A Materialist Theory of Mind

The claim contains a weasel world: "in principle". In principle, by keeping score of every atom on Earth, you can make a precise global weather forecast for your birthday 10 years from now. In practice, this requires an immense amount of computing power---so immense that you can no longer distinguish meaningfully between that practical impossibility an impossibility in principle.

Predicting a biological event---say the time of my last heartbeat---by solving the Schroedinger equation for my body is in the same class of problem. It may be possible "in principle", by a philosopher's pollyannic usage of the term "in principle", but it just won't happen.

I agree with the broader point though. To the extent that phenomena of the mind can be explained at all, they can be explained in material terms, without the invocation of supernatural miracle-stuff. Daniel Dennet: Freedom Evolves (2004) contains a good overview over the current state of research.

I read A book titled 'Man, the Unknown' by dr Alexis Carroll perhaps published in 70s.......... Mind in Science preceded that,......... later we have Peter singer, danial dennett all more or less dealt with Mind and its aspects. There could be more whom i am not aware of.

In principle, it is not even thinkable, because those things of which atoms are composed, cannot be counted.

If biology cannot be reduced to chemistry, and chemistry cannot be reduced to physics, how can Dennett, or Armstrong, make a case for materialism? In other words, the whole argument, no matter who makes it, amounts to the claim that matter is the basis of reality.

I maintain that matter is not the cause of anything. It does not 'give rise to life' or 'become intelligent'. So, naturally, I think Dennett is mistaken. I think Armstrong's argument is fallacious, and if you can't make a philosophical case for a materialist basis for mind, it is hard for D to mount an argument.

anyway, Thomas, you seem a real nice guy and very knowledgeable but if you like Dennett, we're never going to get on. I am wondering whether to debate it or just concede it and call it quits.

In fact I regret having started this thread. Background: when I went to University, Armstrong was Professor. I was a Sixties child, peace, love and Dharma, and the very last thing in the world I wanted anything to do with, was Materialism. So the Professor of Philosophy's claim to fame was 'a materialist theory of mind'. I was hostile and opposed from the outset, still am, always will be, so really it was not useful of me to put up this topic. Anway, I finally had a look at his book, thirty years later, and that sentence was the first thing I read. And, as I always thought it would be, it is a crock.

Nice Reply, Thomas,



I think this is precisely true. The factors, variables and sheer number of what would have to be known and accounted for is just too vast, too overwhelming to ever practically happen.

Thanks

Since what we call chemistry, physics etc are themselves "products of the mind" the materialist claim seems to be vacuous, whether or not "the mind" is isomorphic to a biological substrate.

Perhaps for "vacuous" put "circular" ?

Well there is (what I take to be) a very exciting sub-field of physical science called biophysics which attempts to model biological systems with chemical models, which in turn are informed by physics. There's also the field of biochemistry that's trying to do much of the same (depending on where you work in the biochemical field, of course).

Actually one thing that should drive a stake through materialist theories of mind is the existence of any kind of telepathy, remote viewing, thought transference, and the like. There is no way to account for the direct mind-to-mind transmission of information under any materialist scenario, unless, I suppose, some mechanism could be discovered whereby this information was transmitted via electro-magnetic waves. And even if it were so, it would require that we have an extra-sensory ability for which this phenomena would be the sole evidence, and for which no physiological basis has ever been detected.

Now as it happens, I believe psychic incidents occur. I don't place a great deal of significance on these phenomena, but I am sure they happen; I have experienced them (as many have). But I do note there is a virtual cottage industry devoted to debunking any possible evidence that such things might happen, and also that any scientist brave enough to say that they should be investigated faces virtual ostracism from the scientific establishment (e.g.Prof Brian Josephson. )

Hence the following statement concerning quite solid evidence that 'remote viewing' actually does occur in controlled experiments:

A couple of observations about this statement. The evidence he refers to does not 'beg the question'. 'Begging the question' means 'assuming what you set out to prove'. In fact, the evidence he was referring to does provide a proof which he acknowledges would be acceptable in any other area of science. So he is saying that normal scientific standards cannot be applied to something which he implicitly believes is out of bounds for serious science. It simply demonstrates a basic prejudice against any such idea. I would presume that this is precisely because such evidence discredits materialism, which provides the theoretical framework for many scientists.

Furthermore, if it was proven, why would this be 'revolutionary' or 'outlandish'? I mean, there have always been psychics and seers around, since the beginning of recorded history. But it might turn out that such abilities are very difficult to exploit or control. There was a film out recently, Men who Stare at Goats (which I didn't see) about a US Army unit whose whole purpose was to try and exploit psychic ability for military purposes. I don't know if they got anywhere, but the Daily Mail article I quoted above does say that a US Army trial definitely established proof for remote viewing. The simple fact is that in 'a scientific age', anything like this is regarded as magic and witchcraft and not the kind of thing a sensible person will take seriously. It is cultural as much as scientific.

Anyway, the fact that psychic phenomena occur is no big deal; not, that is, unless you have invested your whole career in trying to demonstrate that 'the mind is just the activity of neural circuits'.

Then it might be a very big deal indeed.

Fair enough. Once you demonstrate any of the above under controlled laboratory conditions, we can talk. (Not to mention, you can claim the million-dollar James Randi Prize for demonstrating a paranormal phenomenon.) But until then, don't count your supernatural chicken until they are hedged.

I have looked into James Randi. I think he lacks credibility, but it is not something I would argue about. Apart from the cottage industry that is devoted to debunking paranormal phenomena, there is another cottage industry devoted to debunking the skeptics. It is not pretty and I don't think I want to get involved. All I will say is that from a philosophical perspective, and on the basis of all we know, it is not credible that no single instance of paranormal perception has ever occurred. The fact that Randi and CISOP goes to such lengths to deny it says more about them, in my view. What is at stake in all this?

Why not?

"From a philosophical perspective, and on the basis of all we know, it is not credible that no single instance of a witch killing someone through her witchcraft has ever occurred."

How is my statement any less credible than yours?

I am sure it has happened many times. There are documented cases of ritual killings of aboriginals which occurred through the 'pointing of the bone'. The shaman will point the bone at someone who has broken the tribal law, and tell them that they will die. And they often did. White doctors were never able to determine a cause of death. It hardly happens any more, because it tended only to occur in the tribes where the traditional culture was predominant. But it definitely did happen on a number of cases. I would call that 'witchcraft'. Wouldn't you?

If I believed it actually happened, I would. But until I see it demonstrated in placebo-controlled double-blind tests, I won't believe it actually happened.

Fair enough. That is one style of argument that can be used to defend your sense of the Right and True. I am sure it is very effective too.

I think you are touching on "mind" as an aspect of "social reality" here. There is no doubt that "curses" have drastic psychological consequences in some cultures. (see Evans-Pritchard).

If what we mean by mind does have social aspects then it is hard to see how a bottom up reductionist argument from physics can ever be valid.

quite true. Mind is a collective phenomenon. The kinds of things that we see and in fact our whole sense of what is real, is very much a product of the collective consciousness into which we were born. That is one of the fascinating insights of anthropology.

I don't know whether Armstrong covers recent developments in physics, but for those wishing to hold on to "physics" per se, albeit losing out on "materialism", this reference is interesting:
http://www.fdavidpeat.com/bibliography/essays/nat-cog.htm