What and Why

What

This blog is about exploring fundamental questions about minds. Sometimes I will carefully dip my toes into how these questions relate to society, policy, and ethics. Subjects that I write about include cognitive science, philosophy, linguistics, and psychology. Some more specific subtopics I’m interested in are:

• philosophy of mind
• consciousness
• embodied cognition
• clinical psychology and mental health
• philosophy of language
• ethics
• epistemology
• psycholinguistics
• language acquisition
• symbol grounding and semantics
• evolutionary linguistics
• rationality and critical thinking
• comparative psychology and evolutionary neuroscience

Why

I take my learning seriously. I take my beliefs seriously. If I put them both in a public space I can hold myself accountable. Writing allows me to think more deeply and clearly about the topics and arguments that interest me. The slight chance that someone reads my writing forces me to set a higher standard for myself, although I will still certainly make mistakes. I don’t know why I take knowledge so seriously that I would open myself up to the possibility of public humiliation. I would guess it’s because I have an obsession with understanding the world and having justified beliefs. I think the universe is governed by a web of ideas, questions, assumptions, ideologies, and physical laws. This network props up every aspect of the world, from daily experiences to scientific inquiry, to our understanding of the mind. When I ask why something is the way it is, and relentlessly ask questions, maybe I can get closer to the truth. Hopefully through this process I can break down dogma, step out of my comfort zone, debate, and become Unstuck In Time.^{1 2}

Ultimately, I can’t give you a good reason to read anything that I write. The best I can do is give you my reasons for writing. If I have compelled you at all so far, then I’ll be happy to have you. Otherwise, I don’t blame you if you leave and expel this from your mind forever. We already have too many idiots who think they’re experts posting online. Although, I hope to not be one of those idiots.

My Method

My writing process always starts with a question. To answer it, I ask myself another question and repeat. For the first few questions, I find myself in the territory of science. As I ask more questions I find myself in the territory of philosophy. I think satisfying answers to my curiosities require me to at least reach the depths of philosophy while descending my line of questioning. For example, say I ask “How are the meanings of abstract words grounded?” I might start by asking “How do children learn new abstract words?” Then, “How are abstract words stored in the brain?” Then, “How are abstract words different from concrete words?” Then, “What does it mean for someone to know the meaning of a word?” These questions cross over from empirical research to philosophical thinking which is necessary in my eyes.

After I outline my questions, my first step is to try to answer them completely independently, or at least outline some possible answers. I will certainly be wrong, but the point is not to get it right the first time. I find that trying to think through it independently gives me a greater appreciation for the complexity of the problem and the solutions that others come up with. Then there is the rare occasion that freedom from the baggage of what others have to say affords me the opportunity for a novel insight. Once I am sufficiently stumped (which is always), I look to the scientific and philosophical literature for answers. From here I synthesize the literature with my commentary, conclusions, theories, and further questions. Going down a rabbit hole in this way will inevitably lead to the acquisition of technical jargon. I will always try to connect any jargon or tangents back to the fundamental question I am chasing.

Through my research process, I will try my best to avoid one of the qualities I despise most: intellectual hubris. To be a good thinker is to be in a constant state of doubt. However, I see some successful intellectuals utterly convinced they are right about every thought that goes through their head. Sometimes scientists and philosophers separate into dogmatic theoretical camps and are completely dismissive of other ideas. One can be confident in their position but they still must defend it with well-crafted good-faith arguments. So, I will always try to charitably explain both sides of a debate, admit ignorance, and put forth my positions with as much care as possible.

You might wonder how I choose what to write about. I explore questions that inspire me to dig deep or arguments that I feel strongly about. Typically, my topics will fall into the categories listed above. More specifically, I like to choose small piecemeal questions that reveal some deep essence of a larger question. For example, I greatly admire the symbol grounding problem elaborated by Stevan Harnad.³ It is a relatively simple question that gets at more fundamental questions about language, consciousness, and artificial intelligence. I find small questions to be more manageable and to lead to more convincing arguments than broad, sweeping questions like “What is the meaning of life?”

Who I Am

Last and least important: who am I? I am Ethan Grinberg. I’m currently a software engineer and I spend my free time self-studying cognitive science and philosophy and writing.