I am an Eliminative Materialist: What is it and Why?
There are two main currents of thought in neuroscience: dualism and materialism. Dualists believe in a world beyond the one we live in. A world full of gods, energies, waves, aliens, etc. There is no evidence for the dualist hypothesis other than miracles if one accepts them as truth. On the other hand, materialists believe that everything can be explained by the materiality of the world we live in. I am a materialist. Up to now, this second hypothesis is supported and validated by modern science. Science is present everywhere in our world. It is responsible for the evolution of the standard of living and the possibilities offered by modern life, but also for its shortcomings like favoring laziness. This is the result of our civilization and its evolution: this is progress. And without progress, we would probably still be eating bananas at the top of coconut trees.
Some dualists or fervent believers incorporate scientific ideas to support their opinion. It is like Pascal’s wager: you want it both ways. If in his time it was the safest way, in our time, it is like to be caught with your fingers in many pies, though. This is the case for quantum mechanics. However, quantum theory is a physical model valid under certain conditions. Outside of these conditions, it is not verified. Even if quantum mechanics has effects on the functioning of our brain and thus on our life, these are indirect effects. We can do neuroscience without going to this nano level of detail. Even if the characteristics of a neuron depend intrinsically on quantum phenomena, these characteristics at the micro level of the neuron do not need quantum mechanics to be described. The same is true for relativity. If our technology is also explained by the theory of relativity, we humans are not objects subject to relativity. The Flash is a comic book character, not a real one! Using these physical theories at our level is only prospective that is far from being proven given our level of knowledge!
Science is evolving, and asserting heuristic hypotheses outside the laboratory is misplaced. At best, it is a dream but often a scam. Definitely not science. Perhaps these hypotheses will be validated one day. For now this is not the case, but these ideas appeal to people disappointed by religions and looking for spirituality. Most of us are looking for spirituality, but in different ways. Why don’t self-proclaimed scientific gurus proceed in a truly scientific way by organizing research to prove their theories? Soft sciences — anything apart from math and physics — need to improve their use of scientific methods. And why not invent new ones based on cohort studies, statistics, and transhumanist devices to avoid declarative studies? This is an extraordinary opportunity for this type of science to gain precision, minimize the interpretation of results, and one day join hard sciences.
This is why I am a materialist. But why am I also an eliminativist? Why be a materialist and eliminativist in a world where some people see these two negatively, and even worse when the two are associated? The first answer I can give is that I am a yogi, and Shiva is my god. Shiva can be seen as a materialist eliminativist: he builds as much as he destroys — to make room before rebuilding. Like for the noble meaning of yoga: to destroy the ego to achieve liberation.
The second and more serious answer is that the first step of the scientific method is to define what we are talking about. This is obvious if we don’t want to talk for nothing. Then the following steps allow us to specify, little by little, the original question to reach the solution. However, this step is often not possible within soft sciences because of cultures on which we depend very strongly. In these fields of study, science, and culture are intimately intertwined — as are reason and emotion, but that will be the subject of another article — and it is not possible to apply this hard science process of definition necessary to produce true science.
Indeed, neuroscience is a soft science because it does not clearly define the concepts it uses. It depends on a whole vocabulary — therefore, the culture — that dates back to well before its creation. The concepts of consciousness, reason, free will, emotions, etc., are concepts whose current definition comes mainly from the Age of Enlightenment to differentiate and elevate man from animal. At that time, animals were assimilated as beasts without consciousness, without free will, and only subject to their emotions. On the other hand, men were endowed with reason and possessed free will and consciousness. We have since learned that this vision, revolutionary at the time, is not so simple and dual. Moreover, our societies are still based on this vision, especially everything that is moral and legal.
Neuroscience is also a hard science if we talk about computational neuroscience, define low-level states of consciousness during comatose states, or study the Bayesian response of stimuli in newborns. These advances go hand in hand with a new vision of cognition with patterns. A concept closer to math and physics than previous ones. From my point of view, these are the most promising types of advances because they are rigorous and precise. They do not depend on old concepts but on mathematical models and the use of many more impartial technological devices not depending on unconscious cultural assumptions. The interpretation of results is always here but much more framed, thus allowing us to move forward on solid material bases. This is my eliminativist side speaking, an eliminativism against popular psychology, but an eliminativism of reconstruction, under the good auspices of Shiva, as for attacking these poorly defined concepts, because defined three centuries ago, even if by brilliant minds.
Progress took us where we are. It is a synonym of reason and science. Modern science — the last child of progress — allowed us to land on the Moon and discover what we are made of. But, we are like newborns trying to understand the Universe inside and around us, and the debate between dualism and materialism is still open. And to secure our march into the future, we need simple philosophies understandable by everyone, and resting on solid scientific facts. Eliminative materialism is a good starting point for that. Everything remains to be done in neuroscience: nothing is fixed. This makes neuroscience and neurophilosophy interesting and an exceptional field of study in the possibilities it opens up.
And what I like about these two is that they are halfway between hard and soft, just like a chocolate lava cake (mi-cuit au chocolat). Taste it, and you will be won over!
References about neurophilosophy and neuroscience in this article: Patricia Churchland, and Stanislas Dehaene
Originally published at https://www.gordianknots.net
