Mind according to Cognitive Science

‘Know thyself’ was the greatest saying of Socrates; ‘Tat tavam Asi’ is the Mahavkya which led to many interpretations; ‘I could never catch my self’ was the skeptical remark of Hume; Descartes ‘Cogito ergo sum’ was possibly the best known philosophic statement in the modern times; self is the unity of apperception for Kant, and the enquiry about the self goes on and on…..

 What am I ? what is it that holds body and mind together, have been the most intriguing questions, which has baffled the philosophers of mind for many centuries. How are the mental states related to the physical states of the brain; is one question which has tremendous implications for the future of philosophy? this question, which was addresses as the Mind –Body problem down the centuries refuses to go away chiefly owing to the elusive nature of consciousness.

 Cognitive Science is simply the science dealing with mind and intelligence. It is a multilateral field involving several academic intelligence, neuroscience, linguistics, anthropology and so on. The researches therefore have a discovery of out looks and employ different methods of study. The linguists try to understand the basic structures of language; the neuroscientists attempt to understand the nature of brain; the cognitive anthropologists are engaged in understanding how human thought and thinking process very in different cultural settings; and of course, philosopher of mind delve deep into the nature of Mind-Body relationship and so on.

 The philosophical implication of cognitive Science are many. Philosophy of Mind is closely allied with theoretical and experimental  work in Cognitive  Science; Metaphysical conclusions could be understood better with the developments in neuroscience; Epistemology depends on scientific findings on mental structures and learning procedures and even Ethics in linked to psychology of moral knowledge.

 Cognitive Science could help us look at many of the age old philosophic problems in a new scientific light. Mind needs to be looked at from several dimensions physical, philosophy, symbolic, computational, psychological and even spiritual. In a word, we should adopt a Gestalt attitude viz. that the mind as a ‘whole is more that the sum of its part; much more than the mere brain. Perhaps, a better and more comprehensive understanding could surely emerge.

 My research work “A Philosophical Study of the Concept of Mind (with special reference to Rene Descartes, David Hume and Gilbert Ryle)” is related to Philosophy of Mind. The present programme can help me in improving my knowledge of certain key concepts and it will make us familiar as with practical implications and new opportunity and vital problems of important areas of philosophy. There is a great need of these type of programme, which play a important role in giving a dynamic extension to philosophy. it will sharpen my analytical  ability as well as enrich my knowledge as I feel that philosophy is a friend of wisdom. It carries within itself the love of a just and moderate life of human knowledge which is integrated to life. Hence, we say that philosophy is a reflection on all forms of human experiences.

Note: this paper is sent to National Institute of Advanced Studies, Bangalore for the summer school 2007.

Mind-Body Dualism and the Category Mistake

The problem of the relation between mind and body is one of the most vexed question of western philosophy. The problem gained importance in the thinking of Rene Descartes. Since his days no philosopher worth the name has avoided considering this problem.1
In his famous work Meditations, Rene Descartes admits two distinct and independent substances mind and matter. Mind is active and conscious substance with the qualities of thinking and reflection. The mind is self-evident, free and uncontrolled by mechanical laws. It is conscious, immaterial, simple, invisible, eternal and entirely different from the material body. Knowing, desiring, feeling and other mental activities have been attributed to the mind. The mind is unextended and beyond time and space. It is unique, dynamic and beginingless. It is the substance whose attributes are the different forms of thinking. “The mind or soul of man is entirely different from the body.”2 Whatever is in the body is not in the mind and on the other hand, mind is entirely different from the body. Thus, Descartes advocates dualism of mind and body as supported by Christian religion.
Descartes admits the mind to be free, non-physical, unextended and simple, yet he maintains that the body is the substratum for the mind, which exists in pineal gland. In the words of Descartes, “Let us then conceive here that the soul has its principal seat in the little gland which exists in the middle of the brain, from whence it radiates forth through all the remainder of the body …..”3
The question of the substratum of the mind begins from the mind-body relation. If the mind has no relation with the body how is interaction between mind and body possible? In fact, “the soul is really joined to the whole body and we cannot, properly speaking, say that it exists in any one of its parts to the exclusion of others, because it is one and in the same manner indivisible.”4
This idea of Descartes is not in keeping with the characteristics of the mind pointed out by him. One the one hand, he considers the soul to be non-physical and, on the other hand, he gives it a physical abode, in the pineal gland. It is difficult to understand how the non-physical soul is really joined to the whole body.
Descartes establishes a dualism without explaining the cause of the creation of the two. If they are self-caused, what is the relation between them? If their cause is something else, is it one or two? If the causes are two, there is again the difficulty of dualism. He gives us the teleological and mechanical conception of mind and body respectively.
Ryle in his book, The Concept of Mind, chapter-1 titled, “Descartes’ Myth,” starts argument with the description of a myth of “the dogma of the ghost in the machine ” or ” the official doctrine”. He is not giving us any new knowledge with the reference to mind-body theory. For Ryle the objective of his analysis is to study the concept of mind in a logical way. Ryle says that his interest lies drawing in the “logical geography” of mental conduct concepts, not in the construction of a theory involving such concepts.5 Ryle defines myth as the presentation of facts belonging to one category, in the idioms appropriate to another. He further says, “To explode a myth is accordingly not to deny the facts but to re-allocate them. And this is what I am trying to do.”6
Describing dualism Ryle says, “It is assumed that there are two different kinds of existence or status. What exists or happens may have the status of physical existence, or it may have the status of mental existence.”7
This dualism is a product of language distortion, which led to “Descartes’ Myth”. He argues that the Cartesian is guality of a serious category-mistake, Roughly a category is a range of items of which the same sorts of things can be meaningfully asserted. He explains category mistake by an analogy of a university.8
Here we are taking another example: you can take a nap, take control, or take my wallet. But naps, control and wallets do not belong to the same category. Someone misled by English grammar might not realised this and think that nap is a very mysterious, invisible thing. So too, when we talk about “keeping things in mind” or using “mind over matter,” we might be led to think that the mind is a very mysterious thing.
Ryle’s solution is to argue that the correct use of words like. “mind”, “thought,” “sanity”, “pain” etc. is in connection with human behaviour. A thought or a mind is no more a mysterious, ghostly thing than a nap is, such concepts relate primarily to behaviour. Having an idea mean behaving in certain ways or being disposed to behave in such ways, not having something intangible, invisible etc. floating through your head.
Ryle argues that the Cartesian has failed to notice that our mental and physical concepts belong to different categories. Realizing that to talk about the mind is not talk about a physical entity. The Cartesian who concludes that it must be talk about a non-physical entity, failds to realize that it is not to talk about an entity of any kind.9
Here, Ryle gives the cause why people do this types of mistakes. He says, “The theoretically interesting category mistakes are those made by people who are perfectly competent to apply concepts, at least in the situations which they are familiar, but are still liable in their abstract thinking to allocate those concepts to logical types to which they do not belong.”10
Ryle’s positive thesis, which assigns mentalist talk to what is regarded as the correct category of the mind is the talk about the way in which we behave. In describing the workings of a mind, he tells us, “In opposition to this entire dogma, I am arguing that in describing the working of a person’s mind we are not describing a second set of shadowy operations. We are describing certain phases of his one career; namely we are describing the ways in which parts of his conduct are managed.”11
According to Ryle it is not realistic to think about the existence of mind and body as a same category. ‘Existence is always a subject, it can never be a predicate.’12 We use the word ‘existence’ in so many ways. For example:
There is an existence of number.
There is an existence of navy.
There is an existence of public-opinion.
Here we are using the ‘existence’ in different way. So, there are three different meaning of the word existence. Then it is a category mistake to think them as one category. “The theory of the ghost in the machine” is also a result of this type of category-mistake. In real sense, there is no existence of it at all.
Ryle’s thesis solves the contradiction of mind-body, because contradiction arises, when we find difference between two things, which are related to same category. Mind and matter are different things belonging to different categories. We cannot create any similarities and difference between them. By this point of view, we also find out the solutions for mechanism and teleology.
This extreme dualism of Descartes performed the great service of laying a solid foundation for the development of modern physical sciences and does no violence to the religious prepossession concerning the mind. Rationalism and scientific method are the great gifts of Descartes to philosophy. He also stressed the practical aspects of knowledge and attached great importance to philosophy being useful from the practical standpoint. He wrote, “Philosophy is a perfect knowledge of all that man can know as well as for the conduct of his life as for preservation of his health and the discovery of all the arts.”13 For this reason, between the times of Aristotle and Kant, Descartes’ philosophy known as a revolution. But on the other hand, it brings up difficulties, which have been the storm-centers of controversy for the last three centuries. One the other hand, Ryle’s theory of category-mistake is so important, by this we find the solutions of some problem like dualism, mechanism and teleology.
In The Concept of Mind, Ryle intended to demonstration of the proper task of philosopher. As we know that most people have no problems making sense with the concept like right, wrong, mind and body etc. But for a philosopher it takes special care and skill to make sense of these concepts. This later use, reflective use of language, the talk about talk is, philosophy. It can be done well with some awareness of exactly what sort of thing one is doing. Ryle also add note in the end of the chapter. “It would also not be true to say that the two-worlds myth did no theoretical good. Myths often do a lot of theoretical good, while they are still new.”14

-Desh Raj Sirswal
Research Scholar(ICPR-JRF),
Department of Philosophy,
Kurkshetra University,Kurkshetra.

References:
1. G.T.W. Patric: Introduction to Philosophy, Revised Edition, Ruskin House, George Allen and Unwin Ltd. Museum Street, London, 1958, p.248
2. Descartes: Selections, Charles Scribners Sons, New York, 1927,p.161
3. Ibid, p.374
4. Ibid, p.371
5. G.Ryle: The Concept of Mind, Reprinted, Penguin Books, 1978, p.9
6. ibid, p.10
7. ibid, p.14
8. ibid, p.17-18
9. Staurt Brown, Diane Collinson, Robert Wikinson (ed) One Hundred Twentieth-Century Philosopher, Rotledge, London and New York, 1998,p.177
10. G.Ryle: The Concept of Mind, p. 19
11. ibid. p.49
12. Srivastava,J.S., Paschatya Darshan ki Darshnik Parvartiyan,1998,p. 420
13. Frank Thilly: A History of Philosophy, p. 302
14. G.Ryle: The Concept of Mind, p.24

NOTE: this paper is present as a Pre-Regtistration requirement in the department of Philosophy, Kurukshetra University.

A Philosophical Study of the Concept of Mind (Synopsis)

The concept of mind has baffled philosophers more than non-philosophers. In everyday language we use words as mind, brain, consciousness etc. But we are not confused over their use. According to some, minds are spiritual entities that temporarily reside in bodies entering at conception or birth and departing on death. They believe that death is simply the departure of body’s spirit. Others imagine the relations between minds and bodies to be more intimate. Minds are not entities. Some empiricists deny the existence of mind. Some behaviorists contend that mind is nothing but certain forms of behavior. But the conception of mind has not come to a final point.

             In western tradition first of all, Plato introduced mind as soul. In his views on soul, he was influenced by the Orphic religion and mysticism of Pythagoras. Aristotle, a student of Plato, provided the major alternative to the platonic conception of the soul. He rejected the idea of the soul as an entity separate from the body and took the soul to be the structure and functioning of the body itself, or as he put it, the “form” of the living human body. Since one cannot have the form without the body, which has that form, the soul cannot exist disembodied. In the modern times, relation of mind and body was highlighted by Descartes.

            In his famous work, Meditations, Descartes attempts to show once and for all that mind and matter are two distinct, separate and independent substances. Matter, he concludes, is extensive, inert subject to mechanical laws, having no desire, purpose or power of spontaneous motion. It is only on such a view as this that the impressive body of modern physics from Newton to the middle of the nineteenth century, was built. The mind on the other hand was for Descartes a substance with no extension, whose essential nature is to think. By ‘Thinking’ Descartes meant all of those activities which we commonly associate with the mental, namely desiring, feeling, judging, willing and so on. The soul is unique, dynamic rather than inert, teleological rather than mechanical, and non-spatial. Then the problem arises ‘How the both substances interact?’ The answer given by Descartes is in the form of theory of interaction. According to this theory mind and body affects one another via pineal gland. Descartes theory of interaction is open to the following difficulties:

(i)     How can the formless soul live in the pineal gland?

(ii)    If mind and body are to distinct substances then how do they interact?

(iii)      Descartes’ theory further defines the notion conservation of energy. It cannot be argued that bodily actions cause mental actions and vice versa.

            Despite the difficulties in the Cartesian theory of interaction, modern scientist accepts the existence of such interaction and they are even prepared to argue in favor of this theory. Descartes represents the tradition of Rationalists. After his theory, there are so many other theories arising like occasionalism, parallelism etc.

             In the traditions of British Empiricism, Hume developed his empirical theory to its extreme limit. He was complete empiricist, who refused to allow credit to any element, which could not be in the category of sense experience. This attitude he maintained towards not only the matter but mind also. He refused the existence of mind.

             According to Hume, such various elements in our mind as the flow of thought, sensation, imagination, feeling, desire, volition etc. are distinct and independent of each other. Although we definitely experience these elements yet we do not sense presence of any element, which unites them, and therefore, it is difficult to substantiate the existence of any mind. In Hume’s opinion, mind is like the stage of a theatre on which thoughts and ideas come in a procession. All such thought are transitory and temporary. The only reason for suspecting the existence of mind is that the rapidity of their change which an illusion. Some philosophers have argued that if there is no soul then what is it that experiences thought   and other mental entities. Hume refutes this argument by stating that thought can experience itself and no mind is required for any such purpose.

            Hume would hold that the use of such words as I, me and mine is due to the exigencies of language and that such words do not reveal a metaphysical “self”. What is meant by self, according to Hume, is simply the totality of experiences and nothing more. These experiences in large part are conditioned and organised by principles of association, such as contiguity, and resemblance. Thus the sound of thunder always has been associate with the sight of lightening, so that whenever I see lightening, I at the same time anticipate the sound of thunder. Such principles account for the general organization of experiences and what is called ‘I’ or ‘me’. Such organized experiences are dominated by principles of order.

For Hume’s rejection of metaphysical self it may also be argued that mind cannot be known as object and memory cannot be explained in the absence of a permanent self. Hume also fails to explain homogeneity and proximity in experience. Hence, he cannot explain the process of knowing. It is quite obvious from the above discussion that Hume’s account of self is open to serious metaphysical and linguistic difficulties, which may invalidiate it.

            Dealing with the traditional mind-body problem in The Concept of Mind, Ryle sharply criticized Cartesian dualism, arguing that adequate descriptions of human behavior need never refer to anything but the operations of human bodies. This form of philosophical behaviorism becomes a standard view among ordinary language philosophers for several decades.

            Ryle’s positive thesis, which assigns mentalist talk to what regards as the correct category of the mind is the talk about the way in which we behave. Ryle’s solution for the category-mistake is that the group of words like “mind”, “thought”, “pain”, etc. is connected with human behavior. A thought or a mind is no more a mysterious, ghostly thing. There are some problems with Ryle’s behaviorism: Isn’t there a difference between being in pain and acting as if you are in pain? Can’t you feel pain without showing it? Do I not know whether I am in pain without having to observe my own behavior?  The Concept of Mind is a second-order commentary on first-order talk about minds.

            The main objective of this study is to evaluate these three views and arrive at a position, which could do philosophical justice to the concept of mind without involving difficulties like Cartesian interactionism or Humian reductionism of mind to fleeting impressions. We would see the problem of mind as a linguistic problem rather than a metaphysical one. The mind is a complex thing including first a group of cognitive tendencies, second a system of adaptive processes which we call behavior, and third consciousness. The mental words will remain in our ordinary-language, but we need not go beyond them and search for entities they are referring to.

Chapter Details:

Chapter I :  Introduction

Chapter II : The Problem of Mind and Body in Rene Descartes

Chapter III: Hume’s View of Mind

Chapter IV: Ryle on Category-Mistake

Chapter V: Ryle’s Philosophical Behaviorism

Chapter VI: Problem of Mind in a Linguistic Perspective

ChapterVII: Conclusion

 NOTE: This synopsis is presented for the registration requirment of Ph.D.

Last Modified: 29-06-2009