Functionalism

שו”ת › Category: philosophy › Functionalism

asked 3 years ago

Peace and blessings. An argument that came up in a course I took on the philosophy of mind says the following:
A particle network in physics creates an electromagnetic energy field (a by-product of the particle network). So, why can’t we say about a functional network such as the human functional network that it is entirely derived from matter, whose by-products are different qualia? Being in pain, being in the vision of red, etc.
The claim refutes the China Great Brain argument (by Ned Block), but accepting it would constitute strong evidence for a materialistic direction.
I look at the argument and it doesn’t seem intuitive, because there is something intrinsic about being pain and intuitively it doesn’t seem similar to an electromagnetic field created by a network of particles. But my question is do you have a more grounded answer that explains why it’s not the same thing?
Thank you in advance.

Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Leave a ReplyCancel reply

0 Answers

0 Vote Up Vote Down

מיכי Staff answered 3 years ago

This is what is called emergentism, a very common view today. In my book I explained why this is unlikely. The electromagnetic field is not the result of a network of particles. Every single particle has a field. Therefore, this is really not a successful example of emergentism. Second, would you say because of this argument that the electromagnetic field does not exist, but only particles? After all, materialists claim that there is no soul, only a body. One could present a more moderate argument, epiphenomenalism, that the soul is a product of the body. The analogy is perhaps a little more similar to this, and still without any connection to a network of particles (what is that anyway?). It’s a shame that philosophers don’t bother to learn a little physics before they use it. It’s hard to go into detail here, but in my book I explained why this is unlikely. I would add that such a picture obviously does not allow for choice, so if you assume there is a choice, it’s out of the question.

Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

איתי replied 3 years ago

Thank you very much. In order not to open another thread, I will ask another question here with your permission:
If I assume that there is such a thing as free choice, is there another mental component that is not deterministically influenced by the environment (internal and external)? Does the brain determine everything except choice in your opinion? Sadness, joy, hope, wonder, and more, do we have no control over these things at all? And if so (and even if not) what essence do they have in our spiritual/personal lives, that is, what is their deep meaning according to your eyes? (Just as the meaning of choice is about everything, because without it there would be no meaning to our existence here, and according to other statements, creation would not exist). And perhaps another interesting question - interactionist dualism claims that there is an interaction between matter and the spiritual soul, but this connection (as shown in discussions about what neuroscience has discovered) is not accidental and even causal. My second question (which is somewhat related to the first) is what causes what? After all, there must be something initial that is caused and that starts this chain. Can this something be spiritual or mental (except by choice)? And if the claim is that it is physical, then where did the physical thing start (for example, physical activity within a neuron that starts a chain)? I hope I was able to explain myself, thanks in advance!

מיכי Staff replied 3 years ago

There are circumstances within which we operate that are not in our hands. They are determined by external conditions (environment, habitat, parental society) and by our innate and acquired structures within. In all this mess, we have the option of choosing. Between different options. Circumstances influence our choice and do not determine it. You can see this, for example, in my article on choice:
https://mikyab.net/%D7%9B%D7%AA%D7%91%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%9E%D7%90%D7%9E%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%9E%D7%91%D7%98-%D7%A9%D7%99%D7%98%D7%AA%D7%99-%D7%A2%D7%9C-%D7%97%D7%95%D7%A4%D7%A9-%D7%94%D7%A8%D7%A6%D7%95%D7%9F
Our emotions are also a product of circumstances, but we have the ability to influence them, of course. Although in my opinion, despite this, emotions have no importance in a moral sense. I have written about this quite a bit here on the site. Search for feelings.
As far as I understand, every act of choice begins with the mind and not with physics/the body. Physics is deterministic. After the beginning there is a causal chain in the body. See my articles above.