Your question reminds me of the phrase (I wish I could recall the source)
"Who pushes who around inside the brain?" Is it the lowest level
reductionist view of microscopic particles or do the macroscopic brain
states end up causally affecting microscopic states of individual neurons
and ions? I think in a certain sense both viewpoints are valid, though the
brain is all the more incomprehensible if the view is restricted to the
microscopic states. It is like attempting to understand how your e-mail
application works in terms of electrons and their arrangement in your
computer. Does this mean consciousness plays no role in
the evolution of particles? On the contrary, if your consciousness did not
exist, one could not explain how how atoms in your brain and body move
around as they do. (Short of accepting some of dualism or a belief in
zombies) While a particular universe might have deterministic laws, how it
unfolds cannot be calculated without instantiating the consciousness of
observers contained within that deterministic universe. The hierarchy of
physics building up chemistry, biology, neurology, psychology, loops back on
itself, with psychology ultimately having effects on physics. So rather
than a fully reductionist view, something like the snake eating its own tail
might be more appropriate. The book G.E.B. spends a lot of time on the
topic of reductionism vs. holism.
On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 6:04 PM, David Nyman <david.ny...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks for the quote and the link - and your own thoughts, of course.
> Yes, I've always had the queasy feeling that most of what is generally
> accepted to be manifest from God's perspective is actually acquired by
> bare-faced, if mostly unconscious, metaphysical larceny. But this
> theft has been so regularly and blithely perpetrated by so many
> people, with such impeccable credentials, that I am still inclined at
> times to suspect some residual misunderstanding or naivety on my own
> part. I suppose that evolution has equipped us with such an
> instinctive commitment to naturalism that it has become like one of
> those insidious computer viruses that resists attempts to eliminate it
> by immediately re-creating itself.
> In some ways, the notorious "hard problem" might be less
> controversially recast in the form of the question: Given the
> metaphysical posit of some pole of maximal fragmentation, what is the
> genesis and metaphysical status of its composite counter-poles? After
> all, nobody, even the most ardently committed "eliminativist", seeks
> to controvert the manifest relevance of the "counter-poles", even
> whilst being quite blind to the questions begged by their uncritical
> assumption. And in the absence of any intelligible possibility of an
> "outside view", the answer, as you correctly state, must be
> inextricably bound up with "what it is like to be an observer in our
> world". Under such constraint, it can hardly remain controversial
> that all observational evidence must somehow be obtained "from the
> inside" - after all, where else is there? Rather, what seems to
> require explication is how micro- and macro-scopic poles interweave in
> the synthesis of an apparently stable, shared composite world.
> On 26 August 2010 21:37, Stephen P. King <stephe...@charter.net> wrote:
> > Dear David,
> > Very well said! Let me add a quote from Carlo Rovelli (in the
> > context of discussions of the notion of observation in QM) found in "Quo
> > Vadis Quantum Mechanics?" (ed. Elitzur, Dolev and Kolenda):
> > "My main suggestion is to forbid ourselves to use the point of view of
> > Do not compare two different observers, unless you are, for instance, a
> > third observer who interacts with the two. In order to make this
> > you have a quantum mechanical interaction. So, very simply, the answer is
> > like that of special relativity: I am telling you that, with respect to
> > observer, this comes first and this comes second. Intuitively one might
> > think that this cannot be. But really there is no contradiction."
> > It seems to me that the assumption of the *observer at infinity*
> > modern physics (and its intersections with mathematics and philosophy)
> > and/or the ansatz of "context-free" and/or "coordinate-free" plays
> > essentially the same role as God did in classical era thought. I claim
> > it is the failure to critically examine the logical consequences of this
> > tacit assumption or postulate that is a source of problems and paradox in
> > our attempts to move understanding of our Universe forward. Like it or
> > there is a reality to *what it is like to be an observer* in our world
> > any denial of its reality, however illusory or epiphenomenal that might
> > does not help our understanding. Failure to confront the Hard Problem
> > eliminatist propositions is thus argued to be at best intellectual
> > http://www.drfrenzo.com/2007/09/intellectual-timidity.html
> > Kindest regards,
> > Stephen
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: email@example.com
> > [mailto:everything-l...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of David Nyman
> > Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2010 12:38 PM
> > To: Everything List
> > Subject: What's wrong with this?
> > I've been waking up with a persistent thought again, prompted this time
> > the way many mainstream philosophers of mind seem to unconsciously adopt
> > particularly insidious form of direct realism, whilst being quite blind
> > it. It centers on the idea of extreme physical reductionism, which I
> > to be the hypothesis that all composite phenomena can be completely
> > in principle, in the form of a causally complete and closed "ground
> > account of non- composite micro-physical events. I'm not concerned at
> > point whether such a restrictive view is "true", or whether it is at odds
> > with digital mechanism etc., but only that I take it to be a core
> > from which numerous people, including many philosophers, derive theories
> > the mental. I want to argue that the consequences of such a view are
> > perhaps more radically restrictive than commonly assumed.
> > If we could remove ourselves from the universe and take a strict
> > reductionist-god's eye view (which means having to drop all our usual
> > categories - a very hard thing to achieve imaginatively) then, strictly
> > adhering to the above hypothesis, all that would remain would be some
> > ground-level physical machine grinding along, without the need for
> > additional composite or macroscopic posits. Take your pick from current
> > theory what is supposed to represent this "machine", but that needn't
> > necessarily be at issue for the purpose of the argument. The point is
> > removing everything composite from the picture supposedly results in zero
> > difference at the base level - same events, same "causality".
> > I should stress, again, I'm not personally committed to this view - it
> > indeed highly problematic - but it is what the recipe says.
> > Now, just to emphasize the point, when I say it's a hard thing to do this
> > imaginatively, I mean that it isn't permissible to "look back"
> > from this reductionist-god's eye view and continue to conjure familiar
> > composite entities from the conjectural base components, because
> > reductionism is a commitment to the proposition that these don't exist.
> > Whatever composite categories we might be tempted to have recourse to -
> > know: molecules, cells, bodies, planets, ideas, explanations, theories,
> > whole ball of wax - none of these are available from this perspective.
> > Don't need them. More rigorously, they *must not be invoked* because
> > *do not exist*. They don't need to exist, because the machine doesn't
> > them to carry all the load and do all the work.
> > Now, many people might be prompted to object at this point "that's not
> > reducing, that's eliminating" as though these terms could be kept
> > But I'm arguing that reductionism, consistently applied, is inescapably
> > eliminative. The hypothesis was that base-level events are
> > and consequently must be granted metaphysical (and hence "physical")
> > reality. Nothing else is required to explain why the machine exists and
> > works, so nothing else need - or indeed can non- question-beggingly - be
> > postulated. If we really feel we must insist that there is something
> > metaphysically indispensable above and beyond this (and it would seem
> > we have good reason to) we must look for an additional metaphysical
> > somewhere to locate these somethings.
> > Essentially we now have two options. We can follow Kant in locating them
> > a metaphysically real synthetic first-person category that transcends the
> > ground-level (which stands here, approximately, for the
> > The alternative - and this is the option that many philosophers seem to
> > adopt by some "directly real" sleight-of- intuition - is that we somehow
> > locate them "out there" right on top of the micro-physical account. It's
> > easy to do: just look damn you, there they are, can't you see them? And
> > any case, one wants to protest, how can one predict, explain or
> > anything above the ground floor *without* such categories? Yes, that is
> > indeed the very question. But the reductionist-god's eye view (if we've
> > done it
> > right) should convince us - weirdly, but unavoidably - that they just
> > automatically "out there", metaphysically, at our disposal. If this
> > us, it can only be because we've fallen into the error of retaining these
> > indispensable organising categories intact, naturally but illicitly,
> > attempting this imaginative feat. Unfortunately this is to beg the very
> > questions we seek to answer.
> > I suppose the nub of this for me is that - whether we consider ourselves
> > monist or dualist, or amongst the ontological uncommitted - we have need
> > both analytic and integrative principles to account for the states of
> > affairs that confront us. There is, as it were, a spectrum that extends
> > from maximal fragmentation to maximal integration, and neither extreme by
> > itself suffices. The only mystery is why anyone would ever think it
> > Or am I just missing something obvious as usual?
> > David
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> > To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > For more options, visit this group at
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> For more options, visit this group at
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at