- Aug 20, 2019
- 10,985
- 12,068
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
Definitions
Materialism: The monistic philosophical position that assumes all reality is, and only can be, matter. Matter is ultimately reducible to elementary particles as understood by our current scientific models.
Atomistic knowing: Knowledge gained by understanding the constitutive elements of things and events.
Post claim
Among materialists, there is a prejudicial preference for atomistic knowing. There is a tacit assumption that a thing or event is only really known if its constituent elements and properties are understood. Moreover, any other knowing must be reducible to this kind of knowing. For example, it is common among materialists to want to reduce human cognition/human consciousness to the constituent workings of the human brain. So, the assumption goes, if we want to know and understand the human mind, we need only investigate the human brain. However, atomistic knowing entails an asymmetric ignorance.
I can deconstruct a thing or event and understand its constituent elements and their properties. However, if all I knew were the constituent elements and their properties, I would not be able to reconstruct the thing or event.
Two Examples
Example 1: If all I knew (understood) were the respective properties of hydrogen and oxygen, I would not be able to guess the properties that would emerge when two atoms of hydrogen are bonded to an atom of oxygen. In other words, merely knowing the properties of those two elements would not enable me to foresee the properties of water (e.g. wetness, or its various states under various conditions). Moreover, simply knowing the properties of those elements would not enable me to foresee water's benefits and uses (e.g. the health benefits to living organisms, it's uses by humans, etc.). This example comes from C.D. Broad and I will post his quote and the source in the thread.
Example 2: The No-Driving Big Truck Mechanic
Imagine a big truck mechanic who knows every and all the constituent elements of a truck. She can tear down an engine and rebuild it. If something goes wrong, she is flawless in pinpointing the issue and being able to fix it. She understands every element the drive train, the exhaust system, the cooling system, the electrical system, the computer system, all of it. She is a top big truck mechanic.
However, she can't drive a big truck. She couldn't back a trailer if her life depended on it. She doesn't understand show to properly load a truck. She doesn't know how to drive a tractor-trailer in various weather conditions or in traffic. She has no idea what it is like trying to navigate a bunch of "four-wheelers" who think big trucks can stop on a dime.
Does this big truck mechanic know trucks? She certainly knows them in an atomistic sense, but does she really know trucks if she can't even drive one? To be fair, there are plenty of no mechanic-ing big truck drivers. So, we can also question their knowing. It would seem someone who really knows big trucks would have knowledge that entails both. Whatever the case, what the example is intended to show, in a somewhat tongue-in-cheek way, is the asymmetrical ignorance of atomistic knowing in that knowing the constituents of a thing does not entail knowing the thing, its emergent properties, its uses, and its value as that thing.
There is no doubt that an atomistic approach to understanding has greatly benefited us. But, it has an inherent blindspot. Materialists who have a prejudicial preference for this kind of knowing, by default, neglect a reality that is greater than its constituent parts. Reductionism, in particular, is simply wrong headed.
I'll close with some remarks concerning the tendency for materialists to reduce cognition/consciousness to the constituent elements and processes of the brain. It is common to hear terms like "emergent" and "supervenience." The idea is that if B is reducible to A, and B has properties that are not found in A, then the properties of B supervene over A. Or again, if B has properties not found in A, then those properties emerged from A in B. I consider words like "emergent" and "supervenience" to be working words that do no work. If you say, "Consciousness emerges from the brain," what have you really said? That they are related? That one somehow depends on the other? Okay, we all knew that. You still haven't explained anything. Words like "emergent" and "supervenience" are simply place holders for we-know-not-what.
Any thoughts?
Materialism: The monistic philosophical position that assumes all reality is, and only can be, matter. Matter is ultimately reducible to elementary particles as understood by our current scientific models.
Atomistic knowing: Knowledge gained by understanding the constitutive elements of things and events.
Post claim
Among materialists, there is a prejudicial preference for atomistic knowing. There is a tacit assumption that a thing or event is only really known if its constituent elements and properties are understood. Moreover, any other knowing must be reducible to this kind of knowing. For example, it is common among materialists to want to reduce human cognition/human consciousness to the constituent workings of the human brain. So, the assumption goes, if we want to know and understand the human mind, we need only investigate the human brain. However, atomistic knowing entails an asymmetric ignorance.
I can deconstruct a thing or event and understand its constituent elements and their properties. However, if all I knew were the constituent elements and their properties, I would not be able to reconstruct the thing or event.
Two Examples
Example 1: If all I knew (understood) were the respective properties of hydrogen and oxygen, I would not be able to guess the properties that would emerge when two atoms of hydrogen are bonded to an atom of oxygen. In other words, merely knowing the properties of those two elements would not enable me to foresee the properties of water (e.g. wetness, or its various states under various conditions). Moreover, simply knowing the properties of those elements would not enable me to foresee water's benefits and uses (e.g. the health benefits to living organisms, it's uses by humans, etc.). This example comes from C.D. Broad and I will post his quote and the source in the thread.
Example 2: The No-Driving Big Truck Mechanic
Imagine a big truck mechanic who knows every and all the constituent elements of a truck. She can tear down an engine and rebuild it. If something goes wrong, she is flawless in pinpointing the issue and being able to fix it. She understands every element the drive train, the exhaust system, the cooling system, the electrical system, the computer system, all of it. She is a top big truck mechanic.
However, she can't drive a big truck. She couldn't back a trailer if her life depended on it. She doesn't understand show to properly load a truck. She doesn't know how to drive a tractor-trailer in various weather conditions or in traffic. She has no idea what it is like trying to navigate a bunch of "four-wheelers" who think big trucks can stop on a dime.
Does this big truck mechanic know trucks? She certainly knows them in an atomistic sense, but does she really know trucks if she can't even drive one? To be fair, there are plenty of no mechanic-ing big truck drivers. So, we can also question their knowing. It would seem someone who really knows big trucks would have knowledge that entails both. Whatever the case, what the example is intended to show, in a somewhat tongue-in-cheek way, is the asymmetrical ignorance of atomistic knowing in that knowing the constituents of a thing does not entail knowing the thing, its emergent properties, its uses, and its value as that thing.
There is no doubt that an atomistic approach to understanding has greatly benefited us. But, it has an inherent blindspot. Materialists who have a prejudicial preference for this kind of knowing, by default, neglect a reality that is greater than its constituent parts. Reductionism, in particular, is simply wrong headed.
I'll close with some remarks concerning the tendency for materialists to reduce cognition/consciousness to the constituent elements and processes of the brain. It is common to hear terms like "emergent" and "supervenience." The idea is that if B is reducible to A, and B has properties that are not found in A, then the properties of B supervene over A. Or again, if B has properties not found in A, then those properties emerged from A in B. I consider words like "emergent" and "supervenience" to be working words that do no work. If you say, "Consciousness emerges from the brain," what have you really said? That they are related? That one somehow depends on the other? Okay, we all knew that. You still haven't explained anything. Words like "emergent" and "supervenience" are simply place holders for we-know-not-what.
Any thoughts?
