Unlike Balfour, J. B. S. Haldane is quoted by C. S. Lewis. Also
unlike Balfour, Haldane was a dedicated atheist. He wrote in 1934 “My practice
as a scientist is atheistic. That is to say, when I set up an experiment I
assume that no god, angel or devil is going to interfere with its course; and
this assumption has been justified by such success as I have achieved in my
professional career. I should therefore be intellectually dishonest if I were
not also atheistic in the affairs of the world.” Haldane was also a virulent
Lewis critic who considered Lewis a “danger to clear thinking.” He once gave a
presentation on behalf of atheism at the Oxford Socratic Club with Lewis
present but departed without answering questions, preventing any in-person
exchange between the two of them.
Nevertheless,
in 1927 Haldane offers a reason for rejecting materialism. He writes.
"It seems to me immensely
unlikely that mind is a mere byproduct of matter. For if my mental processes
are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain I have no reason to
suppose that my beliefs are true. They may be sound chemically, but that does
not make them sound logically. And hence I have no reason for supposing my
brain to be composed of atoms."
What he seems to have been committed to at this stage is some
version of Absolute Idealism, as evidenced by this passage:
But I notice that when I
think logically and scientifically or act morally my thoughts and actions cease
to be characteristic of myself, and are those of any intelligent or moral being
in the same position; in fact, I am already identifying my mind with an
absolute or unconditioned mind.
However, by 1940 he wrote “Why I am a materialist,” giving an account of his rejection of his previous idealistic philosophy but not rebutting the specific argument he had provided.
But in
1954, after Lewis in 1947 had quoted him so prominently in the third chapter of
Miracles, he wrote “I Repent an Error,” for Literary Guide, in which he
responded to the passage Lewis had quoted. Haldane’s counter-response bears
little resemblance to Anscombe’s reply to Lewis, but is resembles how many
naturalists’ respond when they first encounter the argument. Benjamin Fain
summarizes it as follows.
….computers act in
accordance with the laws of physics, and despite that they act in full
accordance with the laws of logic. The human mind can be represented by the
brain, which we can compare to the computer. It is simultaneously a physical
and logical being.
5 comments:
Victor,
" For if my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true."
So what? You might have true beliefs, you might have false beliefs, just what one would expect on materialism.
A great many beliefs must be false because opposite beliefs are held simultaneously by various people.
"They may be sound chemically, but that does not make them sound logically."
Again, so what? Of course a great many people hold logically unsound beliefs, just as one would expect on materialism.
Victor, is this what you consider to be an "argument"?
"But I notice that when I think logically and scientifically or act morally my thoughts and actions cease to be characteristic of myself,"
Haldane seems to have suffered from some sort of identity dysphoria, split personality pathology, or other mental disorder that leads him feel that his own thoughts somehow are not his own.
So, Victor, some guy about 100 years ago can't figure out that he is the one thinking his thoughts, and you consider that to be the basis of an "argument"?
" I am already identifying my mind with an absolute or unconditioned mind."
So, if you identify as Napoleon Bonaparte does that mean you are Napoleon Bonaparte?
"giving an account of his rejection of his previous idealistic philosophy but not rebutting the specific argument he had provided."
He didn't provide an "argument". What argument?
"I identify as a ghost, therefore I am a ghost"
That is the level of "argument" being provided.
"but is resembles how many naturalists’ respond when they first encounter the argument."
What "argument"? There isn't any argument.
If fairies exist they will make me happy.
Fairies exist.
Therefore I am happy.
That is the level of "argument" in the "argument" from reason.
"computers act in accordance with the laws of physics, and despite that they act in full accordance with the laws of logic. The human mind can be represented by the brain, which we can compare to the computer. It is simultaneously a physical and logical being."
Right. The existence of computers provides a counter example to certain immaterialist claims. Computers don't prove how the brain works in detail, but computers do prove that mechanistic systems can, in principle, perform logical functions.
The truth is a matter of atoms in motion. There's nothing inconsistent about using atoms in motion (in the brain) to reflect atoms in motion (in the world).
Why assume physics is illogical? Logic arises from physics. The whole point of using logic is to find out how physics works.
The argument from reason assumes what it's trying to demonstrate.
But truth isn't a physical relation. How do you define it in physical terms?
Logic has necessary connections. Physics has none. Physics is contingently true, mathematics and logic are not. Logic tells us what must be true in all possible worlds, even possible worlds with different laws. So logic does not come from physics.
Thanks for your interesting reply! It stimulated my thinking. So here's what I think:
Truth is "that which exists."
Or are you talking about our understanding of the truth? That's something different from the truth itself.
Even our understanding is a purely physical thing, made up of neuro-electric impulses traveling through our brains and bodies.
----
Logic is a set of rules we've come up with to describe the lowest level of physics. Logical rules are so basic that we can't even conceive of them being different. So we say logic is "necessary," but that's just our limited understanding.
You might say the fine details of physics are contingent, such as which number comes up when you roll the dice, but what about physics itself? Was the Big Bang contingent? I don't think anyone can say.
----
I wonder what you think about this idea: If no particles existed, there could be no math or logic.
You can't count things if no particles exist, because particles are ultimately what we count. And without counting, there is no math.
The logical law of non-contradiction would not exist without particles. After all, if you say "p is the case" or "p is not the case," you're talking ultimately about particles.
Particles are a matter of physics. So without physics, there could be no math or logic. Before the Big Bang started, it's incoherent to talk about math or logic existing.
Post a Comment