Where Lies The Physics of Mind?

Author(s):  
Roger Penrose ◽  
Martin Gardner

In discussions of the mind-body problem, there are two separate issues on which attention is commonly focused: ‘How is it that a material object (a brain) can actually evoke consciousness?’; and, conversely; ‘How is it that a consciousness, by the action of its will, can actually influence the (apparently physically determined) motion of material objects?’ These are the passive and active aspects of the mind-body problem. It appears that we have, in ‘mind’ (or, rather, in ‘consciousness’), a non-material ‘thing’ that is, on the one hand, evoked by the material world and, on the other, can influence it. However, I shall prefer, in my preliminary discussions in this last chapter, to consider a somewhat different and perhaps more scientific question - which has relevance to both the active and passive problems - in the hope that our attempts at an answer may move us a little way towards an improved understanding of these age-old fundamental conundrums of philosophy. My question is: ‘What selective advantage does a consciousness confer on those who actually possess it?’ There are several implicit assumptions involved in phrasing the question in this way. First, there is the belief that consciousness is actually a scientifically describable ‘thing’. There is the assumption that this ‘thing’ actually ‘does something’ - and, moreover, that what it does is helpful to the creature possessing it, so that an otherwise equivalent creature, but without consciousness, would behave in some less effective way. On the other hand, one might believe that consciousness is merely a passive concomitant of the possession of a sufficiently elaborate control system and does not, in itself, actually ‘do’ anything. (This last would presumably be the view of the strong-AI supporters, for example.) Alternatively, perhaps there is some divine or mysterious purpose for the phenomenon of consciousness - possibly a teleological one not yet revealed to us - and any discussion of this phenomenon in terms merely of the ideas of natural selection would miss this ‘purpose’ completely.

Author(s):  
Joseph Levine

This chapter first presents a framework, one that the author has defended elsewhere (Levine 2001), for understanding the notion of bruteness, its relation to modality, and the way this framework applies to the mind–body problem. Second, the chapter then turns to a problem in meta-ethics and attempts to address this problem within the framework already established. The problem is how to reconcile two views that many philosophers, including the author, are inclined to hold: on the one hand, “robust realism” or “non-naturalism” about the ethical and, on the other, the supervenience of the ethical on the non-ethical. The chapter speculates about how one might reasonably reconcile these two views.


Author(s):  
Gustavo Sánchez Canales

To date, Rebecca Goldstein’s The Mind-Body Problem (1983) has been mostly analysed from two points of view. On the one hand, the significance of Renee Feuer’s Orthodox Jewish background in addressing the/her mind-body problem; on the other, the implications of the Holocaust for Noam’s life and, therefore, for the Noam-Renee relationship. Surprisingly, this novel has not been studied from a purely philosophical perspective. For this reason, the present article attempts to shed some light on the protagonist’s mind-body problem by focusing on the references to René Descartes’ Meditations on First Philosophy (1641) and Plato’s Republic, Book VII.


Dialogue ◽  
1973 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 199-216 ◽  
Author(s):  
N. L. Wilson

One of the main problems is of course the mind-body problem. It'snot really a question as to how there can be such disparate things as protons and electrons on the one hand, and such things as desires on the other, cohabiting the same universe and apparently having quite a lot to do with each other. For, provided that we are not squeamish about committing the pathetic fallacy, we can attribute desires to any kind of servomechanism, we can claim that the ordinary water closet, for example, wants to remain full at all times and when necessary acts so as to fulfil that desire. The question, as I see it, is rather, how there can be such a thing as consciousness of desire existing in universelargely unconscious.


Disputatio ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 6 (39) ◽  
pp. 199-227 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joseph Corabi

Abstract The evolutionary argument is an argument against epiphenomenalism, designed to show that some mind-body theory that allows for the efficacy of qualia is true. First developed by Herbert Spencer and William James, the argument has gone through numerous incarnations and it has been criticized in a number of different ways. Yet many have found the criticisms of the argument in the literature unconvincing. Bearing this in mind, I examine two primary issues: first, whether the alleged insights employed in traditional versions of the argument have been correctly and consistently applied, and second, whether the alleged insights can withstand critical scrutiny. With respect to the first issue, I conclude that the proponents of the argument have tended to grossly oversimplify the considerations involved, incorrectly supposing that the evolutionary argument is properly conceived as a non-specific argument for the disjunction of physicalism and interactionist dualism and against epiphenomenalism. With respect to the second issue, I offer a new criticism that decisively refutes all arguments along the lines of the one I present. Finally, I draw positive lessons about the use of empirical considerations in debates over the mind-body problem.


2021 ◽  
pp. 1-17
Author(s):  
David Charles

Aristotle developed a way of understanding psychological phenomena, such as the emotions, desire, and perception, that differs in important ways from those favoured by nearly all post-Cartesian philosophersIn his view [A] these psychological phenomena are defined as inextricably psycho-physical activities, not definable by decomposition into two definitionally separate types of activity or feature, one purely psychological, the other purely physical, and [B] the relevant specific type of physical activity cannot be defined without explicit reference in its definition to some psycho-physical activity. It too is an inextricably psycho-physical activity, not to be defined in terms of two definitionally separate components. Aristotle did not accept the assumptions that we make in setting up the mind–body problem we have inherited from Descartes. From Aristotle’s perspective, our problem is badly formulated.


2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
John F. Kihlstrom

Over its history, medicine has vacillated between acknowledging placebo effects as important and trying to overcome them. Placebos are controversial, in part, because they appear to challenge a biocentric view of the scientific basis of medical practice. At the very least, research should distinguish between the effects of placebos on subjective and objective endpoints. Theoretically, placebos are of interest because they underscore the other side of the mind-body problem: how mental states can affect physical conditions.


2017 ◽  
pp. 69-106
Author(s):  
Thomas Fuchs

‘Foundations: subjectivity and life’ develops the concept of embodied subjectivity, initially grounded in the phenomenology of bodily existence. A central concept for the investigation is the dual aspect of the living person as a dialectical unity of the subjective body and the physical body. The mind–brain problem is therefore reformulated as the ‘subject body–object body problem’ (Leib–Körper problem). Subsequently, an ecological conception of the living organism is developed. This focuses, on the one hand, on a living being’s self-organization and subjectivity and, on the other hand, on its relationship to the environment with reference to metabolism and the sensorimotor cycle. The chapter concludes with an analysis of the specific, circular causality of living systems. This incorporates the concept of capacity as a living being’s holistic, dispositional property, by means of which it becomes the cause of its own enactments of life.


2020 ◽  
Vol - (5) ◽  
pp. 117-128
Author(s):  
Andrii Leonov

The main topic of this paper is the mind-body problem. The author analyzes it in the context of Husserlian phenomenology. The key texts for the analysis and interpretation are Descartes’ magnum opus “Meditations on the First Philosophy” and Husserl’ last work “The Crisis of European Sciences and Transcendental Phenomenology”. The author claims that already in Descartes’ text instead of one mind-body problem, one can find two: the ontological mind-body problem (mind-brain relation) and conceptual one (“mind” and “body” as concepts). In Descartes’ “Meditations”, the ontological level is explicit, while the conceptual level is implicit. In Husserl’s “Crisis”, on the other hand, the situation is different: the conceptual level of the problem (as the opposition between transcendental phenomenology and natural sciences) is explicit, while the ontological level is implicit. Nevertheless, it seems that Husserl has answers to both the “traditional” as well as the “conceptual” mind-body problems.


2021 ◽  
pp. 254-286
Author(s):  
David Charles

Several arguments are examined which, if convincing, would justify the rejection of Aristotle’s contention that psychological phenomena are, in the sense explained, inextricably psycho-physical. The arguments considered are designed to support the claim that desire, perception, and the emotions have to be defined in terms of two definitionally separate components, one purely psychological, the other purely physical. Several of these arguments were developed by Descartes and subsequent philosophers to set up the mind–body problem that we confront today. These arguments, I suggest, do not compel the rejection of Aristotle’s position, as they rest on assumptions that he would, with good reason, not accept. Indeed, if we are entitled to adopt his position as our starting point, we can effectively undermine the arguments ranged against it. Aristotle, so understood, offers a way to dissolve the mind–body problem we have inherited by challenging the very terms in which it has been formulated. Nor does his approach require us, as some have suggested, to adopt a radically alien, ‘pan psychic’, account of matter. His views constitute an alternative to basic elements of our conventional thinking about psychological phenomena and their place in a material world. They offer, in effect, the resources to dissolve, rather than solve, the mind–body problem we have inherited. Properly understood, they point to a new, and potentially more fruitful, way to study a wide range of psychological phenomena.


Author(s):  
DANIEL GIBERMAN

Abstract The problem of many-over-one asks how it can be that many properties are ever instantiated by one object. A putative solution might, for example, claim that the properties are appropriately bundled, or somehow tied to a bare particular. In this essay, the author argues that, surprisingly, an extant candidate solution to this problem is at the same time an independently developed candidate solution to the mind-body problem. Specifically, what is argued here to be the best version of the relata-specific bundle theory—the thesis that each instance of compresence has a special intrinsic nature in virtue of which it necessarily bundles its specific bundle-ees—is also a species of Russellian monism, labeled by David Chalmers as ‘constitutive Russellian panprotopsychism’. The upshot of this connection is significant for the metaphysics of the mind-body problem: a credible theory of property instantiation turns out to have a built-in account of how consciousness is grounded in certain (broadly) physical systems.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document