Blind Brain Theory is Blind to its Biggest Test

A very short version of a much longer critique of the “blind brain theory” posed by R. Scott Bakker (link at the end).

Science is just that, science (like neuroscience, for example) … but it isn’t “everything.” It can aim to reduce “everything” it encounters about our world to something that goes through the “scientific process” in attempts to fit that “thing” on a tee-shirt, but science isn’t ever going to replace philosophy or our exploration of our world (I’m using some heuristics here to avoid writing a book).

Where would science (and it’s scientific process) start if philosophy didn’t exist, for example? There wouldn’t be a philosophy of science … so are we to just start experimenting? About what?

We don’t have (as a species) enough of a knowledge base to be completely “eliminativistic.” Why? We don’t know (nor ever know) all of the “states” that must be eliminated, and therefor will always have a need to explore our world (Universe / Cosmos / cognition etc…) in some non-scientific way.

There will eternally be some need for some type of philosophical exploration, especially for Homo sapiens. To make any assumption that our heuristics could always be 100% correct, and that we could ever be 100% eliminativistic of all that is “not real”… would be asinine.

We aren’t that special. But because we are conscious, some members of our species sure think we are.

So why this competition between philosophy and science? Who cares if some philosophical exploration doesn’t pass some test of “scientific rigor” or doesn’t reduce down to what “is”?

It’s quite simple actually … Our species is eternally curious about the world we live in, and that curiosity combined with our evolutionary gift of what we call consciousness (not the “woo-woo” kind) puts all of the overly reductionist, eliminatavist “blind brain” theories to the very same philosophical AND (eventually) scientific tests those theories will never pass.

EDIT:  I’m going to be posing in the longer version that if BBT were true, it would invoke a “Blind Brain Paradox” of increasing introspection and philosophical exploration … not eliminate or reduce it.