1996
|
|
The mind-brain problem, which is still with us, raises the question as
to whether the mind is no more than the idle side-effect of our brain processes
or whether the mind can, in some degree, influence behaviour.
Here we rehearse the arguments on both sides plus some desperate recent
attempts to eliminate mind altogether. |
Two positions on the mind-body problem are here compared: Materialism,
which is here taken to mean the thesis that mind plays no part in the determination
of behaviour so that, for all the good it does us, we might just as well
have evolved as insentient automata, and Ineractionism which is here
taken as its contradictory.
It is argued that Materialism is more consonant with scientific knowledge
and practice, Interactionism with common sense and morality, hence which
we favour must depend for the time being on our personal philosophical bias. |
|
|
|
|
My starting point is, in a sense, the reverse of that adopted
by Descartes and, after him, by all the philosophers belonging to the classic
empiricist tradition. They took the view that mind alone, or, at any rate,
the ideas that were regarded as the constituents of mind, could be known
with certainty; matter and material objects, on the contrary, could be known
only indirectly, as the putative causes of our sense-experience or alternatively
as constructs of our physical theories. |
A question that constantly arises is where parapsychology rightly belongs
in the array of the sciences. More particularly, could parapsychology be
subsumed under physics, either as it exists or as it may yet become? |
|
|
|
|
Having in a previous paper given my reasons for doubting whether there
could be a physical explanation for psi, I now argue that, since this disposes
of physicalism the existence of psi, if it does exist, leaves us with no
viable option other than radical dualism. |
|
|
The article begins with a discussion about what might constitute
consciousness in entities other than oneself and the implications of the
mind-brain debate for the possibility of a conscious machine. While referring to
several other facets of the philosophy of mind, the author focuses on
epiphenomenalism and interactionism and presents a critique of the former in
terms of biological evolution. The interactionist argument supports the
relevance of parapsychology to the problem of consciousness and the statistical
technique of meta-analysis is cited in support of this position. |
-
Web design by Bruno Beloff |