This lecture by Noam Chomsky, given in Oslo in 2011, is one of the best things I have seen on YouTube. In it, Chomsky discusses the mind-body problem, how there really isn’t one, and how science more or less gave up after Newton trying to solve the mysteries of the universe.
Newton was not thrilled, nor were others of the day, with the thought of action at a distance. These sorts of energies were dismissed as “occult forces.” Yet, scientists were forced to conclude that there must be action at a distance; matter contains a property that is (so far) inexplicable, yet must explain much of the behaviors in the cosmos. Why does matter have this property? This is roughly when science said, “We’re getting nowhere.”
So, science focuses on what we can do: making tools, developing technology. Now, that humans are really good at. But, explaining things and answering questions, not so much. This is why I am always bewildered when students tell me they don’t like philosophy because it’s abstract, and that they like answers. Then what are you doing in the physics lab?? Science has produced precious few answers—oh, and by the way, math is also abstract.
Descartes in the seventeenth century introduced the mind-body distinction. There is the world of physical bodies and there is mind—two distinct metaphysical substances. Science therefore wishes to focus on the “machine” versus the “ghost,” as Descartes was later ridiculed in the twentieth century; that he had introduced a ghost (mind) into the machine (body). Chomsky maintains that Newton exorcised the machine and left the ghost. Neuroscientists need to sober up and realize that the machine—the thing we knowing nothing about—is likely not the ticket to solving the mysteries of ghost.
We now worship STEM. I’m not sure why. Nietzsche warned of cultures that worship technology and science. And for those that ridicule and scorn religion, science has become a kind of religion. Not good, says Nietzsche. I hasten to add, secularism has far more blood on its hands than religion ever thought about having on its hands—which is very, very little.
