences can offer valuable insights into philosophical concepts, but a complete explanation of meaning and intentionality requires further exploration into the neural mechanisms behind this process.
Our everyday experiences and understanding of concepts, like the meaning of a stop sign, can provide useful insights into deeper philosophical questions, such as how the brain creates meaning and intentional content. However, these insights alone may not be sufficient to fully explain the nature of meaning and intentionality. Rocket Money, a personal finance app, serves as a practical example of this concept. It helps users save money by canceling unwanted subscriptions and monitoring spending. The stop sign is an everyday example of something that represents an action or concept (stopping) through its use and effect on behavior. Philosophers like Wittgenstein have described the relationship between signs and actions, but a complete understanding of how the brain creates meaning requires further exploration into the neural mechanisms behind this process.
The problem of aboutness in philosophy: Philosophers propose ways for matter to represent other matter, but many believe it arises from relationships between symbolic systems and the physical world (teleosemantics), while objections remain open to alternative explanations or challenges to physicalism.
The problem of how physical matter in the brain or the world can represent or be about other physical matter, a concept known as aboutness, has been a long-standing issue in philosophy, especially since the rise of physicalism. Some argue that there is nothing aboutness could be in a physical world, while others propose various ways for matter to represent other matter. However, many philosophers, including the speaker, believe that it's already impossible for one chunk of matter to be about another solely based on its physical organization. Instead, they suggest that aboutness arises from the relationship between symbolic systems, such as language and intentions, and the physical world. This philosophical program, called teleosemantics, aims to provide a natural, biological account of how content is possible in the brain and speech while maintaining physicalism. However, many objections have been raised against this program, leaving open the possibility that either physicalism is wrong, or that at a fundamental level, there is no intentionality or meaning in the universe.
Our traditional ways of understanding history may be misleading: Neuroscience discoveries reveal how brain stores info, challenging traditional narrative-based history, requiring a more scientific approach to gain accurate understanding of the past
Our traditional ways of understanding and interpreting history, through narrative storytelling based on beliefs and desires, may be misleading us due to the limitations of the human brain and its theory of mind. Dan Dennett, in his new book "How History Gets Things Wrong," argues that this approach to history is not based on actual knowledge, as it cannot identify the causal forces that determine human behavior. Instead, he suggests that recent neuroscience discoveries reveal how the brain lays down, stores, and deploys information, which is entirely free from the theory of mind. By relying on this outdated theory, we create inaccurate historical narratives. For instance, the German army's repeated invasions of France in the same location throughout history can be explained through various reasons, but our understanding of their motivations and intentions may not fully capture the underlying causes. Dennett emphasizes that a more scientific and nuanced approach to history is necessary to gain a more accurate understanding of the past.
The limitations of understanding past events through the theory of mind: The theory of mind, while helpful, has its limitations in providing accurate predictions or explanations of historical events as it relies on assumptions about beliefs and desires that may not be physically present in the brain.
The theory of mind, which is our inherent ability to understand that people act based on their beliefs and desires, can be limiting in providing predictably useful knowledge, especially in historical contexts. Despite its widespread use in explaining past events and human behavior, it has shown to be flawed. For instance, the Germans' decision to invade France through the Ardennes, a dense forested area, was explained multiple times by military historians, but the Allies failed to use this knowledge effectively due to their belief that the Germans would never repeat such a strategy. Similarly, Hitler's declaration of war on the United States after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor is another example of how the theory of mind can lead to incorrect assumptions. The theory, which is often referred to as folk psychology or mentalizing, is a set of hypotheses that we use to explain our own behavior and predict the behavior of others. However, as cognitive social psychologists have discovered, if you were to open up someone's skull and look into their brains, nowhere would you see any beliefs or desires. Instead, the brain processes information related to these concepts, but the concepts themselves are not physical entities. Therefore, the theory of mind, while useful, should be approached with caution and humility, recognizing its limitations in providing definitive explanations or predictions.
Higher levels of brain organization involve beliefs and desires: The brain's organization goes beyond neurons, involving beliefs and desires, and is not a literal representation of the environment but rather an encoded and processed version.
The brain's organization goes beyond just neurons firing electrical signals. According to the theory of mind, there are higher levels of organization in the brain that consist of beliefs and desires, which are not found at the level of individual neurons. Neurons may just be transmitting electrical signals, but these signals are organized into complex networks that form the basis of thoughts, beliefs, and desires. The discovery of grid cells and place cells in the rat's brain is an example of how the brain's higher-level organization works. These cells do not create a literal representation of the environment but rather encode information about it, which is then processed and stored in other parts of the brain. The implication is that the brain does not process information in the same way as a computer does, and finding the exact location of higher-level organization and intentionality in the brain remains an open question in cognitive neuroscience.
Understanding beliefs and desires through brain functions is complex: Our current understanding of brain functions and human behavior is limited, requiring continued research and exploration in cognitive neuroscience
The concepts of beliefs and desires as we understand them do not directly correspond to the physical processes happening in the brain. Instead, the brain functions in a more holistic way that is difficult to map onto individual neurons. This theory of mind, which has been useful in understanding human behavior in simpler contexts, becomes less effective when trying to explain complex behaviors or large groups of people. It's important to remember that our current understanding of the brain is still evolving, and our language and concepts may not perfectly align with the underlying physical processes. This discussion highlights the need for continued research and exploration in the field of cognitive neuroscience.
Understanding historical actions through theory of mind is not scientifically sound: Focus on concrete factors and forces to explain historical events instead of inferring thoughts and desires of individuals
The theory of mind, which involves understanding the motivations and beliefs of individuals, has been used extensively in history to explain the actions of people and nations. However, according to the theory being discussed, this approach is not scientifically sound and may lead to incorrect conclusions. Instead, a more effective approach would be to focus on the concrete factors and forces that cause historical events, rather than trying to infer the thoughts and desires of individuals. This perspective is more in line with the scientific method, which involves making predictions and revising hypotheses based on empirical evidence. Despite this, there is still value in studying history and understanding the reasons behind historical events, but these reasons should be seen as causes rather than motivations or beliefs.
The Power of Storytelling in Conveying Historical Knowledge: Stories can make historical knowledge relatable and engaging, but it's crucial to distinguish fact from fiction and not rely solely on stories for accurate historical information
While history can be learned and understood without the theory of mind or relying solely on stories, the power of storytelling in conveying historical knowledge and making it relatable to people cannot be ignored. As a professional philosopher, the speaker even wrote novels as a different way to convey complex ideas, acknowledging the importance of narratives in engaging and reaching a larger audience. However, it's essential to distinguish between historical facts and the stories that convey them, as some stories, like Mein Kampf and The Gulag Archipelago, have had detrimental impacts on history. The speaker encourages people to enjoy stories but not to take them as the sole source of knowledge. The speaker's novels, such as "The Girl from Krakow," have been successful, despite being based on philosophical arguments, demonstrating the power of storytelling in conveying complex ideas.
Exploring the Interplay of Fiction and Non-Fiction in Roger Berkowitz's Career: Renowned philosopher Roger Berkowitz's diverse career includes both fiction and non-fiction works, offering unique perspectives and knowledge, despite some skepticism from colleagues. His memoir, novels, and non-fiction books all contribute to our understanding of history and human experiences.
Roger Berkowitz, a professor of philosophy and literature, has had a diverse career in writing both fiction and non-fiction. His memoir and novels offer different perspectives and agendas, while his non-fiction books, including "How History Gets Things Wrong," aim to provide knowledge. His colleagues in philosophy have mixed reactions to his fiction writing, but many are supportive. An intriguing anecdote about the cover of "The Girl From Krakow" involves Amazon's refusal to allow a cigarette to be shown on the cover, despite the book's historical context. Berkowitz's work demonstrates the importance of understanding different genres and their unique contributions to knowledge and pleasure.
Exploring the art of insightful questioning: Effective communication and active listening are crucial for meaningful conversations. Genuine interest and thoughtful questions can foster growth and understanding.
The appreciation for the art of asking insightful questions. Sean demonstrated excellent interviewing skills, making Alex feel comfortable and valued. He asked thoughtful questions, showing genuine interest in Alex's experiences and perspectives. This back-and-forth interaction highlighted the importance of active listening and effective communication. It also emphasized the value of learning from others and the joy of sharing knowledge. Overall, this conversation underscores the significance of engaging in meaningful conversations that foster growth and understanding.