Comments on: What Edward Slingerland Offers Everyone

By: Nicholas FitzGerald

Nicholas FitzGerald — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 22:44:28 +0000

His point, as I took it, is not that human sentiment has a “special quality” in the dualist sense of being “distinct” from other phenomena, but that they are special *to us*, and therefore the unspoken fear (which I discussed here) that we will all become uncaring automata in the face of physicalism is unfounded (he argues for a strong form of embodied cognition). The fact that feelings are inescapable *does* make them meaningful, because it means that no matter how well we understand the fact that our thoughts are inevitable result of physical processes it will not change the fact that love just *feels good* or that we sense there is something simply *wrong* about murder, or that people deserve to be held responsible for their actions despite the fact that “free will” (in the strong sense) is an illusion.

The humanities (sociology, literature, art etc.) deserve a place at the top of the explanatory hierarchy because they are undeniably an identifiable class of emergent phenomena with their own properties worth studying. In the same way that chemistry deserve study in its own right despite the fact that, as physicalists, we acknowledge that chemical reactions can ultimately be reduced to physical interactions. Otherwise we might as well all be physicists and close down all other departments of the university

I don’t think it’s anthropocentric, but what it is is sentience-centric, and “anthros” just happen to be the only example of sentience we have. I imagine if we were ever to encounter the Martians, sociology – for example – would expand to include study of Martian culture…

By: Joshua Swanson

Joshua Swanson — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 22:39:56 +0000

You (or rather he) here seems to be implying that human sentiment has value simple because it is inescapable… that we can’t help but feel, therefore feelings are meaningful. I can see there is a point there, but I am not seeing any reason why the humanities (which you have admitted is purely physical) should have it’s ‘proper place’ at the top of the explanatory hierarchy, nor why human experience should have a “special quality” distinct from any other unique, inexplicable, or alien phenomena. This strikes me as nothing more then sheer anthropocentrism, and is something I had hoped we as a people had outgrown centuries ago.

Thanks for the review of the book

By: chris o

chris o — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 23:05:12 +0000

Slingerland’s explanatory hierarchy reminds me of this xkcd comic: http://xkcd.com/435/