Argument from Mind

[brightlights]

This isn't an argument for God's existence.

Instead, it's an argument for the rationality of belief in God -- that is, that there is a reason to believe in God. So if this argument is convincing to you, it should not convince you that God exists, but that there is a reason to believe that God exists. For that reason, it's considerably weaker than an argument for God's existence, but I think it's easier to defend. Tell me what you think:

Think about the existence of the mind. As persons, we have a certain internal view of what it means to be a mind and we have experiences of other minds in the world. The mind is the most unique piece of stuff in existence. It's made of the brain and for a materialist it is the brain. It's a one pound hunk of flesh that has some interesting abilities. I will name four of them here.

1. The mind is rational -- this hunk of beef is the only piece of stuff in the universe that is able to know things about the world. The neurons firing off that we experience as thoughts are actually about other things in the world. Compare this to a pencil. The stuff a pencil is made of and the stuff a thought is made of is essentially the same, yet the thought is about something while the pencil is not.

2. The mind is free -- all events that occur are caused by other events except events that are caused by minds. The mind is able to cause things to happen without itself being caused.

3. The mind is aesthetic -- we ascribe aesthetic value to the world. We say "this wine is good" or "this painting is beautiful".

4. The mind is moral -- we ascribe moral value to the world. We say things like "murder is wrong" and "honesty is praiseworthy".

Because of these phenomena, it's rational to believe that the mind came from another mind rather than a non-mind. How can a non-rational, deterministic, amoral universe that doesn't care about good art produce such a wonderful thing?

 

[The Nihilist]

Because of these phenomena, it's rational to believe that the mind came from another mind rather than a non-mind. How can a non-rational, deterministic, amoral universe that doesn't care about good art produce such a wonderful thing?

Through evolution.

 

[quatona]

Because of these phenomena, it's rational to believe that the mind came from another mind rather than a non-mind.

If that is the rational conclusion it would be rational to believe that the mind that the mind came from itself came from another mind.

How can a non-rational, deterministic, amoral universe that doesn't care about good art produce such a wonderful thing?

"How can...?" is always a good question. Make sure you are consistent in asking this question.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Because of these phenomena, it's rational to believe that the mind came from another mind rather than a non-mind.

Rational in a speculative way, perhaps. But isn't rational belief more than just speculation?

Consider: does your argument mean it's rational to believe that God's mind came from a meta-God's mind?

One can speculate about such things, but where does this rationally become belief?

How can a non-rational, deterministic, amoral universe that doesn't care about good art produce such a wonderful thing?

Evolution. I don't see why morality, aesthetics, rationality, etc wouldn't be plausible results of natural selection. Rationality boosts adaptability. Morality improves social cohesion and cooperation. Aesthetics may signal good genes, for instance in potential mates. Etc.

Your argument seems to be little more than an argument from incredulity.


eudamonia,

Mark

 

[Saving Hawaii]

1. The mind is rational -- this hunk of beef is the only piece of stuff in the universe that is able to know things about the world. The neurons firing off that we experience as thoughts are actually about other things in the world. Compare this to a pencil. The stuff a pencil is made of and the stuff a thought is made of is essentially the same, yet the thought is about something while the pencil is not.

My computer provides me with outputs based upon inputs as well. If I type '2 + 2' it answers '4'. When I stick my hand on the stove burner my brain says 'Yowww!'. The computer is certainly the inferior device in most respects (though it is more logical), but that doesn't make it fundamentally different in that it processes inputs and provides outputs.

2. The mind is free -- all events that occur are caused by other events except events that are caused by minds. The mind is able to cause things to happen without itself being caused.

We don't know this. We certainly perceive this to be the case. Our brain is certainly designed in such a fashion that we observe this to be the case. Our species is also designed to have a population of postmenopausal females frolicking about. That probably wouldn't strike you as something that evolution would favor, but clearly it's the case which indicates that it probably confers some advantage. It wouldn't surprise me if this concept of free will were hardwired into the brain for much the same reason, that it provides some kind of evolutionary advantage.

Given what we do know, I don't see any reason to suspect that your brain is any 'freer' than the computer you're typing on. It could be the case, but the six billion perpetual effects without cause rubs Occam's razor the wrong way. Six billion highly-complex and illogical organic computers is a much simpler explanation. No need to invoke billions of neverending miracles there.

 

[Chatter]

This isn't an argument for God's existence.

Instead, it's an argument for the rationality of belief in God -- that is, that there is a reason to believe in God. So if this argument is convincing to you, it should not convince you that God exists, but that there is a reason to believe that God exists. For that reason, it's considerably weaker than an argument for God's existence, but I think it's easier to defend. Tell me what you think:

The human mind is special because it is intentional, free, aesthetic and moral. It is so special, and so wonderful, that it would be distasteful to think it came from something as banal as evolution. The history of minds must be pure, unsullied. Mind must have come from mind. I would add that the mind is so wonderful, it deserves a place as the ultimate power in the universe.

You could have added rational and conscious to the four bullet points. My observation would be the same: if you're the sort who thinks being a person is uniquely wonderful, I won't be surprised when you put a personal creator at the helm of the universe. The converse might be: if you despise hubris enough, I won't be surprised when you tell me you're an atheist.

 

[SithDoughnut]

A few points:

2. The mind is free -- all events that occur are caused by other events except events that are caused by minds. The mind is able to cause things to happen without itself being caused.

The mind is not free of cause and effect. Your thoughts are the result of stimuli.

3. The mind is aesthetic -- we ascribe aesthetic value to the world. We say "this wine is good" or "this painting is beautiful".

4. The mind is moral -- we ascribe moral value to the world. We say things like "murder is wrong" and "honesty is praiseworthy".

Because of these phenomena, it's rational to believe that the mind came from another mind rather than a non-mind. How can a non-rational, deterministic, amoral universe that doesn't care about good art produce such a wonderful thing?

That's a lot like saying - this person can do a handstand, his mother cannot. Therefore, it is rational the believe that his mother is in fact an imposter. Or perhaps an argument that said that it is rational to believe that this planet was made by another planet. The fact that these concepts did not exist before human minds does not mean that another mind had to create it. I am not a teapot, yet I can make one.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I hope you don't all scare off new posters. Welcome to Philosophy brightlights. I take it you believe that mind cannot emerge from non-mental phenomena (see emergent phenomena, holism etc). If I am right, and you are right, then you might have more of an argument, or you might have to resort to panpsychism or something else. Panpsychism states that mind is a fundamental property of the universe IIRC, and that everything has a mental side to it, not just brains or more complex phenomena. It is supported by quite a famous thinker, but then again so are Liverpoool FC and the Denver Broncos but just look at the state they're in.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

This isn't an argument for God's existence.

Instead, it's an argument for the rationality of belief in God -- that is, that there is a reason to believe in God. So if this argument is convincing to you, it should not convince you that God exists, but that there is a reason to believe that God exists. For that reason, it's considerably weaker than an argument for God's existence, but I think it's easier to defend. Tell me what you think:

Think about the existence of the mind. As persons, we have a certain internal view of what it means to be a mind and we have experiences of other minds in the world. The mind is the most unique piece of stuff in existence. It's made of the brain and for a materialist it is the brain. It's a one pound hunk of flesh that has some interesting abilities. I will name four of them here.

1. The mind is rational -- this hunk of beef is the only piece of stuff in the universe that is able to know things about the world. The neurons firing off that we experience as thoughts are actually about other things in the world. Compare this to a pencil. The stuff a pencil is made of and the stuff a thought is made of is essentially the same, yet the thought is about something while the pencil is not.

2. The mind is free -- all events that occur are caused by other events except events that are caused by minds. The mind is able to cause things to happen without itself being caused.

3. The mind is aesthetic -- we ascribe aesthetic value to the world. We say "this wine is good" or "this painting is beautiful".

4. The mind is moral -- we ascribe moral value to the world. We say things like "murder is wrong" and "honesty is praiseworthy".

Because of these phenomena, it's rational to believe that the mind came from another mind rather than a non-mind. How can a non-rational, deterministic, amoral universe that doesn't care about good art produce such a wonderful thing?

This argument boils down to an argument from ignorance: "I can't imagine how the mind could arise by natural means, therefore, it did not arise through natural means!" I should hope the fallacy in this logic is obvious.

Even if we didn't know how the mind could arise naturally, that doesn't mean it didn't arise naturally - it just means we don't, at present, know.

But the point is moot: we do know how the mind can raise naturally. It's called evolution.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

But the point is moot: we do know how the mind can raise naturally. It's called evolution.

So you have refuted panpsychism then? Maybe you should have said "we do know that brains can arise naturally".

 

[Wiccan_Child]

So you have refuted panpsychism then?

Yes, in the same way I have refused Leprechauns: Absence of evidence is evidence of absence. Ergo, it is illogical to ascribe to panpsychism.

Maybe you should have said "we do know that brains can arise naturally".

No, I meant what I said. I will amend my statement when you can demonstrate that the brain and the mind are separate entities

 

[SithDoughnut]

So you have refuted panpsychism then?

Do you spend your free time looking up these words?

 

[Lord Emsworth]

Brightlights, what are you even arguing for?

Our mind is this, our mind is that. Therefore WHAT, precisely? That there is *something* which makes it possible that we are what we call rational, moral, capable of aesthetical considerations? Sure, but I knew that already. What with it?



(Also, item #2 smacks of libertarian free will, which is nonsense.)

 

[brightlights]

There are a few common points that contributors seem to be making, so I'll try to clump some of them together.

1. I disagree that saying the word "evolution" explains how a mind can come into existence from non-mental stuff. To demonstrate this, let's just focus on rationality and consciousness:

a. If the only sort of stuff that exists is physical stuff, then the only sort of causation that exists is physical causation.
b. Yet, the best way to explain how a thought can cause another thought has nothing to do with physical properties.**
c. Therefore, it must be the case that the content of the thought has causal power and...
d. Physical causation is not the only type of causation.

** For example, let's say I tell you a story about a treehouse I had as a child and give you a mental picture of it (thought 1). After I've told you about it, you find yourself thinking about a treehouse that you had when you were a child (thought 2). Suppose that the physical events that represent these two thoughts are located at different parts of your brain. What's the best explanation of the cause of thought 2? Isn't it the content of thought 1?

If evolution is dealing in strictly physicalist terms (the only terms it claims to deal in), then it has not sufficiently explained rational processes.

2. It may be possible to explain our aesthetic enjoyment of the universe and our moral capacity in evolutionary terms, but it strikes me as reductionist. You can attempt to muster up reasons as to why viewing the world aesthetically is advantageous to survival, but that's begging the question. Evolution is unfalsifiable if anyone who's creative enough can provide a possible survival advantage to explain why I enjoy locally roasted coffee or poetry, but the explanation is not satisfying to me. If it is to you then I have no qualms with that, but I have serious suspicions that it truly is for anyone.

3. The point of this argument is to think clearly about mental properties, their uniqueness, and to wonder how mental stuff can arise from non-mental stuff. To say that this argument has infinite digression (where did God's mind come from?) doesn't negatively effect the argument. I'm not concerned about how many gods there are. I'm instead concerned about the nature of the world. Is it primarily non-mental in its origins or mental?

 

[brightlights]

Aesthetics may signal good genes, for instance in potential mates. Etc.

Viewing the world aesthetically is much more complicated than being attracted to the opposite sex. Why do we find ourselves enjoying music, for instance?

 

[brightlights]

My computer provides me with outputs based upon inputs as well. If I type '2 + 2' it answers '4'. When I stick my hand on the stove burner my brain says 'Yowww!'. The computer is certainly the inferior device in most respects (though it is more logical), but that doesn't make it fundamentally different in that it processes inputs and provides outputs.

I'm severely dissatisfied with functionalist conceptions of the mind. I think some brilliant philosophers have come up with great counter arguments to it. Are you familiar with Searle's Chinese Box?

 

[brightlights]

No, I meant what I said. I will amend my statement when you can demonstrate that the brain and the mind are separate entities

I'm afraid you can't get away with it that easily. Growing Smaller is right, evolution may be able to explain the existence of brains, but that's a long shot from explaining the existence of mental properties. I believe the example I provided about mental causation sufficiently demonstrates a difference between physical and mental properties. How would you respond to it?

 

[Lord Emsworth]

b. Yet, the best way to explain how a thought can cause another thought has nothing to do with physical properties.**
[...]
** For example, let's say I tell you a story about a treehouse I had as a child and give you a mental picture of it (thought 1). After I've told you about it, you find yourself thinking about a treehouse that you had when you were a child (thought 2). Suppose that the physical events that represent these two thoughts are located at different parts of your brain. What's the best explanation of the cause of thought 2? Isn't it the content of thought 1?

I don't understand the explanation that you seek to hint at at all. "Content of thought 1"? What is that supposed to be, and how does it cause (or whatever) "thought 2"?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

There are a few common points that contributors seem to be making, so I'll try to clump some of them together.

1. I disagree that saying the word "evolution" explains how a mind can come into existence from non-mental stuff. To demonstrate this, let's just focus on rationality and consciousness:

a. If the only sort of stuff that exists is physical stuff, then the only sort of causation that exists is physical causation.
b. Yet, the best way to explain how a thought can cause another thought has nothing to do with physical properties.**
c. Therefore, it must be the case that the content of the thought has causal power and...
d. Physical causation is not the only type of causation.

Non sequitur. (b) constitutes a simplifying model, but it's entirely possible that thoughts are ultimately wholly physical phenomena. Thus, (d) does not follow from (c).

If evolution is dealing in strictly physicalist terms (the only terms it claims to deal in), then it has not sufficiently explained rational processes.

According to you. I contend that "rational processes" - by which I assume you mean the process of rational thought - can indeed be explain by evolution.

2. It may be possible to explain our aesthetic enjoyment of the universe and our moral capacity in evolutionary terms, but it strikes me as reductionist.

How so? And, if so, why is that a bad thing? It would appear that's the whole point.

You can attempt to muster up reasons as to why viewing the world aesthetically is advantageous to survival, but that's begging the question.

Again, how so?

Evolution is unfalsifiable if anyone who's creative enough can provide a possible survival advantage to explain why I enjoy locally roasted coffee or poetry, but the explanation is not satisfying to me. If it is to you then I have no qualms with that, but I have serious suspicions that it truly is for anyone.

Why isn't it satisfying to you?

3. The point of this argument is to think clearly about mental properties, their uniqueness, and to wonder how mental stuff can arise from non-mental stuff. To say that this argument has infinite digression (where did God's mind come from?) doesn't negatively effect the argument. I'm not concerned about how many gods there are. I'm instead concerned about the nature of the world. Is it primarily non-mental in its origins or mental?

I would say that everything we know about the body and the mind tells us the latter is a phenomenon emergent from the former - destroy the body, you destroy the mind. Indeed, we are only aware of the mind by its influence on the body - and, tellingly, vice versa. Influence the body, influence the mind. Pump someone full of hallucinogens, their mind is influenced, no?

I'm afraid you can't get away with it that easily. Growing Smaller is right, evolution may be able to explain the existence of brains, but that's a long shot from explaining the existence of mental properties. I believe the example I provided about mental causation sufficiently demonstrates a difference between physical and mental properties. How would you respond to it?

See above. It's a non sequitur - you posit thoughts as distinct entities, yet they may be entirely physical phenomena. Now that is begging the question.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Yes, in the same way I have refused Leprechauns: Absence of evidence is evidence of absence. Ergo, it is illogical to ascribe to panpsychism.

I am not saying you ought to believe in panpsychism. I am just saying that the theory of emergence of mind, although it might be the best we have, is not at a stage where we can guarantee it's truth. Not guarantee as in have Cartesian certainty, but like you might be able to guarantee evolution or gravitation due to the weight of evidence.

No, I meant what I said. I will amend my statement when you can demonstrate that the brain and the mind are separate entities

I never said that the brain and mind were seperate entities. What I was implying is that the brain might be one form of mind, yet mind or some form of consciousness could be found elsewhere in nature in ordinary phenomena. Hence consciousness may not be emergent. I think that if we are going to conclusively refute that idea, we need a fully developed science of consciousness. How do we account for the emergence of mental properties, as brightlights might put it? Just saying "duh, because thats the way it is" isn't a scientific level of understanding. Until we have an answer to that, we are using educated guesswork in saying only brains have mental properties, because as of yet the precise nature of consciousness still eludes us. We might be right in saying it emerges with brains, but we can't be as sure as we can about for example evolution where there theory is a lot more robust. If you think you have the answers, then tell me was the computer "deep blue" conscious when it played Kasparov, or is my brachial plexus conscious? What does the idea of emergance actually explain here?