If materialism is true, do brains exist? The particles of what we call the brain exist, but the brain, as an entity over and above the parts that make it up, does it exist?
Hume said "I answer, that the uniting of these parts into a whole, like the uniting of several distinct counties into one kingdom, or several distinct members into one body, is performed merely by an arbitrary act of the mind, and has no influence on the nature of things.
The mind is the brain? The brain is a product of the mind, if Hume is right.
14 comments:
For the purposes of this blog, is "materialism" the doctrine that there are no combinations of things? There are no alloys, not even elemental metals spread throughout a substance,no atoms, only individual wavicles interacting with other wavicles? There is no light, only photons?
If so, would that be distinct from "naturalism" and "physicalism"? Is this a common definition, or do other sources threat these terms differently?
Well, I am starting with the materialism as the idea that there are only material entities, but then ask the question of what the status of combinations of material entities is.
I think you can approach it either way, depending upon your needs. Reduce when that explains what you are looking for, don't reduce when it is not helpful.
Victor, you ask the question, "If materialism is true, do brains exist?" But shouldn't you rather be asking "do minds exist?" It's obvious that brains exist.
It's obvious that brains exist.
Remember that Stardusty would not admit water froze into ice, or that anything actually exists beyond the most basic quantum unit. Anything else is a mere approximation.
There are those who would argue that neither brains nor minds exist.
You appear to be confusing me with Stardusty. I am Starhopper.
I wasn't confusing you. I was reminding you.
But I don't blame you if you shut that memory out.
I suspect Victor's point is that it is a person's mind that determines that a brain is an entity and could just as easily consider it not an entity. Just like Hume's assertion that a country only exists as an entity because a mind arbitrary says it's so.
So per Hume, the brain only exists as long a a mind conceives it to exist.
How am I responsible for what Stardusty wrote?
How am I responsible for what Stardusty wrote?
You aren't. It was what was supposed to be a humorous counter to your correct assertion that brains obviously exist.
I retract my attempt at humor.
Well then, one of us will just have to change his moniker. If it's me, I shall henceforth be known as Alastor Magnifico.
bmiller,
It's a stretch to go from a group of individuals connected socially (but not physically) not being a single unit (nation) physically, to saying a group of cells connected chemically and physically is not a single unit (brain).
The brain exists in the same way that an automobile exists, despite being composed of disparate parts.
The mind, however, is a different kettle of fish altogether. Its "parts" (consciousness, the subconscious, instinct, reflex, memory, etc.) do not appear to be physical at all. They may be tied to some physical apparatus within the brain, but are not of the same substance.
Saying that the mind does not exist because it can be explained in terms of the makeup of the brain is like saying that sight does not exist because we have eyes.
Starhopper,
I tend to agree with what you are saying, although that's not the topic of the original post. I'll save any longer thoughts on it for another post.
Post a Comment