Book review at NY Review of Books. The subject book authored by philosopher Thomas Nagel and titled: "Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Concept of Nature is Almost Certainly False".
Indeed he is an atheist. [Ed: You don't say!] Instead Nagel’s view is that neo-Darwinism, and in fact the whole materialist view elaborated by science since the seventeenth century, is radically incomplete. The materialist laws of nature must, he says, be supplemented by something else if we are to fold ourselves and our minds fully into our science.
His leading contender for this something else is teleology, a tendency of the universe to aim for certain goals as it unfolds through time. Nagel believes that (currently unknown) teleological laws of nature might mean that life and consciousness arise with greater probability than would result from the known laws of physics, chemistry, and biology.
Scientists shouldn’t be shocked by Nagel’s claim that present science might not be up to cracking the mind-brain problem or that a profoundly different science might lie on the horizon. The history of science is filled with such surprising transformations.
Nor should we dismiss Nagel’s claims merely because they originate from outside science, from a philosopher. Much the same thing happened when natural theology—the scientific attempt to discern God’s attributes from His biological handiwork—gave way to Darwinism.
It was the philosopher David Hume who began to dismantle important aspects of natural theology. In a devastating set of arguments, Hume identified grievous problems with the argument from design (which claims, roughly, that a designer must exist because organisms show intricate design).
Hume was not, however, able to offer an alternative account for the apparent design in organisms. Darwin worked in Hume’s wake and finally provided the required missing theory, natural selection.
Nagel, consciously or not, now aspires to play the part of Hume in the demise of neo-Darwinism. He has, he believes, identified serious shortcomings in neo-Darwinism. And while he suspects that teleological laws of nature may exist, he recognizes that he hasn’t provided anything like a full theory. He awaits his Darwin.The reviewer here claims the author posits that "the universe" is "aiming for goals"... this is interesting.
Right now, we should perhaps then look at these events we are witnessing today in economic policy as "the universe" has a goal of making morons out of all of the political leadership of western civilization.
I would add that if "the universe" is seeking this goal, then it is currently doing a VERY good job in pursuit of this goal!
Maybe there is nothing we can do about the economic injustice we observe today if it is "the universe" that is doing all of this. I don't think we would stand much chance against "the universe", that would seem an insurmountable foe to myself anyway.
Why then bother?
If we are led to believe this guy, perhaps we should just get out the popcorn and just continue to watch this "universe" controlled moron-fest where the by-product is that broad public purpose is being crushed by narrow private interest within humanity here in the west.
7 comments:
I'm not sure "teleology" is necessary the right concept. I prefer harmonic directionality as part of the growth of universe.
During growth not only are new things created but many structure a replaced and die off. Right now the universe is "experimenting with intelligence" so rather thinking of the development of human consciousness as merely stochastic we should think as a transition from embryo to fetus in a galactic system which was reach that level of growth.
I believe that my view is firmly naturalistic but has a certain metaphysical wiggle room.
Due to my belief in harmonic progression in the universe as oppose to stochastic mysticism (which is the mainstream scientific viewpoint) I believe humanity has to start a serious reorganization of itself to deal with problems of a global scale such climate management and asteroid deflection if we wish to survive.
If we don't meet the universe's challenge and develop higher conceptions of organization outside or self interested individuals in a market then we are simply a another failed experiment and the universe will find another route to interplanetary life.
What Nagel is saying is nothing new in philosophy of science about the claim of materialistic reductionism being an ideology based on assumptions (that are likely untrue) instead of being certain knowledge that is established scientifically. In short, that something is unknown to exist based on existing scientific knowledge doesn't prove that it doesn't exist and won't be discovered. Science is tentative because knowledge is emergent.
Why do I say "likey untrue" above." In the first place consciousness remains a mystery that science has only begun to deal with at the periphery. So to draw any conclusions now is premature.
Moreover, there is no reason to suspect that a full materialistic explanation for consciousness is even possible, let alone "obviously" forthcoming. That is an assumption without any strong foundation at this juncture of the investigation. Classical physicists thought that physics was essentially complete and all that was needed was to work out the implications of strong ergodicity. Who knew?
Secondly, there is reason to suspect that there is more information available than materialists are willing to admit and which they have marginalized. In particular there are the reports of the masters of wisdom who are generally received as the teachers of humankind in the various cultural traditions. Careful study is revealing similarities and correspondences that seem to go beyond mutual influence.
Thirdly, research on living individuals is suggesting that there is more than one mode of knowing characteristic of humans and the intellectual mode, which intellectuals assume to be the superior mode if there are indeed grades, is not actually the most developed based on many criteria.
This is a field that is in its infancy scientifically but which has a long history in rational thought and non-rational expression. In God Speaks, Meher Baba presents a comprehensive summary of this perennial view in a conceptual model that is claimed to be based on non-ordinary experience. In it, Meher Baba explains — see especially chapter two — how biological evolution, which science has recently discovered, is teleological, which science has not yet approached. This chapter is actually the least fascinating in the book. What happens after the human form emerges in biological evolution is much more interesting. A short summary setting forth the teleology can be found here.
I haven't read Nagel's book yes, but I been following the discussions of it on some of philosophy blogs, and so far I have to say that the central argument seems extraordinarily weak: he makes grand empirical claims without marshaling any evidence whatsoever for them.
Great post, great article. I want this book.
First para of article in NYRB:
The history of science is partly the history of an idea that is by now so familiar that it no longer astounds: the universe, including our own existence, can be explained by the interactions of little bits of matter. We scientists are in the business of discovering the laws that characterize this matter. We do so, to some extent at least, by a kind of reduction. The stuff of biology, for instance, can be reduced to chemistry and the stuff of chemistry can be reduced to physics.
This is a statement of the positivist unity of science view, which is an assumption that replaced the great chain of being view. Like the great chain of being view, the unity of science view is an assumption that serves as a methodological principle, although some accept it as self-evident as an ontological truth, like the ancients and medievals did the great chain of being. However, the a version of the great chain of being view is hardly dead, in that it lies at the basis of perennial wisdom, which assets it as ontological truth based on non-ordinary experience. It is now being considered by some scientists are a useful organizational tool in the interdisciplinary field of consciousness studies.
To me it's like the guy can see the purpose in God's operation (he uses the word "goal" which misses the mark a bit) ...
Paul revealed this:
"...according to the purpose of the One Who is operating all in accord with the counsel of His will..." Ephesians 1:11
and here:
"... in accord with the purpose of the eons,..." Ephesians 3:11
So Paul revealed (for the ecclesia of Christ Jesus at least) there is the Devine "purpose" that imo this guy can see the action of at some level...
but he has not been given faith in God (article says he is atheist) so he can't see where the "purpose" of the "operation" comes from... so he is left with "the universe has a goal" type of thing... which comes across as teleological from a secular point of view...
So to me he's basically "got it" except he has been given no faith in God...
"...as God parts to each the measure of faith." Romans 12:3
He hasnt apparently been given a very large "measure of faith"... not his fault... so imo he's probably doing pretty well with what he has been given to work with...
rsp,
Matt, a scientific view must be expressed naturalistically. Not all scientists disavow supernaturalism, but they disavow supernatural explanations in science. Explanation is supposed to stick to the natural.
My position is that when human experience is examined comprehensively, what appear supernatural from the everyday point of view is natural for some people.
So what is needed is to expand the definition of natural to include all of human experience instead of ruling some out by definition, which really by assumption, and this is what materialistic reductionism does.
Post a Comment