Materialism *Mind-brain identity *Reductionism *‘Soft materialism’

Materialism*Mind-brain identity

*Reductionism*‘Soft materialism’

STARTER

•List as many materialists as you can think of

•–or people who you think would be materialists.

MaterialistsIn different ways, the following might be considered materialists:

Marcus du Sautoy (and various neuroscientists from The Secret You)

Richard Dawkins (‘Robot Vehicles’)

Daniel Dennett (‘No qualia’)

A J Ayer (mental world not verifiable)

Derren Brown (paranormal = tricks)

Gilbert Ryle (‘category mistake’)

Dr. Susan Blackmore (self is an illusion)

David Hume (bundle theory)*

Definition

We can define materialism as:

[a] the view that everything is (ultimately) made of matter.

…This generally means they believe:

[b] the view that the soul (in a common traditional sense of the word) does not exist.

[c] the view that the mind is not really a separate thing from the brain.

I want you all to pinch yourself – as hard as you can, is it anything like this?

Are you a materialist?•Why?... Just “scientific reasons?” Explain!

•Are there any non-scientific reasons for it?

Reasons to doubt a ‘soul’1. Unnecessary to explain anything / Occam’s Razor

2. Lack of testable evidence

3. Neuroscience

4. Empiricism

5. Evolution

1. Occam’s RazorThis principle says we should not add unnecessary entities to explain things.(Sometimes philosophers use it to say that we should aim for the ‘simplest explanation’).

Scientists may use it to argue that a ‘soul’ is a redundant idea. It is no longer needed.

RESPONSE: Isn’t a ‘soul’ the simplest explanation for the experience of being ‘me’? It neatly explains legal ideas of moral guilt, the notion of human value, free will, where thoughts come from, etc.

COUNTER-RESPONSE: But is this like a ‘God of the Gaps’?

Does it actually explain anything properly?

2. Lack of testable evidence

There is lots of evidence for a soul… but none of it seems very good from a scientific point of view! Very little of it is actually testable / repeatable. It’s mostly anecdotal, subjective evidence.

RESPONSE: What about case X?

(e.g. Pam Reynolds, etc.)

COUNTER-RESPONSE: Hume: “The wise man proportions his belief to the evidence”.

3. Neuroscience

Drugs / brain ‘chemistry’ / hypoxia. [Good Friday experiment]. Electrical stimulation. [God Helmet]Brain Surgery. [Split Brain Experiments] Phineas Gage case / Paedophile tumour case.

RESPONSE: These cases show that physical causes affect behaviour (i.e. physical responses), but this still doesn’t explain why these patients have a mental feeling as a result.

COUNTER RESPONSE: Maybe there is no mental feeling separate from the physical response, thus the mind could still just be the series of physical events.

????

fMRI scans that show brain activity: are these patterns the cause or effect of mental events? (TENNIS EXAMPLE)

4. EmpiricismP1: The soul cannot be sensed.

P2: All true knowledge comes through the senses.

C: Thus the soul cannot be known.

(This does not mean it does not exist, but it might mean that we should ignore it, or consider it meaningless to talk about.) [AYER -->]

RESPONSE: P1 seems false, depending on what you mean by sense experience – introspection?P2: Denied by rationalists (e.g. innate ideas, etc.)

5. Evolution“the human species and all of its features are the wholly physical outcome of a purely physical process…. We are notable in that our nervous system is more complex and powerful than those of our fellow creatures. Our inner nature differs from that of simpler creatures in degree, but not in kind” – Paul Churchland

RESPONSE: Who says it was a ‘purely physical process’? That begs the question! Why couldn’t there have been a mental/spiritual evolution too? (e.g. Swinburne’s view). We could also accept the conclusion that we only differ from simpler creatures in degree; or, if we want humans to be kept special, we could accept the Catholic view that God steps in and gives each individual human a soul.

So, does the mind exist? Which is it?:

(a) There are no mental events, just brain activity

(‘ELIMINATIVE MATERIALISM’) – hardline view

(b) There really are mental events, but they are correlated with brain events (…and we may come to view them more that way in future).

(‘HARD MATERIALISM’) – reductionist view

(c) Mental events have a causal relationship with brain events, but are not merely the same event. You cannot reduce one to the other.

(‘SOFT MATERIALISM’) – mind depends on the brain, but is not just the same as the brain. e.g. Functionalism

Examples / analogiesWhat is lightning?

What is light?What is love?

Examples / Analogies‘Eliminative’ approach.There is no such thing as “Zeus’ thunderbolts”, there is merely electrical discharges (lightning)(this approach says people who talk about minds are scientifically ‘wrong’)

‘Reductionist’ approach. Light is a real thing we experience, but it is ultimately just electromagnetic waves/photons.(this approach says science gives a more explanatory view of minds)

‘Soft’ approach. Love is caused by hormones / brain activity, but it is not ‘merely’ brain activity.(this approach says that science does not fully explain mental events.)

Daniel DennettBehaviourism.

Computational theory.

No private sensations (qualia).

Thermostat argument.

Eliminative approach

Dawkins

Viewpoint is based on biology.

We are evolved organisms.

Our brains are built by our ‘selfish genes’

… ‘blindly programmed to replicate’.

The idea of a soul is not supported by evidence.

It is basically ‘mystical jelly’.

…We’re just ‘bytes and bytes of digital information’

Gilbert Ryle

He didn’t deny that there were mental events, he just thought that they

weren’t weren’t in addition to physical events.

Described the idea of the soul as:

“the ghost in the machine”

To treat the mind as a thing is

a mistake of language:

(“a category mistake”).

*Cricket: ‘team spirit’ analogy

Sort-of materialism!Aristotle and John Hick both argue that without a body we would not continue to exist.

In this respect they agree with materialists.

However they also believe that we have a soul!…in a way!

We will look further at what they mean by a soul- after we have looked at a more traditional kind of dualism.