It would seem that it could go without saying that free will, and non-material mental states exist. For anyone who doesn't know why this is important, let me illustrate quickly. Naturalism believes that free-will is an illusion, since we are fully determined by our environment and DNA, as I talked about here. Furthermore, naturalism will assert that all things are either matter or energy. So, by attempting to prove that mental states exist that are in no way physical, I will abbreviate an argument found here, which you can read for a better version (which contains a link at the bottom to an even more detailed version.
Say we create a man named Steve. Steve is perfectly knowledgeable in reading the brain. In fact, he has an instrument he places over his eyes which allows him to see all the activity going on in ones brain while on is thinking, from the firing of neurons to the movement of electrons. Now, to test whether his complete knowledge of the brain actually can allow him to understand what I am thinking, I will imagine something. I will imagine a dog, but not just any dog. This dog will be one that does not even exist in real life, but nevertheless, I imagine a dog that has a horn coming out of his head, three tails, six legs, two heads, and has scales and breathes fire.
The question is, if someone where to completely have knowledge of one's brain and the movement of electrons, the processes that goes on within it, could they recreate the imagine I made in my head? More importantly, can he completely read my mind by looking at my brain? This is essentially the question - is the brain that which does the thinking itself, or merely a transmitter from mental states to physical states? In the above example, I would say no combination of neural states and electron movement could ever allow someone to recreate that image. The argument would look something like:
1.) Steve is able to understand all possible physical states of my brain.
2.) I am thinking about a specific type of dog.
3.) Steve cannot fully conceptualize the dog I am thinking of merely by looking at the brain
thus-
4.) Steve does not know my 'mental states' by looking at my physical states
5.) Since mental states exist, physicalism is thus false.
1.) Steve is able to understand all possible physical states of my brain.
2.) I am thinking about a specific type of dog.
3.) Steve cannot fully conceptualize the dog I am thinking of merely by looking at the brain
thus-
4.) Steve does not know my 'mental states' by looking at my physical states
5.) Since mental states exist, physicalism is thus false.
The argument obviously hinges on premise (3). The question to me is - does my brain look any different when I'm thinking about one dog than when I am thinking about another kind of dog? I would imagine it would not.
Furthermore, how is something that seems completely a mental state attributed in terms of physical things? At first glance, one might think the brain does the thinking. Clearly, consciousness, and thus one's mental states are affected by the physical. One's mental quickness seems to depend on the body, as we become quicker as we develop in our youth, and then it depreciates as we get older. We clearly are able to lose consciousness when struck in the head, so it only seems natural that the brain is what creates psyche.
But this is altogether difficult to imagine. How can an atom have the feeling of blue? Or better yet, how can an atom feel happiness? What difference does it make if we put ten atoms together? or 100? or enough to make an arm? Does an arm have a 'self''? If the atoms and molecules and cells in the arm don't have a self, what makes them any different when arranged to form the glob we call a brain? This type of thinking is further expanded in an article located here.
The dualist, or one believing in a separation of physical and mental states, would use the analogy of the radio to illustrate the purpose of the brain. If one would take a sledgehammer to a radio, we would obviously notice the music would stop playing. But it would be wrong of us to assume that the radio is actually creating the music. Instead, we know the radio to receive the signal from another source. In the same way, the dualist believes the brain to be such that it transfers mental states to physical states. Obviously, how this process is done, if it is indeed done, is not something that is scientifically testable, and would be scientifically denied as being something that exists.
The problem with the radio analogy is the radio has no path of feedback to the signal source, it only receives a signal. Altering the physical state of the brain clearly alters its mental state. I would argue that the mind is more closely intertwined with the brain than the duelist would suggest, but certainly not arising merely from the brain's physical processes as the reductionist would claim.
ReplyDeleteThanks Nick,
DeleteSo, if I hear what you're saying, you think that while the radio analogy is this:
mind --> brain --> body
It should actually be more like:
mind --> brain --> body
\______ /
(That's my best way of drawing a feedback loop. Imagine an arrow pointing to 'mind' from the loop.)
I agree, the radio analogy is really one that would imply the brain is only a receiver, while one also has to accept that it is a transmitter as well. There's a good article on this here:
http://www.parapsychologyandtheskeptics.com/Does-consciousness.pdf
I would agree with Mr. shooflypi. I listened to a lecture saying that there is both top-down and bottom-up processing. In other words brain chemistry and stuff on the molecular level has an impact on the psychological and spiritual, but there is also an impact in the opposite direction.
DeleteAlso, with the 'Steve' analogy, I would say that I agree to an extent. I think there is a certain immaterial part of the mind that cannot be viewed, but that does mean that these thoughts do not have a physical presence. Our thoughts actually have an impact on our brain chemistry. But this does not mean that we can see our thoughts in their complexity just by looking at our brains.
Jordan,
ReplyDeleteI agree, our thoughts show a reaction in our brain, if they didn't what purpose would the brain be serving? I guess what the Steve example is trying to show is something like - would the brain state if your thinking about one dog as opposed to another dog be different? And, would a person who knew everything about brains be able to tell what exactly you were thinking?
I guess what I'm saying is that everything has a basis in the brain, even if you could not see that exact image just by looking at the brain. We learned about a very similar analogy in our philosophy class, only with the person thinking about chocolate. Sure you might be able to identify that certain neurons are firing, but could you completely grasp the person's experience of chocolate by looking at the brain. This does not mean that a person's brain state while thinking of one chocolate compared to another magical strawberry chocolate would be exactly the same though.
DeleteThe Steve question is a difficult one to answer because it hypothesizes a knowledge of the brain far beyond current knowledge. But let us suppose that if you were imagining a famous painting, Steve would be able to recreate that image by reading your brain states. It would not be a far stretch to believe that Steve could also recreate an image of your nonexistent dog with a horn coming out of his head, three tails, six legs, two heads, and has scales and breathes fire because, while the dog itself does not actually exist, its constituent parts are based on reality.
ReplyDeleteI guess what I'm saying is that the "Steve" argument is a bit of a straw man because it postulates an amazing ability, but then arbitrarily sets constraints for that ability in order to prove your point.
DeleteI agree that it is hard to conceptualize just how much Steve would know, but the analogy is meant to illustrate a point, not really be a 'proof.' So in that sense I don't believe it is a straw man, because I'm not falsely articulating what I'm trying to disprove, and then arguing against that. I don't see his abilities as arbitrary for this particular analogy, philosophy does that all the time in order to try and visualize something. But I do agree that the most difficult part is just imagining what that knowledge would be like.
DeleteI would imagine that one could not perfectly imagine what one was thinking. Your one point seems to imply that if it is based on reality, then it occupies a certain part of the brain (like this neuron is for 'foot' or something). The problem with saying the brain is what actually does the thinking is that leaves us with a computer that does the thinking (and the conclusion from naturalism that there is no free will).
My point was that if you presuppose that Steve could read an ordinary image from the brain, he could also read an entirely imaginary image from the brain. You could still contest that Steve could read any image at all from the brain.
DeleteAs for ideas occupying certain parts of the brain, you might find this article from Discover Magazine interesting. I remember reading it a while back http://discovermagazine.com/2009/jun/15-can-single-neuron-tell-halle-berry-from-grandma-esther/article_view?b_start:int=0&-C=
While I think that Steve could "read" different images from the mind, such as this fire breathing dog, I don't think that's the whole point of the analogy. Sure, you might be able to detect a neuron that is firing when a certain image is running through a person's head, but you won't be able to grasp the image completely. I think that's what the story is suggesting, not that the dog's image is completely immaterial, or that you would have no way of detecting it in the brain.
DeleteAlcohol is a pretty good example of brain -> mind. Alcohol effects the brain, and thus our thinking slows down (I'm sure you guys haven't experienced this). So it goes both ways for sure.
ReplyDeleteI would agree with Pat in saying it is not a straw man. It illustrates a point, a point that I think most people would tend to accept, that one would not be able to garner an exact image of something I imagine whether based in reality or not. It is not really a proof though because it is possible and beyond our ability to know...for now at least.
ReplyDelete"I guess what I'm saying is that everything has a basis in the brain." > First of all, I want to say that this statement may be taken out of context, but I would question this. Just like we cannot know for sure that we could not pinpoint an imagined thought based on brain image because this speaks to something beyond our current knowledge, I don't know how we could conclude the opposite and say that the brain has a basis for everything. I may be wrong, but is this not beyond our knowledge as well? And it does seem to suggest robo-computer lack of free will that would allow me to fly to Messiah right now and slit your throat and not be consistantly blamed for such an action.
"And it does seem to suggest robo-computer lack of free will that would allow me to fly to Messiah right now and slit your throat and not be consistantly blamed for such an action."
Delete1. I really hope you're not saying that you want to slit my throat now.
2. Why do our thoughts and actions being based in our brain cause us to not have free will? I would say that we have "souls," but they interact with our brains. However, as Nick's article said, there are many things that can be traced to the firing of neurons, even if a thought in its entirety may not be able to be viewed. I also think the sum of all the parts is greater than the whole. While all of our thought processes that occur can be connected to the brain, our whole selves cannot be reduced to what is biological.
Your right about the first part...my reasoning does not necessarily make consistant sense. I guess I was assuming to speak against everything is physical in the naturalism framework, saw pat's earlier comment and did not consider the reasoning, and I kinda wanted to be edgy and make a point - this combined leading me to write what I did. And of course I don't want to kill you, just saying I could do something extreme that would have a huge affect on your life (perhaps ending it) and not be morally blamed for it if naturalism is true.
DeleteI see that many things can be traced to the firing of neurons, but I don't understand how we could ever prove with our current knowledge that all of our thought processes are connected to the brain. If we think it plausible that the image may not be able to be viewed in its complex entirety, then aren't we suggesting that there is a sort of limit to observable state of the brain as it pertains to the imagined image? I would certainly agree with your last sentence, but I am not sure we can prove the earlier statement, just like we cannot prove to what degree technology will allow us to view an image based on brain image.
Jordan - if the brain is actually what does the thinking, then it's basically a computer, interacting with the environment. Free will implies that we are apart from the environment, not bound to the law of cause and effect like the rest of nature is. If this is true, and it's assumed true due to the assumption of naturalism, then consciousness is just a side-effect, something inexplicable that tricks us into thinking we have control. If you are controlling your brain, then the brain is getting it's actual orders from someplace else.
DeleteI don't see any problem with the specific neuron thing, like Nick's article said. Our brain is a detailed thing, and it works both ways with the mind, sending and recieving.
Here is a good article to skim that talks about the problem of intentionality:
http://philpapers.org/archive/BATMCA.1.pdf
I agree Nick, everything has a basis in the brain. I read that article, and I had no idea things could be that detailed, so perhaps there is a chance of it happening. Still, the problem with naturalism, no matter how intricate the brain is, is that your brain is a computer, and computers don't have free will. If you believe you have free will and beliefs, than naturalism just isn't going to cut it. This is what really does it for me. If naturalism is true (it's not), then what's the point of anything? If all I have is an allusion of actually making choices, than this sucks.
ReplyDeleteI read the quote somewhere which makes a good point: "If consciousness is an illusion, than who exactly is it fooling?"