The problem with science II

Irrelevant. I'm not talking about disease, I'm talking about normal human nature and the absurdities of trying to explain it, for instance Sociobiology's "altruism" through the klutzy methods of science.

Explaining human nature scientifically might be criticized as overambitious, pretentious, and even aureate, but absurd? I'd like to note that I too believe that Tolstoy's novel explained more about human nature than a "century's worth of science probing psychology and sociology" did. That said, I also believe that Tolstoy was able to explain more for the same reason that it's easier to make complex programs with flash than assembly. Science uses a much lower level language and therefore it takes more effort to produce something complex. However, like Tolstoy, flash sacrifices potential for the sake of ease.Now before you get too excited and argue a hundred different nominal problems with my analogy, I'd like to remind you that my point is that just because science is struggling to explain human nature doesn't mean that it's absurd. Absurdity implies that the scientific approach is irrational or illogical. I'd like to see some evidence aside from science's struggle with explaining something as complex as the human brain if you want to back your claim that the approach is indeed absurd.

Science may have the brain, may study the brain all it likes, it will never get anywhere near what the human soul/mind is about.

hmm, let see if this gets closer. I'm thinking you are talking about what might be thought of as complex qualia. Like looking at a painting and grasping the feeling and meaning. Science address light, physics, perceptions but by human soul/mind or nature you are talking about our personal subjective experience. If this is the case I would tend to agree with you, at least I don't at this point see how this could be studied by science.lfen

Is it absurd to think that it can? Consider technological singularity. Though this is only a theory and may never take place, our understanding of the brain is certainly increasing exponentially, courtesy of brain imaging technologies, Moore's law, and expanding medical science markets (to name a few). Can you offer any evidence as to why the potential of the scientific approach is limited, or is it simply a stern belief that the brain is infinitely complex?

I have to confess to you that the whole discussion is so distasteful to me that I really don't even want to think about it. The idea that anyone could even THINK that knowledge of the brain will tell them anything of any importance about human experience or nature makes me a bit sick to the stomach, and I'm sorry to reduce it to this because I know it will only be dismissed as meaningless.

I suppose that says it Lfen, but even the term "qualia" gives me qualms. It's a term from science and I distrust it.

I've only encountered "qualia" as a term in philosophy to express what many including myself find an unexplicable chasm between objective discription of reality and our conscious experience of it. But it is analytical and I think you may have qualms about an analytical approach to life?lfen

That's mostly fantasy in my opinion. Our knowledge of the brain is certainly increasing. But a lot of that is about physiology and biochemistry. We are not making much progress in understanding mental processes (thinking, for example). Those working in the area are mostly committed to the computationalism paradigm, and this committment might be preventing them from considering other possibilities.

Actually, it is a term from philosophy. Yes, some philosophers consider themselves to be "cognitive scientists". However "qualia" is, in my opinion, a poor concept for science.

OK, I'm not used to the term "qualia" as I guess I don't move in those circles. But it has an unattractive ring to it. If it refers to experience, as opposed to brain or behavior or other externals, it appears to refer to it from the point of view of one who studies those externals. No?If anything I'm generally known as "too analytical" and always have been. One can be analytical outside the sciences, or formal philosophy.No, I do think it is the scientific worldview that bugs me. The external approach to the internal or something like that.

Is it then the reductionism that seems to be a strong approach in science though strictly speaking not all science is reductionist, that you find so off putting?lfen

I don't whay there must be a dichotomy - for me scientific enquiry is EXACTLY what the human mind/soul is about.Modern applied science may seem a million miles away from your religious ideals, but it is the same need to gain understanding that drives both.Furthermore, how does one express one's "soul" to others? Beyond facial expressions or vocalisations one uses a medium of some sort - paper, print, musical instruments, TVs, computers. All of these media are examples of applied science.How does a culture express its collective "soul"? With architecture, art galleries, libraries, and other technical achievements (in the US one might consider the Statue of Liberty, the Golden Gate bridge and the Space Shuttle). All products of applied science.Edited by RickJB, : Typos.

Reductionist, yes, I've used that term. It's when science studies inner states and characterizes them by their operational language and seems to think it's said something, when all it has done is reduced the complexity of inner states to their trival terminology.

My condolences.And by the way I've said nothing about my religious beliefs. My POV here LONG predates my becoming a Christian.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.