The question I really wanted to "kick off" this thread:
Why would local (times/spaces) -- any number considered singly (or reflected on afterward and/or considered together in ways -- but still as they were, singly) -- ever to be thought to show what we ARE in terms of the Biology of Behavior?
One should not have such poorly contextualized thoughts but, as I will indicate, this is the nature of a lot of recognized and long-standing philosophy. Typical philosophy, not thoroughly guided by science.
I shall try to indicate how such normal experience could/should NOT be likely to reveal most-key behavioral development -- the core biological functioning of behavior.
[ FOR THIS ESSAY: Think in terms that philosophers most often think in, and a major and central kind of behavior psychologists think about: thinking itself; and, think of that specifically AS IT ADVANCES IN MAJOR WAYS, and thus specially in qualitative shifts leading to significant new ways to imagine and conceptualize. ]
The beginning question (at the top of the body of this essay) is basically to ask: can we conjure up the very nature of a major biological system, THAT BEING THE BIOLOGICAL SYSTEM OF OUR OVERT BEHAVIOR PATTERNS (as it unfolds with ontogeny)? Can we do this just by "force of will" or strong intent, finding exactly that which is key in experience (during ontogeny/development) as it emerges? I say, no. That would not be well-adaptive, for one thing; we don't want to rely on OUR precision, but rather our "body's" ability to HAVE precision: somehow "in" developing some CORE (key aspects) of behavior patterns which, specifically, are the core of new qualitative ways of thinking . Such important new aspects are likely possible because of some added precision (true discriminativeness and realized similarities) "reflected" in some memory capacities, as knowledge develops (or, more accurately, HAS developed). AND, THEN, as we, with our capacities are exposed to "more" , in key important situations/circumstances, those faculties 'see' more (we would say, in today's psychology terms: “more enters working memory”).
How have Western philosophers done on such matters? How have they addressed this?
Western philosophy: how could one criticize this? Here's a major general way: A major topic and abiding concern in that field is about thought, esp. thought about thought; but, this and other matters pondered, are characterized by precisely the LIMITED phenomenology of OUR thinking (and just what-all that does), AS DONE, IN EFFECT, "LOCALLY".
But what's the problem? What else do we have? Oh, the woe of those who do not know:
We have good knowledge of the nature of, AND limitations of, some central faculties (the Memories) -- good science data here; considering THAT, we have the ability to compare situations/responses looking for cross-situational/circumstances differences and cross-situational/circumstances similarities WITH THAT KNOWLEDGE AND PERSPECTIVE GUIDING US. This is NOW NOT the phenomenology of raw experience, though it is clearly related to such experience -- and MUST be related to such experiences -- but now to "track" or go "beyond" the phenomenology of local (times/spaces) experience. This gives us a way, and a legitimate way if we are fully empirically grounded (and know how to stay that way), to detect changes, NOT JUST those DUE TO regular ("local") experiences, but others related to, or due to, other behavior pattern changing, indicated by "clues" through/by/with our knowledge.
Why might this be important? Because: what we ARE, in/with our behavior patterns, may well be beyond any particular experiences AS WE ACTUALLY EXPERIENCE THEM -- beyond the regular (ordinary, usual, normal) PARTICULAR local experiences. Sound strange?; it's not. Ask yourself:
Is there any reason we should expect that we are so smart that we can actually see or detect the ultimate mechanisms of the biology of behavior? I think NOT. But, with our abstracting, reflective abilities and good knowledge of major faculties/capacities (and of changes in the content, and in the organization, that occur there), we can get an idea of what species-typical or species-specific qualitative changes might well occur over ontogeny AT KEY POINTS.
That way, we can ask: what sort of changes in behavior patterns (think of: changes in thinking) are in accord with biological principles and consistent with the way biology is (or may be), AS IT COULD OPERATE, and those maybe contributing to aspects of behavior that WE, AS SENTIENT BEINGS, CANNOT DIRECTLY (wholely-as-it-is-relevant) "fully" experience, in our normal ways. YET I assert also, that the biology of behavior CAN be realized INDIRECTLY by making differentiations and comparisons across key circumstances (of thought -- when the topic is cognitive development, as it is here), SOMEHOW using what we do already know (from behavioral science, and often NOT from normal experience). If all is done in a correct way, we will generate the testable empirical hypotheses.
Though the whole phenomenon (that is, all aspects) of qualitative change may not all be something we experience explicitly (or, at least, as something that seems at all notable in thought), we could hypothesize mechanisms of the qualitative change in some of these very aspects of overt behavior . Again, these not fully obvious or obvious for what-they-are because some key aspects of the qualitative developments of thinking are not directly obvious that way (in regular experience): these are likely exactly some of (or some aspects of) those behavior patterns AT THE INCEPTION of the “new” which is central to and resulting in NEW developments and new cognitive abilities. THEN, the question should be: what aspects of behavior patterns could be involved which may well be sufficient but not disruptive?; are any of these not only overt, but detectable and in some way measurable, given our present technological prowess? I say yes, yes. Specifically here, I assert: "Perceptual shifts", BEING the innate guidance, as aspects of important learning-related experiences (but not typical learning), may be there and suffice. [ These "perceptual shifts" could well be the development of "time-space-capacity availability" (i.e. basically "GAPS" of-a-nature in visual-spacial memory due to development , i.e. with the integrations and consolidations THAT come with development and HAVE ALREADY OCCURRED). ]
This would result in "looking" at key aspects/parts and CONTEXTS in new ways (new real concrete 'parts' of situations or combinations of 'parts' of real concrete situations). BUT: "looking at" does not likely or necessarily REQUIRE that this immediately results in “seeing more", but just sets up an orientation, used again (and again) in similar circumstances to see "the more", when there is "the more" to see and we are not to much otherwise occupied to see it. [ Here, the "looking at" I am talking about, may seem to be of the scientist who is doing the studying. Though this may be, in some senses, similar, this paragraph is describing the developing Subject, at major points in ontogeny. ]
About one engaged in good developmental psychology science: While our new way of thinking about things now can be, in a sense, of an "non-local" nature, the relevant aspects of the environment (circumstances) are never as such, but rather that which is with us (the Subject) and before us (the Subject) in the concrete real world: either as important context OR that important context with newly important content.
[ Do not be surprised to see edits to this essay for a while.]
P.S. The above is what I am all about. If you want large papers and hundreds of pages of essay, related to this, see:
Especially: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/286920820_A_Human_Ethogram_Its_Scientific_Acceptability_and_Importance_now_NEW_because_new_technology_allows_investigation_of_the_hypotheses_an_early_MUST_READ
and
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322818578_NOW_the_nearly_complete_collection_of_essays_RIGHT_HERE_BUT_STILL_ALSO_SEE_THE_Comments_1_for_a_copy_of_some_important_more_recent_posts_not_in_the_Collection_include_reading_the_2_Replies_to_the_Comm
Follow this link maybe helpful
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-relationship-between-science-and-philosophy
regards
Dear Khalid Al-Salhie
The content your link leads to seems like simple unfounded "parroting" of some status quo definitions.
You may or may not have noticed: I often offer an answer when I pose a Question. My questions are often just contexts for my essays.
Answers must be clearly realized -- that is a kind of example I like to set (and certainly not just say what I have heard).
Dear All & ,
Thanks to Khalid Al-Salhie for the link provided to us on the 'Quora' debate (https://www.researchgate.net/https:www.quora.com/What-is-the-relationship-between-science-and-philosophy), where in, Paul King provided an excellant and clear reply to the question on "What-is-the-relationship-between-science-and-philosophy". It is I think appropriate to quote the same in full for ready reference and discussion.Paul King replies as follows:
Philosophy generated science by essentially inventing intellectual thought and rigorous reasoning. Philosophy continues to influence science by framing debates and bringing awareness to science's weaknesses.
Philosophy frames the questions and sets the rules of debate. It does this by exploring the landscape of what might be true and figuring out how different approaches to truth interrelate. The dialog of philosophy focuses on logic, rules of argumentation, and the definition of abstract concepts. The approach and practice of science, including the "scientific method" arose out of philosophy.
Science is a strategy for arriving at consensus answers to questions about the natural world. It focuses on discovering "facts", "laws", and "mechanisms". Often what are discovered are new objects that were previously unseen and unknown to exist.
The objects that science discovers were there all along, but were either too small to see (cells, molecules, atoms, electrons), too far away to see (galaxies), or required reorganizing available information to see (genes, structure of DNA, geotectonic plates, the ionosphere). Science also discovers historical events (the ice age, the birth of the solar system) and predicts future events(comets passing by, the death of the sun). Biological science focuses on discovering mechanisms (evolution, cell division, biochemical processes). Physics prefers rules and laws (gravity, quantum forces). The social sciences settle for statistical patterns (behavioral tendencies, market mechanisms, psychological processes).
Philosophy of mind and the scientific study of consciousness are two fields that are interacting closely on an unresolved issue and present an interesting history of how philosophy and science work together.
Philosophy of mind has debated the nature of the mind for centuries, since Aristotle, and has developed dozens of interrelated frameworks, often called the "-isms" (dualism, functionalism, materialism, reductionism, epiphenomenalism, ...). Consciousness has fascinated thinkers, including scientists, and especially psychologists and physicists, for a very long time -- again, since Aristotle.
William James, a philosopher and one of the founders of modern psychology in the 1890s, had consciousness as one of his main interests. However the psychological behaviorism movement of the 1960s and 1970s, led by BF Skinner, applied enormous peer pressure to crush the credibility of consciousness as a scientific object, partly to bring more rigor and discipline to the field of psychology.
Consciousness began to return as a legitimate object of study in the 1990s, partly thanks to Francis Crick, discoverer of DNA, who lent his reputation to launching the neuroscientific study of consciousness as a credible and precisely defined field.
This led to philosophers, psychologists, and neuroscientists gathering in annual meetings to debate approaches to elucidating what consciousness is and how the brain produces it.
There is a parallel gathering of philosophers and physicists who debate the relationship of quantum mechanics to consciousness.
The outcome of all of this is a fresh array of viewpoints in philosophy that are informed by scientific discoveries, along with more precise definitions in science that are informed by the philosophical debate."
I think a stage has come for all of us to come out of our "Coveted Egoistic Shells"/"Dark Biased Black Loop-holes" and "mad scientific beliefs" and see where we stand on this "Cosmic Science" and the narrated mysteries of Scientists on the "Big Bang" and "Multi-Universe" and the 10^(-32) secs and so on while describing the Grand Scientific Mythical Stories spun around the "Inflection (Big Bounce)", "Cosmic Background Radiation" and so on.
As Per Wikipedia, the Big Bounce is a hypothetical cosmological model for the origin of the known universe- (Hypothetical, illusive and imaginary concept) see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bounce. Thanks.
Dear Kameswara Rao Chellapilla
Most often (above) you cite assertions not shown and not helpful. Definitions from the past can frequently be this way. There are no answers until you find them (the definitions cited are often just those that have been asserted and not reasonably found to be the case in any acceptable way, BUT then [also] not notably improved upon, but RATHER, just believed -- by those who follow).
To be more specific:
This is largely ridiculous crap:
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-relationship-between-science-and-philosophy .
If that were true and known, the answer to the Question, "Can philosophy help to innovate and develop scientific theory?", would have been well-answered in the TWO YEARS of that thread. The "answer" would be known. The "answers" given in that article (and quoted by another), in actuality, are merely asserted definitions from a "world of fantasy."
Truth is: Philosophy pays very little attention to Psychology and only in a biased and selective way when it suits the philosophers' purposes otherwise. (I've just read 100s of pages that has AGAIN shown me that.) Actually, philosophers patently NEGLECT relevant psychology and seem to be very largely ignorant of major, relevant, large portions of the field of Psychology.
Psychology does not cite the "big debates" of philosophy -- not that I have seen to ANY notable extent and certainly not to ANY meaningful extent. (I know; I "lived" Psychology for decades.) Philosophy NEVER "frames" the questions for psychology.
Philosophy and science almost never "work together" and when they do little or nothing is accomplished.
Obviously: Philosophy simply "thinks" and asserts what it is, but in NO WAY that is generally accepted.
Returning to my note to Kameswara Rao Chellapilla et al :
Doing what you do, that is adding nothing, or worse: distracting from good developing empirically (direct overt observationally) founded/grounded thought on the Real (as that is approached in various areas -- especially the especially important ones). [ Only through GOOD science can you escape "the present" in many regards; otherwise you are, in the main, limited by the limited nature of present phenomenology and concomitant understandings . See the main Question (with Answer), beginning this thread. ]
Define nothing; debate nothing; discovery everything (and come to peace). As soon as philosophers define and debate, then they are nothing unless and until they come to knowledge and ways to knowledge -- both from good science (reliable, seen, proven, and personally assessed/assessible, and thereby reasonably agreed upon ).
Let's not prescribe confusion, which is what you have very much essentially done.
[ The fact that much science is limited and "in a box" (much like philosophy) is NOT inherent in science, but is a long-standing departure from real responsibility, "founded" in the culture of philosophy. I have proven this and shown other things, such as indicated in the Question and more -- at least in specific details of specific TESTABLE hypotheses -- in the 600 pages of writing I have available here on researchgate.; see the links in the Question beginning this thread. ]
Dear Brad Jessness,
It is very easy to understand that philosophy is part of Scientific investigation and meaningful extraction of some trends and conclusions from the experimental work done. It does not stay outside that "Science". Main problem with all of you is the bias you have with that word innocently connecting it with the "Spiritual thinking " only. Come out of that shell.
What you are doing in all your statements and writing is only philosophising. Think for a while coolly. You will get it. Thanks.
Dear Kameswara Rao Chellapilla
It is my position that all good "philosophy" is part of science ("in science") -- the part accepting certain principles, including prominently: necessarily applicable principles (and any applicable laws), needed at the beginning of a [new] approach. That, as an outlook on at least a major part of the Subject matter, much as a whole, IS "philosophy" (and this may seem like an important part at the beginning of some science outlooks and approaches). But, though "in science" in that way, PHILOSOPHY IS THE LEAST OF IT -- because IN outlooks, perspectives, and approaches, subsequent to this role (and any valid role) of "philosophy", what come are real, related findings, OTHERWISE VERIFIED, with at least some clear grounding or foundation in what is directly, observable and overt (AND _THAT_ IS WHAT IS BY-FAR MOST IMPORTANT). Quickly the "philosophical beginnings" of any way of thinking should be nearly completely superseded by empirical findings
Dear Brad Jesness,
I fully agree with your statement " Current, existing, good findings in behavioral science bolster my view on limitations on thought, if attempted to be done otherwise (more "all in the head"): such thought quickly is, or quickly becomes, seriously biased or skewed -- basically because we (humans) cannot think about much well that is not found or verified IN OUR ENVIRONMENT and with that as supports in for our present thought (OR, relatedly, with supports from well-based reliable memory (reality-based))".
But recognise one fact that these studies in behavioural science are also by human beings (behavioural scientists) and the same human weakness as narrated by you above applies to these studies as well. Being 'human beings' with so many behavioural constraints whatever we find through our experiments for obtaining some evidence to theorise and generalise for infinity are going to be only temporal until they are contested, countered with opposite evidence and nullified.
This activity of finding the "truth treasure" with all 'lameness in vision and biased thinking process' continues unabated and unquestioned as human being can not stop thinking and theorising to pass his time until death. Let it continue. Thanks.
- Badges
- Science method
- Similar topics
- Philosophy