Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
Let us resume our discussion on Dualism, as you all know that, Descartes is advocating
the substance dualism. And in the last class I mentioned that, we will be discussing the
criticism of Ryle and John Searle, with reference to Descartes substance dualism. We had briefly
discussed about Gilbert Wright’s criticism, that is how Descartes commits category mistake.
Descartes is being debated and discussed for last probably more than 400 years now and
the problem of dualism is becoming perennial problem in philosophy of mind.
Now, how does Descartes commit category mistake? Descartes commits this category mistake, because
Descartes puts mind and the body into two different frame works and for him they are
categorically distinct from each other. Now, this is was not acceptable to many and Ryle
understanding the difficulties that Descartes is a committee points out that, this is a
category mistake. Now, category mistakes becomes a problematic
one, because Descartes does not see the interaction between the mind and the body, and this interaction
has to be a logical interaction. This interaction is not to be you know governed by the existence
of god or any other mystical power. So, therefore, Ryle points out that mind has to be located
in the body and has to be exhibited in our voluntary actions; mind is not a mystical
entity, mind is something that is shown in our everyday activities.
Nothing hidden, as I mentioned that one of the questions was about, is there is something
hidden. Ryle was certainly referring to the foreordain notion of a mind, which says that
there is a subconscious mind. And this subconscious mind is not given to our consciousness and
that it remains, you know an important category for, because the subconscious minds sometimes
can control and the conscious mind and the subconscious mind perform voluntary actions,
which are known to the conscious mind, you know there are many a movies sort in this
particular problem of foreordain unconsciousness. Now, let us do not go in to that right now,
probably will come back to this little later in our lecture, what is the significance of
foreordain consciousness. But today, we are going to resume our discussion on the problem
of dualism, precisely giving two things in our mind, one is whether Ryle criticism against
Descartes is little problematic, and how far it is acceptable to others, and second one
is as I mentioned earlier, that will be also discussing about Searle’s criticism to Descartes
concept of mind, does dualism reveal, is a question mark, and with all this criticisms,
let us look at the difficulties that a Ryle commits.
Now, Hofstadter in one of his paper Ryle on category mistake writes, I would summarize
the kind of problem, I find there are three important problem Hofstadter is mentioning,
one is that, Ryle is making a brilliant attack on mentalism in general and dualism in particular.
And second one is, dualism is not a factual mistake for Ryle, it is a logical mistakes,
and the logical mistake is based on the problem of the study of logic of language.
As you know, during that time MacDonald points out in one of his paper and all this paper
published in 1951, after Ryle’s work the famous work, the concept of mind and many
of them were discussing about Descartes problem, and they were as higher Gilbert Beilstein
and many others. And Ryle probably saving their ideas with us, but this piece of work,
the concept of mind is a classic to the philosophical community who is working in philosophy of
mind. Now, Ryle says that it is, there is something
problematic about the logic of language, this way the language is been used and another
problem which Hofstadter finds is that, it Ryle is committing to a some kind of a sophisticated
naive behaviorism. Now, is it true that Ryle is committing to that kind of behaviorism,
what is behaviorism? That will be discussing little later.
So, keeping all these three points in mind, let us look at what makes the bodily movement
a voluntary one is a casual question for Hofstadter and that is one important question which I
was discussing yesterday. And this is one of the first you know disagreement with Ryle;
Ryle says that how are the mental concepts applicable to human behavior, is a question
about causation of behavior. This is something very significant, when we
talk about how do we perform voluntary actions? Is this voluntary actions are consciously
performed or they are intentional, so on and so forth. Now, all intentional actions are
conscious actions, all intentional actions are subject to moral evaluation, whether being
as a moral one must talk about or must say that, whether this action is good or bad,
right or wrong, this is how we evaluate, this is how we reflect on our actions.
Now, Hofstadter points out, that if somebody is performing an action, if somebody is behaving
in a particular way, now these behaviors are certainly caused by something. Now, what is
the cause of this action? One of the disagreements of Hofstadter with a Ryle, the other one is,
is it the behavior which is caused by the body and not by some kind of a nonmaterial
agency or the self, Descartes discusses, now if it is caused by the body and what is the
causal principle. Now, according to Ryle, there are dispositions
and sub dispositions, which can manifest in to actions, so body has certain dispositional
capacities and this dispositional capacities cause action, cause behavior. Now, the Ryle
therefore, according to Hofstadter is committing to some kind of a naives behaviorism.
Now, behaviorism is a materialistic theory of mind, there are other materialistic theory
of mind, which will be discussing in the next class, say for example, functionalism is one
of the you know materialistic schools of thought. So, let us think, how does Ryle overcome this
issues, probably for Ryle as we talked about the second point, that Ryle was only talking
about some kind of a analysis or Ryle was giving to us some kind of analysis of the
kind of concepts, which were used by Descartes; so that was something interesting, Ryle is
not a behaviorist in the way we understand behaviorism. So, Ryle is not eliminating the
concept of mind, Ryle is not reducing the concept of mind.
Now, the question is, is Ryle giving an explanation of the concept of mind or he is just describing
the mental phenomena say for example, evolution, emotion, feeling are all these concepts are
dealt separately in different steps in the particular classic called the concept of mind.
Now, where Ryle gives an elaborate analysis of this this concepts, now there is a distinction
between philosophical explanation and the scientific explanation, philosophical explanation
is a kind of a description, where as scientific explanation is some kind of a causal explanation;
as you know science follows, the principle of causality and tries to find out, what is
the cause of a particular event, if the event is occurring in the world, then what is the
cause of it. For Hofstadter, the question was whether Ryle
is looking for the cause, the way scientist are looking for the cause of mind or he is
just giving an analysis and the analysis is based on the logic of the language. Now, if
that is true, then this kind of you know questions, which Hofstadter is making that, what makes
the bodily movement voluntary is a causal question. Because, look at the last a sentence
in Ryle’s is a question about the causation of behavior, so that was no point which Ryle
is talking about and that can be translated as, this what makes the bodily movements,
movement of voluntary.
Now, the second disagreement which Hofstadter is having is that Descartes is not to be blamed
for advocating dualism, because historically if you look at the concept of dualism, it
has been advocated by the stoics, it has been advocated by Plato, Aristotle, and Augustine
and many others. So, dualism is not an issue only with the Descartes, Descartes is only
trying to show us that, how mind cannot be explained within the frame work of a mechanistic
world, mechanistic world if you, which is given by the science. And how can we talk
about the mind with certainty that, there exist something and that is a real one, how
can we talk about such a self evident truth that mind exist.
So, Descartes and dual is something very significant in that direction, if somebody tries to read
Desecrates from this point of view, I am sure that he would try to find out, how Descartes
philosophical presuppositions are based on these epistemological concepts as we mention
certainty, clarity, distinctness and self-evidence. So, all these if something is real, then they
must fulfill all these characteristics, and that will be you know, that will give some
kind of authenticities. So, but Ryle questions the authenticities
of Descartes, because Ryle finds that, this is some kind of a privileged access, it the
self is only privileged to have this access to the mind. So, the privileged access thesis
talks about that only an individual is having this you know access to its private mind and
it is not accessible through the other, meaning there by others would not know my mind, it
is of course true that I am aware of my own thoughts, as all of you are aware of your
thoughts. So, and it is true that, we look at mind from
our own point of view, is something very important, will come back to that. But, what is important
here is to note, that dualism is not a problem with Descartes, rather dualism is been advocated
and Descartes is not to be blamed for this that he is making a kind of a category mistake.
So, that was Hofstadter point, say let us see how do we explain actions? So, philosophical
explanation as I pointed out earlier, that it is descriptive rather than explanatory.
Because, when we talk about human actions, when we talk about voluntary actions, now
all these voluntary actions are having some kind of a purpose. Now, if they are teleological,
and therefore, they cannot be explained only with reference to the kind of the nervous
systems function like a cybernatic mechanism. So, they cannot be explained only with reference
to the physiology of the body, the physiological function of the body, the physiological function
is alright say we do accept that, there are physiological functions which goes in with
our thoughts. So, there is a kind of a harmony between the activities of the body and the
mental activities. So, that harmony is not ruled out, but what
is important is this that, most of the time when we talk about scientific explanations
of the mind, we refer to the cybernetic mechanism or the mechanism that are there with reference
to the anatomy, human anatomy or physiology. And they give evidences and science grows
with evidence, because evidence will show us how it can be proved, how it can be proved
that this is what is happening. So, scientific analyses are mostly demonstrative
as you know it can be viewed from a third persons point of view, so demonstrative attitude
of science it is explicitly present in Ryle. So, therefore, Ryle is trying to give an explanatory
account, rather than giving a kind of a descriptive account of the philosophy of mind. Now, what
is descriptive, and why description holds sound on what context description holds sound,
is to be seen.
Now, most of the cases when we talk about mind is not an observable phenomenon, it is
not observable facts, all observable facts are explained with the help of a theory, science
talks about a theory, which explains the phenomenon; if mind is an unobservable fact, then certainly
we cannot have an explanation of mind in the frame work of science.
So, therefore, we need to talk about a descriptive theory, probably will help us to talk about
mind, so that is something very interesting. So, that science deals with explanation where
as philosophical explanations are different from scientific explanations and you all know
Wittgenstein’s famous statement; that philosophy is not science, philosophy is either, neither
above or below science. So, the very fact that philosophy is not to
be identified science, so philosophical enterprise is something different, it is something unique
and for Wittgenstein say philosophical explanations are are to be descriptive, because when we
talk about scientific explanation, if we accept scientific explanation a something true and
it is fundamental. So, for us truth is concerned, then probably we will not see the significance
of unobservable phenomenon like the mind, so human mind is an unobservable fact, it
is an experiential fact will be eliminated, will be will not be discussed as it has been
discussed in philosophical theories. So, scientific theory eliminates probably
the concept of mind, so there is a danger in looking for a scientific explanation of
the philosophical mind. So, philosophy has to differentiated self, the way it studies
its own phenomenon, now why there will be mind, as I said when we talk about voluntary
actions.
When we perform voluntary actions, we do perform it with this idea that there is something
called a self or there is something called an accent, who is you know directing us and
this direction with a purpose, so there is a purpose in our actions, so and that is why
it is called voluntary actions. Look at now the way Hofstadter defines the concept of
man, what is man he says, and why this dualism? I could Hofstadter, man exhibits certain characteristics
in behavior; a complex persistence in variation, teleological unit, multiple tracked dispositions
and so on, where as stones do not, that is why a human being is different from the other
objects, other things in the world, other material bodies and look at the next quotation.
Men are something more than the bodily, having something competent as body is not, to make
body behave intelligently, and this is soul. Now, what makes the body to behave intelligently
is something interesting, so there we can talk about, we can presuppose, that there
is somebody or there is something called soul or there is something called mind which is
directing us, and that is not to be explained. Now, of when we talk about, how there are
multiple dispositions and the complexity of human body mechanisms, that is not the issue,
rather how things are planned, and how things are executed and so on so forth. How do we
imagine about the reality, all these are important, how do we rationalize our actions and how
do we justify our selves, now that is something interesting. That gives us a clue to understand
this presuppositions, that there is something called mind and that is real and Hofstadter
says that it is like pilot in the ship parenthesis, without the pilot the ship wonders aimlessly.
Hofstadter mentions this lines, this sounds like totally a, because there is an end to
life and human actions are directed towards that.
So, there is a goal, there is a purpose and this purposes makes you know our actions teleological,
there is a delouse, there is a purpose in performing an action. So, now, let us go back
to Searle’s criticism against Descartes; now, so with this we, I will conclude Ryle’s
criticism, that even if we talk about mind-body dualism, we find that dualism is a kind of
a problem that would go on in philosophical discourse. Because, looking at the Searle’s
criticism, Searle is raising this in his famous eighth lecture series on mind-body problem
the title of the book which was published in 1984 minds, brains and science by Harvard
university phrase.
I refer to Searle’s this particular text and the first chapter of this text tells us,
the mind and body problem, why dualism still remains? Is a fundamental questions, because
looking at Hofstadter’s and many others, we will find that mind is not something to
be eliminated easily, as it is probably mind is a substance is not acceptable to many others.
And, but what kind of dualism, Searle thinks that it is inevitable in the discourse of
philosophy of mind. So, therefore, Searle finds that there are
two things which are incompatible, and probably that is something very problematic for Searle;
one there is a commonsensical picture and the picture is, that man is conscious is free,
mindful, rational, agents and the other one is that there is a scientific conception of
the world, that everything in the world is constituted of certain material or physical
particles. So, therefore, we encounter the problem of
dualism, because on the one hand, we find that there is a world and the world is constituted
of certain material bodies, the finest molecules, particles etcetera etcetera, carbons etcetera
etcetera, the other hand you have mind and which is treated as a as a conscious one which
is free etcetera etcetera. Now, there is some kind of incompatibility between two, and how
do we can eliminate this difficulties?
How can we make this, there is some compatibility there mind-body relations? Now, Searle’s
is raising two important questions in this context, one is how human beings represent
the world, a something very significant, how essentially meaningless world contains meaning?
Now, these two questions I think are very important to talk about the concept of mind,
because in Ryle’s discussion we found that dualism is treated; we found that mentalism
is also treated and most of the scientific analyses of the the concept of mind or the
scientific explanation of the concept of mind. After 1950’s onwards the kind of literature
which are been produced, mostly are inclined to development that are happening in science.
Now, their inclination is probably acceptable, I mean need to respect the scientific endeavor
which is very productive, productive because we are finding more and more evidences with
reference to our know actions and with reference to our mind perceive. So, the investigating
that is carried out by science is certainly a fruitful exercise, no doubt about it.
We have advanced in the direction of neurophysiology, neurobiology, psychology, artificial intelligence,
etcetera etcetera. Now there are so many disciplines in science which are studying the concept
of mind, what is human mind and how human mind can be explained in scientific terms.
So, that is that is of course, is to be discussed and people are debating on this issue.
But, what is important is whether there is a mind at all, Searle’s first question talks
about that, how human beings represent the world, it is through human beings the world
is being represented. So, it is through mind in other words, it is through that the mind
world is being represented and Descartes was probably emphasizing on this that there is
representational mind, and look at his idea of clarity and distinctness.
And, Descartes mentions that if language enters hints, then the representation becomes a some
kind of an unclear one. So, I mean this is particularly with reference to how do we know
our mind, so the moment I bring language, the moment I try to express myself, there
is some kind of a know gape found, but when I try to know myself there is no such gap.
So, that kind of know thing is advocated with the mentalist, mentalist finds that mind is
real and mind represents the world. And the other question, which is important
how essentially meaningless world contains meanings, which is if the world is constituted
of material particles, then there is no meaning exist in this particles; there will be meaning
if and only if there is a meaner, there is a knower it is the existence of the knower
which will talk about meaning. So, meaning is meaning with reference to the existence
of a person who means it is, so there is a some kind of an epistemological concern John
Searle here, that Searle is not only talking about the ontology of the mind, because unless
the mind is real it cannot represent the world. The other one is that, there is a kind of
an epistemological significance associated with this semantic enterprise, which Searle
is looking for; that without the knower knowledge about the world is impossible, in other words
without knower the existence of world is meaningless. So, all this meaning that we talk about it
with reference to human society, with reference to human life as a whole, it is nothing to
do with a the world in itself.
Now there is of course, Searle says this discussion has some kind of a spill over effects. So,
people have tried to look at human mind from the perspective of computer science or artificial
intelligence. Now, people have really taken the question
seriously, is mind a machine is a question. Do we think like machines or there is a ghost
in the machine, what we say that there is a little man in the brain which is thinking.
So, this kind of a debate, is something very interesting and we will be definitely talking
about it, in our future classes. So, Searle says does digital computer give
us right picture of the human mind, is a question, because of most of the cases when we find
that mind is been studied from the prospective of artificial intelligence, and the cognitive
science claims this, that mind is like a digital machine.
And, the way digital machine operates, mind operates in a similar way; and we will be
discussing about it particularly professor Nath will be dealing extensively on this issue,
when he talks about why computer cannot think and what kind of creativity computers will
have, and what kind of creativity computers cannot have, are probably may not have you
know the way, we have seen computers. Now, coming back to Searle’s discussion
on dualism, Searle says mind-body dualism has something to do with a kind of a stomach
digestion problem. So, mind-body problem is like like a stomach digestion problem, now
when we talk about stomach, when you say that foods are digested in the stomach; now digested
through a particular biological process. So, similarly mind is a reality to us, because
there is a brain, so mind-body problem for Searle is not mind-body problem, whether mind-brain
problem; and that is an analogous to stomach digestion problem, the way brain processes
thinks it gives birth to consciousness, so consciousness is in fact, caused by the brain
processes. So, that is why Searle’s says it is a mind-brain
issue, so mind-brain problem; and the other problem that he finds problematic is this
that in Descartes, we are now finding a different kind of vocabulary. Descartes and the critics
of Descartes are concerned with some kind of categories like either you are monist or
a dualist, either you are a materialist or a mentalist, if you are a materialist then
either you are a behaviorist or you you know you are a physicalist or you are a functionalist.
Now, this kind of categories, the way the philosophers have you know have explained
mind with the help of this categories are to be abandoned, are to be you know rejected,
because those categories create you know enormous problem to us and therefore, we do not see
mind as it is, and it is for that mind-brain problem still remains a kind of an interesting
philosophical problem to us. Now, once we start knowing about, how the
brain processes, cause mind probably we do not have the difficulties in understanding
the concept of mind. So, Descartes is certainly concerned with the existence of mind, now
the question is whether Searle is concerned with the mind?
As I mentioned about these two questions, before that you know how mind human beings
represent the world, now certainly Searle is not eliminating ontology of mind; Searle
is also not avoiding the epistemological issue that is embedded in discourse of mind.
What is Searle’s interest here? Searle is raising a different problem and the problems
are very important, because there is an enormous development is happened in the scientific
understanding of mind, and scientific understanding of mind gives a materialistic picture of mind
and that picture is like this.
So, there is subjective, conscious mental states are not real in fact there reducible
to anything else in the universe quote they can be reducible to and this reduction is
a casual reduction, and there are several kinds of reduction, Searle talks about it
in his work the rediscovery of mind will come back to those criticism of Searle’s against
materialism. But, Searle says materialism somehow rejected the motion of mind is undermined
the existence of mind, and that is what is not acceptable.
Whether for Searle is a quote, “consciousness is the central fact of specifically human
aspects of our existence-language, love, humour and so on-would be impossible”. And quote
without consciousness, so without consciousness all our human aspects of life is really meaningless
and that gives a clue, how to talk about the ontology of mind, so that is something very
problematic. So, as I mentioned earlier that Searle’s says there are four things we need
to talk about, because these four things are important to us and they are consciousness,
intentionality, subjectivity and mental causation. Now, all four things are problematic and their
need to be given proper scientific you know account and there need to be explained a way
by the materialist. So, as I mentioned earlier, that mind is caused by brain processes or
consciousness is caused by brain processes and Searle’s famous hypothesis is this that
mind is caused by brain processes and realized in brain processes.
So, Searle says it is the brain processes, which causes mind or consciousness and again
these conscious mental states which are caused by brain processes or realized in the brain
processes. So, there is a kind of a know casual connection Searle is talking about, when he
talks about mind and body relationship, now this casual connection is certainly different
from the kind of casual connection which other emergent’s are talking about.
We will have know exclusive discussion on the problem of emergent’s, when we will
discuss the famous emergent’s is Jaegwon Kim and Searle, how to they differ the Searle
agree with emergent’s notion of mind or his notion of mind is something different
that will see know in different context. But, for today let us accept this proposition of
Searle that mind is caused by brain processes and that is how consciousness is being caused
and consciousness includes all kinds of you know mental states conscious or unconscious,
now all these mental states are intrinsically intentional.
Mental states like believe, desire, hope etcetera, are intentional mental states and now there
intentional because, consciousness has this property called intentionality and intentionality
is intrinsically associated with consciousness. And otherwise, how can we say that the mind
is about anything, how does the mind represents the things, now this about nests or offense
is nothing but, to talk about the intentionality of the mind, because certainly the brain the
stuff inside my head is not representing things directly, they did not really mean what they
represent, they are just a kind of a facilitating the representation.
So, the second question, look at the second question how can it refer to anything, how
can the brain refer to anything? So, there is certainly something, that is consciousness
and it is that conscious mind which makes referential claims and that reference happens
if and only if there is intentionality intrinsic to the mind, so therefore, it is the mind
which represents the world. So, Searle is talking about intentionality is famous work,
intentionality is published in Cambridge university in 1983 is something very important text on
philosophy of mind, and that is one of the original text of John Searle now, there the
title of the text is intentionality an essay in philosophy of mind.
Look at the next problem that Searle is talking about, Searle says it is not the problem of
intentionality alone intentionality gives birth to another problem that is subjectivity.
So, human mental states are subjective, their subjectively associated with mind or our self,
so for example, when I say I have pain I look at this sensation from my own point of view,
when I say that I have pain I am looking at my own point of view. So, all the feelings
sensations and experiences that we are having all the mental states that we are having are
looked at from the subjects point of view and that constitutes the subjectivity.
So, subjectivity is an epistemic category for Searle, will come back to that how Searle
talks about ontology and epistemology of the mind later in our discussion on when we talk
about the structure of mental states or structure of mind. But, the very fact that I am aware
of myself, my intentional mental state is internal to me are different from the mental
states of yours or the mental states of others, people is something very significant.
He says those mental states are subjective, they are part of my consciousness and similarly,
your conscious states and your intentional mental states are could be seen from your
own point of view. So, there is some kind of subjectivity, which is associated with
the problem of consciousness the problem of mind and that cannot be eliminated and the
other problem which Searle is talking about is the mental position.
Searle says, there is bodily activity say for example, look at will Einstein famous
statement, the hand is moving upward and I raise my hand know, the second statement I
raise my hand is a kind of a voluntary action, and the reason for making the statement is
that I intend to raise my hand up by doing this by performing this action, I am giving
or I am generating a kind of a meaning to my action. But, when I say that hand is moving
up probably I am not voluntarily doing that, I am not voluntarily performing the action,
think of myself lying on the bed and I am conscious of it that hand is going up and
down, but I have no control of it. So, bodily actions, bodily movements are performed
their without having any control over it, digestion is performed without my control
over it, so digestion palpitations are not voluntary actions there by biological actions,
so of human organism. So, now similarly, brain processes happening it is natural biological
fact that brain processes will produce some amount of consciousness, some amount of mental
states, so brain processes do cause mental states.
And Searle say, when we talk about voluntary actions, we explain or voluntary actions with
reference to a particular mental state or with reference to collection of mental states,
so that is the reason for my action. So, my action is intentional and they can be an intentional
casual explanation of this voluntary actions that my hand is going up, and whereas, the
bodily movements are the existence of my body is possible, because there is a gravitational
force operating around me; that is making my you know in this possibility is that, I
can sit on the chair and I will not fly in the sky. So, I am not going my body will not
go up, so there is a certainly gravitational force operating me.
So, Searle is saying that, there is a world and the world has a casual influence on the
material body, and there is also a world called mind, which is the part of the world, and
that is causing voluntary reactions. So, when he talks about meaning, when he talks about
representation, it is at the second world of course, Searle does not speak in terms
of this world. Searle does not say that there is a first
world, second world or third world, but it is for our understanding I am making this
statement that it is the mind it is the mind that we make representations; and mind has
a special role to play when it comes to our semantic activities, when it comes to our
knowledge forming capacities, when it comes to our building up institutions etcetera.
So, Searle is talking about in the language of 21st century, Searle is of course not really
talking the way the Descartes thoughts in 17th century. So, one of the problems that
Searle says, that let us do not talk about those categories of dualism, monism, populism
etcetera etcetera. Let us talk about the kind of reality which we are encountered, I think
Searle’s criticism against Descartes is something very significant in this context.
Searle is not eliminating dualism, Searle probably does not believing those kind of
a categories, but Searle is interested in this question, and many people have questioned
Searle that, Searle is committing a kind of a property dualism will see that in our next
classes. But with this, I would like to conclude that,
how Ryle criticism is significant in the direction of understanding the concept of mind and how
Searle’s criticism makes a fruitful exercise in analyzing the problem of mind, thank you.