Noam Chomsky on Mind/Body Problem
Posted: Mon Aug 30, 2010 5:37 am
Chomsky asserts:
"There is no such thing as the mind-body problem. For there to be a mind-body problem, there has to be some characterization of body, and Newton eliminated the last conception of body anybody had. Newton is supposedly the progenitor of the mechanistic, materialist worldview that gave rise to the mind-body problem. But Newton's own theory on gravity, which showed that objects can influence each other in non mechanistic way, actually shattered the materialist worldview. Materialism presupposes that the world consists of objects that interact through direct contact with each other. But Newton, by discovering gravity - action at a distance - showed that materialism doesn't work even for phenomenon as simple as a ball rolling down a plane. The world consists not of material objects influencing each other through direct contact but rather, consists of immaterial properties. These properties include gravity, electromagnetism and yes consciousness. It's an interesting element of the history of human irrationality, that people continue to talk about the mind-body problem.
This snipet was from an interview with Chomsky by Journalist John Horgan. It's from his book "undiscovered mind", on pg. 248.
Horgan, on Chapter 8 (titled: the consciousness conundrum), introduces various scientists and philosophers who believe consciousness can be explained mechanistically. He then contrasts those thinkers with those who believe consciousness will never be entirely explained and will always be a mystery. Horgan, borrowing from Owen Flanagan who coined the term, calls these people "mysterians". Chomsky, according to Horgan, is a mysterian. Horgan writes:
In defending their position, mysterians often borrow a line of reasoning from Chomsky. The MIT linguist has distinguished between problems, which seem solvable at least in principle through conventional scientific methods, and mysteries, which seem insoluble even in principle. Chomsky noted that all organisms have certain capacities and limitations that result from their particular biology. Thus, a rat might learn how to navigate a maze that requires it to turn right at every juncture or to alternate between right and left; but no rat will ever learn to navigate a maze that requires it to turn left a every juncture corresponding to the prime numbers. That talent exceeds it's cognitive capabilities. In the same way, certain problems addressed by science may lie forever beyond our capacity for understanding. These are mysteries, now and possibly forever. Chomsky has implied in various writings that he considers consciousness, free will and other aspects of the mind to be mysteries. Yet in a conversation with me, Chomsky once took issue with a fundamental tenet of the mysterian position. "There is no such thing as the mind-body problem. For there to be a mind-body problem, there has to be some characterization of body, and Newton eliminated the last conception of body anybody had. Newton is supposedly the progenitor of the mechanistic, materialist worldview that gave rise to the mind-body problem. But Newton's own theory on gravity, which showed that objects can influence each other in non mechanistic way, actually shattered the materialist worldview. Materialism presupposes that the world consists of objects that interact through direct contact with each other. But Newton, by discovering gravity - action at a distance - showed that materialism doesn't work even for phenomenon as simple as a ball rolling down a plane. The world consists not of material objects influencing each other through direct contact but rather, consists of immaterial properties. These properties include gravity, electromagnetism and yes consciousness. It's an interesting element of the history of human irrationality, that people continue to talk about the mind-body problem." Chomsky added, "I should say i haven't convinced a lot of people".
Horgan continues later in the chapter:
Mysterianism is becoming a mainstream position. Among those who have publicly embraced mysterianism is Steven Pinker. At the end of "How the Mind Works", which otherwise epitomizes scientific triumphalism, Pinker concluded that consciousness, free will, the self and other riddles posed by the mind are probably unsolvable.
"Our minds evolved by natural selection to solve problems that were life and death matters to our ancestors, not to commune with correctness or to answer any question we are capable of asking. We cannot hold ten thousand words in short term memory. We cannot see in ultraviolet light. We cannot mentally rotate an object in the fourth dimension. And perhaps we cannot solve conundrums like free will and sentience" - SP
First of all, I really recommend all of Horgan's books. Undiscovered Mind, Rational Mysticism, and End of Science are all fascinating. He's, for the most part, good at not imposing his own views and politics, letting all of the best and brightest minds he gets to interview share their skepticism and enthusiasm, which Horgan then compares and analyzes, he's a good journalist, very irreverent and provocative. Entertaining reading.
Secondly, It's really hard to know what to make of Chomsky here. He has a confused way of debunking mechanistic materialism, I would not limit myself to just gravity and electromagnetism as he does, but focus on the very nature of causality itself, as it erodes the notion that action happens through collision of one material boundary against another.
As for gravity, I don't see why it should be any more mysterious than anything else. Yes, it is a bit more remarkable in regards to the unusual way it effects things, but surely there are causes that currently elude human perception, and nothing more. And how the mysteriousness of gravity and electromagnetism relates to consciousness I have no idea, aside from it being hard to scientifically model, that's about the only similarity I see.
Myself, I do not subscribe to the idea that any effects in nature, whether it's consciousness, or something as simple as a seed sprouting or rain falling is the result of boundaries colliding with other boundaries. If that's the issue Chomsky is trying to tackle, then I can sympathize at least with his efforts, as there is indeed no Descartian mechanistic materialism.
"There is no such thing as the mind-body problem. For there to be a mind-body problem, there has to be some characterization of body, and Newton eliminated the last conception of body anybody had. Newton is supposedly the progenitor of the mechanistic, materialist worldview that gave rise to the mind-body problem. But Newton's own theory on gravity, which showed that objects can influence each other in non mechanistic way, actually shattered the materialist worldview. Materialism presupposes that the world consists of objects that interact through direct contact with each other. But Newton, by discovering gravity - action at a distance - showed that materialism doesn't work even for phenomenon as simple as a ball rolling down a plane. The world consists not of material objects influencing each other through direct contact but rather, consists of immaterial properties. These properties include gravity, electromagnetism and yes consciousness. It's an interesting element of the history of human irrationality, that people continue to talk about the mind-body problem.
This snipet was from an interview with Chomsky by Journalist John Horgan. It's from his book "undiscovered mind", on pg. 248.
Horgan, on Chapter 8 (titled: the consciousness conundrum), introduces various scientists and philosophers who believe consciousness can be explained mechanistically. He then contrasts those thinkers with those who believe consciousness will never be entirely explained and will always be a mystery. Horgan, borrowing from Owen Flanagan who coined the term, calls these people "mysterians". Chomsky, according to Horgan, is a mysterian. Horgan writes:
In defending their position, mysterians often borrow a line of reasoning from Chomsky. The MIT linguist has distinguished between problems, which seem solvable at least in principle through conventional scientific methods, and mysteries, which seem insoluble even in principle. Chomsky noted that all organisms have certain capacities and limitations that result from their particular biology. Thus, a rat might learn how to navigate a maze that requires it to turn right at every juncture or to alternate between right and left; but no rat will ever learn to navigate a maze that requires it to turn left a every juncture corresponding to the prime numbers. That talent exceeds it's cognitive capabilities. In the same way, certain problems addressed by science may lie forever beyond our capacity for understanding. These are mysteries, now and possibly forever. Chomsky has implied in various writings that he considers consciousness, free will and other aspects of the mind to be mysteries. Yet in a conversation with me, Chomsky once took issue with a fundamental tenet of the mysterian position. "There is no such thing as the mind-body problem. For there to be a mind-body problem, there has to be some characterization of body, and Newton eliminated the last conception of body anybody had. Newton is supposedly the progenitor of the mechanistic, materialist worldview that gave rise to the mind-body problem. But Newton's own theory on gravity, which showed that objects can influence each other in non mechanistic way, actually shattered the materialist worldview. Materialism presupposes that the world consists of objects that interact through direct contact with each other. But Newton, by discovering gravity - action at a distance - showed that materialism doesn't work even for phenomenon as simple as a ball rolling down a plane. The world consists not of material objects influencing each other through direct contact but rather, consists of immaterial properties. These properties include gravity, electromagnetism and yes consciousness. It's an interesting element of the history of human irrationality, that people continue to talk about the mind-body problem." Chomsky added, "I should say i haven't convinced a lot of people".
Horgan continues later in the chapter:
Mysterianism is becoming a mainstream position. Among those who have publicly embraced mysterianism is Steven Pinker. At the end of "How the Mind Works", which otherwise epitomizes scientific triumphalism, Pinker concluded that consciousness, free will, the self and other riddles posed by the mind are probably unsolvable.
"Our minds evolved by natural selection to solve problems that were life and death matters to our ancestors, not to commune with correctness or to answer any question we are capable of asking. We cannot hold ten thousand words in short term memory. We cannot see in ultraviolet light. We cannot mentally rotate an object in the fourth dimension. And perhaps we cannot solve conundrums like free will and sentience" - SP
First of all, I really recommend all of Horgan's books. Undiscovered Mind, Rational Mysticism, and End of Science are all fascinating. He's, for the most part, good at not imposing his own views and politics, letting all of the best and brightest minds he gets to interview share their skepticism and enthusiasm, which Horgan then compares and analyzes, he's a good journalist, very irreverent and provocative. Entertaining reading.
Secondly, It's really hard to know what to make of Chomsky here. He has a confused way of debunking mechanistic materialism, I would not limit myself to just gravity and electromagnetism as he does, but focus on the very nature of causality itself, as it erodes the notion that action happens through collision of one material boundary against another.
As for gravity, I don't see why it should be any more mysterious than anything else. Yes, it is a bit more remarkable in regards to the unusual way it effects things, but surely there are causes that currently elude human perception, and nothing more. And how the mysteriousness of gravity and electromagnetism relates to consciousness I have no idea, aside from it being hard to scientifically model, that's about the only similarity I see.
Myself, I do not subscribe to the idea that any effects in nature, whether it's consciousness, or something as simple as a seed sprouting or rain falling is the result of boundaries colliding with other boundaries. If that's the issue Chomsky is trying to tackle, then I can sympathize at least with his efforts, as there is indeed no Descartian mechanistic materialism.