Q&A: Functionalism
Functionalism
Question
Hello and blessings. A claim that came up in a course I took in philosophy of mind says the following:
A network of particles in physics creates an electromagnetic energy field (a byproduct of the particle network). If so, why can’t we say about a functional network, such as the human functional network, that it is entirely derived from matter, and that its byproducts are various qualia? The experience of pain, the experience of seeing red, and so on.
The claim is meant to deny the Chinese brain argument (of Ned Block), but accepting it would constitute strong evidence in a materialist direction.
I’m looking at the claim and it doesn’t seem intuitive to me, because there is something intrinsic in the experience of pain, and intuitively it doesn’t seem similar to an electromagnetic field created by a network of particles. But my question is whether you have a more well-founded answer that would explain why it is not the same thing?
Thank you in advance.
Answer
This is what is called emergence, a very common view nowadays. In my book I explained why this is not plausible. The electromagnetic field is not a result of a network of particles. Every individual particle has a field. So this is really not a successful example of emergence. Second, because of this argument would you say that the electromagnetic field does not exist and there are only particles? After all, the materialists argue that there is no soul, only a body. One could present a more moderate claim, epiphenomenalism, namely that the soul is a product of the body. To that, the analogy is perhaps a bit more similar, though still unrelated to a network of particles (what does that even mean?). It’s a shame philosophers don’t bother to learn a little physics before using it.
It’s hard to elaborate here, but in my book I explained why this is not plausible. I would add that such a picture of course does not allow for choice, so if you assume there is free choice, then this is out of the question.
Discussion on Answer
There are circumstances within which we act, and they are not in our hands. They are determined by external conditions (environment, upbringing, society, parents) and by our innate and acquired internal structures. Within all this mess we have the ability to choose—between different options. The circumstances influence our choice, but do not determine it. You can see about this, for example, in my article on choice:
Thank you very much. So as not to open another thread, let me ask one more question here, if I may:
If I start from the assumption that there is such a thing as free choice, is there any other mental component that is not deterministically influenced by the environment (internal and external)? In your view, does the brain determine everything except choice? Sadness, joy, hope, wondering, and so on—do we have no control at all over these things? And if so (and even if not), what essence do they have in our spiritual/personal lives? That is, what is their deeper meaning in your view? (Just as the meaning of choice is roughly everything, because without it our existence here would have no meaning, and according to other statements creation itself would not exist.)
And perhaps another interesting question—interactionist dualism claims that there is interaction between matter and the spiritual soul, but that connection (as it is presented in discussions about what neuroscience has discovered) is not accidental and is even causal. My second question (which is somewhat connected to the first) is: what causes what? After all, there has to be some initial thing that is caused, and it begins that chain. Can that thing be mental-spiritual (other than choice)? And if the claim is that it is physical, then where did that physical thing begin from (for example, physical activity inside a neuron that starts a chain)? I hope I managed to explain myself. Thanks in advance!