| Land of the Epiphens - Julian Baggini |
[Jan. 6th, 2012|01:29 pm] |
Epiphenia was a remarkable planet. So like Earth in appearance, and yet its inhabitants were different in one remarkable way.
As one of them, Huxley, explained to the visiting Earthling Dirk, the Epiphens had long ago 'discovered' that their thoughts did not affect their actions. Thoughts were the effects of bodily processes, not the other way around. Dirk found this baffling.
'You can't really believe this,' he protested to Huxley. 'For instance, when we met in this bar, you said, "Gee, I could kill for a beer," and ordered one. Are you saying that the thought "I want a beer" had no effect on your actions?'
'Of course it didn't,' replied Huxley, as though the question were idiotic. 'We have thouhts and these often precede actions. But we know full well that these thoughts aren't causing the actions. My body and brain were already gearing up to order a beer. The tought "I could kill a beer" was just something that popped into my head as a result of what was happening in the physical brain and body. Thoughts don't cause actions.'
'For Epiphens, maybe' replied Dirk.
'Well I can't see what's different about humans,' said Huxley, and for a while at least, nor could Dirk.
Source: Although he didn't use the term, 'epiphenomenalism' was championed by T. H. Huxley, notably in an 1874 paper called 'On the Hypothesis that Animals are Automata, and its History', republished in Method and Results: Essays by Thomas H. Huxley (D. Appleton and Company, 1898).
The American philosopher Jerry Fodor once said that if epiphenomenalism were true, it would be the end of the world. Epiphenomenalism is the view that thoughts and other mental events do not cause anything in the physical world, including our actions. Rather, the brain and body work like some kind of purely physical machine, and our conscious experience is a by-product, caused by the machine but not affecting it.
The reason why this would be the end of the world is that everything we seem to believe about what we are apparently depends on the idea that thoughts do cause actions. If what goes on in our minds has no impact on what we actually do, the world as we think of it is just an illusion.
But is this really the consequence of accepting epiphenomenalism? The imaginary land of Epiphenia is designed to test the idea that no one can live with the truth of epiphenomenalism. The suggestion is that people could come to see epiphenomenalism as some banal truth which does not affect the way they live their lives. The crucial point is that how it feels to be an Epiphen is exactly the same as what it feels like to be a human being. The only difference is that Epiphens do not believe their thoughts are doing any causing.
Is it really possible, however, to divorce what we believe about the link between thought and action and how we actually live? People such as Fodor think not, but it is far from obvious why this separation can't be achieved. For example, take a situation where the thinking does seem to be crucial. Let's say you're trying to work out a solution to a tricky logical or mathematical problem. Eventually, the eureka moment comes. In this case, surely the actual thinking has to play a part in the explanation for your actions?
Well, no. Why can't I believe that the conscious experience of thinking is just a byproduct of the computing that is going on at brain level? It may be a necessary byproduct. But just as the noise that a boiling pot of water makes is an inevitable by-product of the heating without that meaning it is the noise which cooks the egg, so thought could be the necessary byproduct of neural computation that doesn't itself produce the solution to the problem.
Indeed, if you think about thinking, there does seem to be something almost involuntary about it. Solutions 'come to us', for example, not we to them. Reflect on what it really feels like to think, and the idea that it is a byproduct of a process you are not conscious of may not seem quite so fanciful.
Julian Baggini, The Pig That Wants to Be Eaten (Granta 2010).
Reproduced for non-profitable research and private study purposes as permitted by the Copyright Act 1956, ch.74 Part I Section 6(a). |
|
|
| The Obsolescence of Feminism |
[Aug. 16th, 2008|05:01 pm] |
|
To constantly prattle on about "female empowerment" is, I think, highly insulting to women. The continued obsessive pursuit of the feminist agenda implies that women somehow have need of continuous support, encouragement and fierce representation in all arenas, and that without this they'll collectively lapse, cower and fall back under male dominance. I feel the most respectful thing at this point would be to leave the whole issue alone: the notion and theory of equal rights and gender equality has been established; the rest of the progress to be made is in societal perceptions, which cannot be shaped by the blunt hammerings of banners, protest marches and outraged public speakers. The remaining work to be done must do itself, and feminists should show women the respect of trusting them to look after and promote their gender by action and example, every day, rather than thinking of themselves as figureheads of an oppressed and incapacitated group of people. |
|
|
| My Favourite Activity |
[Oct. 1st, 2007|07:32 pm] |
You know what I really love? Packing myself into a suitcase. It's great. I can barely contain myself.
|
|
|
| Heaven |
[Sep. 30th, 2007|12:20 am] |
It's not easy having yourself a good time...
 |
|
|
| arteh boobehs |
[Sep. 29th, 2007|11:56 pm] |
This was tagged in a random google image search with the phrase "ignorant to true beauty". |
|
|
| harry potter 7 |
[Aug. 3rd, 2007|02:25 am] |
"Seventeen, eh!" said Hagrid, as he accepted a bucket-sized glass of wine from Fred. "Six years ter the day since we met, Harry, d'yeh remember it?"
"Vaguely," said Harry, grinning up at him. "Didn't you smash down the front door, give Dudley a pig's tail and tell me I was a wizard?"
"I forge' the details," Hagrid chortled.
I know, I know: Harry's going to die in some convoluted plot twist that simultaneously destroys Voldemort, thereby eliminating the possibility of spin-offs and giving a vaguely happy ending, and there's going to be fighting and serious stuff, and loads of people are going to suffer, and there'll be loads of plot twists, and Snape will turn out to be some unfathomable double-double-crosser, et cetera.
But it's these little morsels of humour that make me really, really appreciate Harry Potter. The combination of cultural parallels, technological metaphors, acute social insights and clear understanding of how people of all ages react to a range of situations and experiences...these things render the ultimate fate of the story's protagonist irrelevant to me. I anticipate the pleasure of reading all 7 books through, my enjoyment unhampered by sudden character deaths and plot twists - because Harry Potter is one of those rare fictional worlds where every angle is given equal weight, granting it the vast, broad audience that is currently has.
edit - it turned out I was right about everything. |
|
|
| Freedom |
[Apr. 15th, 2007|04:50 pm] |
An interesting complication in the concept of freedom, lifted straight from 'Quiddities':
'Freedom from Constraint' strikes the ear as pleonastic, but constraint, even so, is itself a freedom of second order: freedom from decision.
|
|
|
| Peace And Hi-Ex |
[Apr. 14th, 2007|05:54 pm] |
The man who started the Nobel Peace Prize, Alfred Nobel, also invented and patented Dynamite explosive.
Small world. |
|
|
| navigation |
| [ |
viewing |
| |
most recent entries |
] |
| [ |
go |
| |
earlier |
] |
| |
|
|
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif?v=92.1){kind=small}
boiled_elephant's journal
