RICHARD DAWKINGS: AN ATHEIST'S CALL TO ARMS


galtgulch

Recommended Posts

I think the important thing to bear in mind (heh) about this debate -- does mind exist? -- is that it has been argued to be either an entity ("substance" in the classical sense) or an attribute/power. And that debates sometimes go off-course, because people do not specify how they are thinking of mind.

As an entity, mind is either an immaterial entity (like a ghost, except embodied) or a material entity, viz., the brain/nervous system (or some part of it). As Ba'al pointed out, we have NO EVIDENCE for any such "immaterial mind." The alternative? I personally think it's simplest to identify the mind with the brain (or some configuration of parts within it) and to view our awareness of "the mental" as the way we are directly, introspectively aware of our brains and what they are doing at a certain high level of operation....This view of the mind is NOT the canonical, standard view argued by Objectivist thinkers, but pops up occasionally in their writings.

As an attribute, mind is a power of the human brain/nervous system to engage in certain kinds of conscious and subconscious processes. This is the view Aristotle held -- that mind or soul is that ~by virtue of which~ human beings are able to do certain things. This is also the standard Objectivist view.

However, there is a big, glaring problem with the standard Objectivist view (mind as attribute). They persist in speaking of mind and consciousness as having "causal efficacy," i.e., the power to do things. Aristotle knew better. He knew that only ~entities~ have the power to do things -- entities including human beings -- and that we don't speak of attributes as doing or causing things.

Which means that the standard Objectivist verbiage about "the causal efficacy of mind" is simply fallacious, given that they assume mind is an attribute/power that humans have, rather than an entity. This category error disappears, however, once you view mind as an ~entity~ (i.e., the brain or part of it). Entities (and only entities) have causal efficacy (power to make things happen)--mind is entity--thus, mind has causal efficacy.

The above category confusion is, IMO, the chief reason why Objectivists STILL do not have a serviceable theory of the mind-body relationship -- and especially why they persist in the illogical claim that mind qua attribute has "causal efficacy." For further details, see my essay ("Mind, Introspection, and the Objective") forthcoming in the Fall 2008 issue of Journal of Ayn Rand Studies.

REB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 114
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Bob,

Of course there is. It's called a holon and it is not in the form you want it to be. But it is.

The metaphysics you preach is limited by your whim, not by observation.

You are evidence of it.

Quote me an article from a refereed physics journal giving evidence for he existence of holons (whatever they are). Next thing I will hear is that Leibniz' monads exist.

Is a holon a physical particle. Is it a virtual particle? Is it a field? What physical laws does it obey? Do tell. I am all ears.

Demokritos was right. Everything that is, is atoms in motion in the void.

If it ain't physical it is nonsense.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no -objective- empirical evidence for the existence of non-material minds. Not a bit. Not a dight. Not a smidgeon. None. Zero. Zip.

Bob,

Of course there is. It's called a holon and it is not in the form you want it to be. But it is.

The metaphysics you preach is limited by your whim, not by observation.

You are evidence of it.

In my reading of Arthur Koestler, from whom I learned the concept of "holon" (I believe he coined the term and defined it), a holon is a "part-whole." It is something that is a whole in relation to the things that are its substructure, and it is a part of some larger thing. It is part of a hierarchical structure.

The stomach is a holon -- a whole in relation to its tissues and cells (and molecules and atoms and subatomic particles) and a part of the digestive system (which is a part of humans and sufficiently similar creatures). The stomach as perceived visually is not some other entity from the stomach as perceived through tough. These are just different ways of being directly aware of one and same holon.

For the mind to be a holon in relation to human beings, it has to be part of the human being in some way, and to have parts in some way. The first aspect is the more problemmatic. If mind is non-material, how is it conjoined with, part of, the physical human being? This was Descartes' dilemma, and he proposed that the connection was the pineal gland in the brain. Unfortunately, no one has ever found evidence for this or any other proposed connection between the non-material and the material. Thus, the assumed causal relation between immaterial mind and material brain is baseless.

We assume that because we are directly aware of mind through introspection that we are being aware of something non-physical, just as when we are directly aware of objects in the external world through perception we are being aware of something physical. But there is no justification for taking introspection as a form of awareness of the non-physical. Again, we have no evidence for the existence of anything non-physical, mind or otherwise. We just have data of introspection.

We know that there is strong, extensive correlation between data of introspection and data from neurological measurements (through MRI, CAT scans, etc.). Mental processes and neurological processes are happening at the same time and in the same place. This should tell us something important!

Consider, we also know there is strong, extensive correlation between our visual data of apples and our tactile data of apples. Just because the visual does not "look like" the tactile, this does not impel us to distinguish between the two objects, calling one "visapple" and the other "tacapple." This is mainly I think because there is not some special interest group (as in the spiritual arena) lobbying for a "higher" realm of "the tactile," whose objects must not be besmirched or belittled by being identified with visible objects.

But this is EXACTLY what has happened in regard to mind and brain. Because mental data and neurological data appear different, and with a strong nudge from the spiritualist (mystics of mind) camp, we have been propagandized into acceding to THEIR whims and regarding mind as something different from our physical bodies. It is NO SUCH THING.

REB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Roger,

I just posted this.

Holon does not have to be a complete entity. It is usually a whole within an entity.

A kidney is a good example. You can transplant a kidney from one whole entity to another (a human being). If you reduce a kidney to its parts, it doesn't work—neither as the original kidney nor as a transplant. It needs to be a total subwhole (a holon). It has to do more than cell stuff. It has to do kidney stuff.

(In fact, cells are holons.)

I believe holons also are causal agents.

As to the mind/body problem, I have no hard and fast answer so long as there is so much unexplained evidence. And I entertain the possibility that our mind might work in a manner that a sense organ does, except on a more complex level. Thus I hold there might be a part of reality not available to our lower level sense organs. (This is the explanation that makes the most sense to me, but it is speculation. Sort of like sensing light, which is available to a higher sense organ, sight, but not available to smell, which is a lower sense organ.)

A lot of "mights." No "is." I don't know enough to say "is" and "is not" and I have seen no argument or evidence so far that convinces me otherwise. Not even the standard "there is no evidence" argument, which I consider an opinion when I note that I am aware of myself and have volition and I observe others who are aware of themselves and have volition and act accordingly.

Rational evidence is based on observation, no?

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If anything, 'mind' refers to a process. In fact even material things reduce to processes at subatomic levels and "solidness" results from the interaction of our nervous system and these processes. Ted Keer referred to a "defective mind" but, in fact, he means a defective process. Consciousness, 'mind', volition, etc. are the result of a process occurring in our nervous system, they are entities in the sense of a process being an entity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a name for a human body without a mind: food.

More specifically, 'vegetable'. :D Do you have a problem with the characterization of 'mind as a process'? In the brain-dead person the process which we call 'the mind' has ceased.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a name for a human body without a mind: food.

More specifically, 'vegetable'. :D Do you have a problem with the characterization of 'mind as a process'? In the brain-dead person the process which we call 'the mind' has ceased.

You said "brain dead", not "mind dead". That is very discerning of you. How do you classify "brain alive and working" and "mindless"? I am mindless and I can do tensors and integrals better than most of the "mindful" people.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you have a problem with the characterization of 'mind as a process'? In the brain-dead person the process which we call 'the mind' has ceased.

GS,

I have a problem with a robotic view of human nature, the mind being a mindless process, so to speak. I have a problem with processes without purpose. An individual man as a whole is an end in himself, not just one part of him (a so-called process as an end in itself).

The mind does more than keep a body from instantly turning into worm food. The life impulse itself does that until it wears out. The mind does far more.

My own view of the brain being some kind of advanced sense organ that possibly perceives a part of reality not sensed by the other senses (in addition to the brain's other functions like integrating the evidence of the senses) has not changed. I strongly suspect the mind belongs to that special part of reality.

I'm with Nathaniel Branden on this one, except he called it a possible "underlying reality" and even went so far as to say that Rand found the idea plausible.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My own view of the brain being some kind of advanced sense organ that possibly perceives a part of reality not sensed by the other senses (in addition to the brain's other functions like integrating the evidence of the senses) has not changed. I strongly suspect the mind belongs to that special part of reality.

Evidence? Why is this "advanced sense organ" not discovered by very sophisticated scanning equipment? CAT scan. PET scan. MRi scan. There is as much evidence for this "advanced sense organ" as there is for the Tooth Fairy.

Not only is there no evidence for this "advanced sense organ" (some what like the pineal gland as conceived of by Descarte) by there is evidence to the contrary. The best treatment for "mental" illness is pharmacutical.

Your faith is touching. Your longing for things hoped for but not seen shows you to be a True Believer.

I prefer to remain Doubting Ba'al. Show me, then I will believe.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Show me, then I will believe.

Bob,

I did with Ken Wilbur.

Your overreaction spoke volumes.

Michael

You saw a t.v. show, not a genuine scientific demonstration.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

GS,

I have a problem with a robotic view of human nature, the mind being a mindless process, so to speak. I have a problem with processes without purpose. An individual man as a whole is an end in himself, not just one part of him (a so-called process as an end in itself).

What if the purpose of the process was survival?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no -objective- empirical evidence for the existence of non-material minds. Not a bit. Not a dight. Not a smidgeon. None. Zero. Zip.

Bob,

Of course there is. It's called a holon and it is not in the form you want it to be. But it is.

Are you saying a 'holon' is evidence for non-material minds? Because to my poor befuddled material mind, if a holon can be a kidney and cell and a woman or a tree, then a holon is word, an explanatory concept, not a 'thing' or exemplar (one must give an example to illustrate a holon); if your argument says a reified holon thing can be said to be evidence of non-material mind, how? In what manner?

Where is the inner part of the whole, if not the mind simply part of the body system -- its integral, electrico-chemical, often conscious, organism monitoring and control system?

Show me, then I will believe.

Bob,

I did with Ken Wilbur.

I did not understand what you were demonstrating with the Wilber video. It doesn't seem unlikely that Wilber, as an adept of meditation of some kind, can tweak his brain-waves, or make them appear quiescent to instruments. I certainly can acknowledge his technique.

But what I don't yet grasp is what this had to do with mind/brain, or how it might possibly demonstrate the murky holon concept, or better -- how this demonstration might show that the mind is in some essential way a 'spirit' entity . . . that lives on beyond the brain's lifetime.

Similarly, I don't quite understand how you handle the notion (from GS, Ba'al, and scores of others) that the mind is what the brain does, that consciousness is what the brain perceives, that injuries to brain give injuries to mind, that drugs to the brain effect that mind, and that death of body gives death to brain, and thus to individual man and his particular 'spirit' or mind.

Edited by william.scherk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

GS,

Monkeys already have that without conceptual thought.

Michael

You said you have difficulty with the notion of 'the mind being a mindless process' and I said (or implied) that it wasn't, it's purpose is survival. Now you say monkeys already have that so what difference does that make??? I never said monkeys didn't have that, does the fact that monkeys have that mean humans can't?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But what I don't yet grasp is what this had to do with mind/brain, or how it might possibly demonstrate the murky holon concept, or better -- how this demonstration might show that the mind is in some essential way a 'spirit' entity . . . that lives on beyond the brain's lifetime.

William,

Whoever claimed live beyond the brain's lifetime and whoever claimed "entity"? I just recently (within the last couple of days or so) corrected Paul on this. I keep saying the mind is an existent, not entity, and people keep saying I claim the mind is an entity. Why do you keep pushing me to a position I do not advocate and have been quite specific about? Is your thrist to trounce a religious dude so intense you need to make one up when he is not available? That's not like you.

My problem is the mind being a causal agent in terms of volition and result of causes not involving volition at the same time. Producer and product of the same thing as a starting point. That's a contradiction.

Volition exists. The mind exists. If it is a causal agent, it is more than enhanced meat.

Here's one for you. Conscious awareness is specific to the mind just like integrating light waves into mental forms is specific to sight. One would not rant and rail that blue does not exist and is some kind of myth because we cannot touch, taste, smell or hear blue. We need an eye to perceive it, but it exists independently of anyone having an eye. Yet people claim that mental things do not exist because we cannot see, touch, taste, smell or hear them. They know full well that those organs are not suited to such perception, yet try to claim that this very insuitability is proof of nonexistence. Then people like Bob go so far as to propose the mind does not exist at all while he still talks about "in here" and "out there."

I don't buy it.

Once again, conscious volition exists. It is a primary source of human action, not just an attribute of non-volitional stuff.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

GS,

Monkeys already have that without conceptual thought.

Michael

You said you have difficulty with the notion of 'the mind being a mindless process' and I said (or implied) that it wasn't, it's purpose is survival. Now you say monkeys already have that so what difference does that make??? I never said monkeys didn't have that, does the fact that monkeys have that mean humans can't?

GS,

I meant that monkeys have a similar physical reality to humans and already have a survival mechanism that works quite well. If the purpose of the mind is survival, then it evolved as a random mutation, not for any need for the species to survive.

I personally think more than survival is operating and I am not convinced about random mutation.

I probably should have been clearer.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's one for you. Conscious awareness is specific to the mind just like integrating light waves into mental forms is specific to sight. One would not rant and rail that blue does not exist and is some kind of myth because we cannot touch, taste, smell or hear blue. We need an eye to perceive it, but it exists independently of anyone having an eye.

Michael

I think you would find that people might not agree on what "is blue" however they will agree that the lightwaves are of a certain frequency which results in the sensation of "blue". It is the repeatability of measurements that gives rise to the illusion of existence independent of observers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I meant that monkeys have a similar physical reality to humans and already have a survival mechanism that works quite well. If the purpose of the mind is survival, then it evolved as a random mutation, not for any need for the species to survive.

I personally think more than survival is operating and I am not convinced about random mutation.

I probably should have been clearer.

Michael

Mutations occur all the time, this is observable I think. You seem to have a distaste for their "randomness" but when high energy waves hit our organic molecules they alter their structure, AFAIK. what is not random is that some mutations result in extinction and some prove to be high in survival value. I see no reason not to believe that consciousness is the end result of evolution over billions of years and has high survival value. It seems to me the purpose of all life is survival at all costs and the evolution of "the mind" is simply the latest and greatest tool in the fight for survival.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems to me the purpose of all life is survival at all costs and the evolution of "the mind" is simply the latest and greatest tool in the fight for survival.

For example the ants have been around for a quarter of a billion (with a "b") years. No sign of a mind among these pesky critters. Ants are very well adapted and exist in many places and under a wide variety of climatic conditions.

A billion years from now there will probably be no humans but there may very well be ants (or something very ant-like) and of course the cock roaches. We just cannot get rid of those damned things.

Associated question: How long do you think humans wlll last as an earth-based species? Assume that we cannot migrate to other planets and survive on a long term basis. My guess (and it is only a guess) is under ten million years under the best possible conditions. Mammalian species have not been notably long lasting.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I meant that monkeys have a similar physical reality to humans and already have a survival mechanism that works quite well. If the purpose of the mind is survival, then it evolved as a random mutation, not for any need for the species to survive.

I personally think more than survival is operating and I am not convinced about random mutation.

You definitely should read a few books about evolution, like those by Dawkins (The Blind Watchmaker, The Selfish Gene) or Dennett's Darwin's Dangerous Idea, before telling us that you're not convinced about random mutation. Personal opinions don't count in science. Then you'll also see that the mechanism is driven not so much by survival of the individual creature or of the species but of the genes, and that random mutations are only half the story, the other half being natural selection. That a species has a survival mechanism does not mean that no new species can develop with different survival mechanisms.

One particular mechanism that helps organisms to survive is the eye. This can be a simple photosensitive spot like some flatworms have (distinguishing a light environment from a dark one can help to survive), to somewhat more effective cup eyes, still more effective pinhole eyes, to compound eyes and the sophisticated eyes of vertebrates. Those different forms of eyes emerged many times independently in the evolution on earth. A worm doesn't need our complex eyes, it can survive very well with its simple "eye", but to us our complex eyes are a definite advantage. Monkeys can also survive very well without a brain that can think rationally, but that is not in contradiction with the fact that in the past some specific monkey that by a random mutation had somewhat more intelligence than its ancestors had in some specific circumstances an advantage in survival that ultimately lead to the development of a new, intelligent species. This is all bottom-up, not top-down (and that is Darwins Dangerous Idea, and therefore you should read Dennett's book first before rejecting it).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How about this idea?

A faculty that allows a living organism to become aware of a part of reality evolves because it is in the nature of life to become aware of reality (in addition to randomness and survival). How's them apples?

That's an example of top-down thinking.

On observation, I see no reason to exclude an innate evolutionary drive for awareness from the mix and call everything that doesn't fit survival "random." I don't need to read a book to consider that thought valid, either. I can observe matters and information first-hand with my own mind and draw rational conclusions. (For the record, though, those books are on my reading list.)

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael -- and TWIMC:

You cannot claim that mind is NOT an entity and also claim that it is a "causal agent."

Either mind is "what the brain does," in which case, brain is the causal agent.

Or mind ~IS~ the brain (or part of the brain), in which case mind ~IS~ an entity, mind/brain, and mind/brain is the causal agent.

But you cannot just say mind is a process or an attribute having causal agency. This is a no-no.

Both Rand and Aristotle (and Branden and Peikoff) very hard-headedly (and stern-mindedly) insisted: it is entities that cause their actions. Entities have causal agency. Entities do things, cause things to happen.

When you introspect and claim to see your mind doing things, then, again:

Either you are seeing what the brain does, in which case, brain is the causal agent, and mind is what the brain does.

Or mind ~IS~ the brain (or part of it), in which case mind/brain is the causal agent.

And all this talk of "holons" is fine, as long as you realize that nearly everything in the universe is hierarchically structured, with parts within parts within parts. If you want to claim mind to be a "holon," you have to show were it fits in. Especially if it's an entity other than the brain. If it's not an entity or part of an entity, then it's not a holon, simple as that.

Attributes are ~NOT~ holons. Redness is not a holon. Consciousness (the attribute) is not a holon. Mind (the attribute) is not a holon.

Processes are ~NOT~ holons. Running is not a holon. Being conscious is not a holon. Digestion is not a holon. Mind (as what the brain does) is not a holon.

Parts of entities ~ARE~ holons. If mind is a specifiable part of the brain/nervous system -- a specific, perhaps itinerant network of neuron structures -- then it is a holon, somewhat like a RAM-disk is a holon within your computer's hard drive. If mind is the brain as we are introspectively aware of it, then it is a holon, because brain (and thus mind-brain) is a holon, a part of the body, and a whole with respect to its neurological sub-structures.

Just because mind as we introspect it doesn't appear the same as brain as we perceive it scientifically, doesn't mean that mind is a different entity than the brain and its parts. Either it is an entity (or part of one) and has causal agency --or it is not an entity and does not have causal agency. Those are the two logical-metaphysical possibilities. Choose one and stop mixing them up!

REB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now