Good Reads: January 22/2016

Alexander Pruss on Perdition
Interesting reflection. Very much paralleling my own (admittedly a bit inchoate) thoughts on the issue.


Mike Flynn on:
The Rise of Science
Whether the Scientific Revolution was Uniquely Western
Modern misleading narratives be damned. Real history is often much more complex than most people realize. And sometimes the facts are outright contrary to the simplistic myths we've been taught. 
Bonus points because the posts are presented in true Scholastic fashion.


Ask the Aged
In the quest for answers about the purpose of life, Karl Pillemer asks: "Why not begin with an activity as old as the human race: asking the advice of the oldest people you know? Because older people have one thing that the rest of us do not: they have lived their lives." Good piece. Check it out.

Intentionality and Materialism

“Tree.”

A word we use to describe a certain set of living organisms with similar qualities. The word “tree” is not itself a tree, obviously – it is merely a bunch of lines organized in a specific way - but it means the concept of “tree” to us (literate users of English). Those lines have no inherent meaning in and of themselves, they only gain this meaning when imbued with it by language users. That particular set of lines, organized in that particular way, comes to “point beyond” itself and to represent a concept. Philosophers call this “pointing beyond” intentionality.

“Δ”

Triangle? Or Delta connected electrical system? A letter in the Greek alphabet? A symbol representing change? This symbol can have any one of those meanings. Once again the fact of the matter is that it has absolutely no meaning in and of itself. just like the word “tree,” or any other physical symbol for that matter, it is not until a language user gives the symbol meaning that it comes to possess meaning, and it only possesses meaning insofar as it is given it by a language user. If every single human being on earth were to die in an orgy of nuclear warfare, symbols like “tree”, “Δ”, “+”, “=”, etc., would be nothing more than meaningless marks or patterns. They would not point beyond themselves toward anything else, because there would be no one doing the “pointing.”

So what? Mildly interesting (maybe) but what difference does this esoteric reflection make? Let’s take it a little further in order to find out.

How is it that a piece of matter (the symbol “tree” on your screen, say) which has no physical connection at all to the reality it points toward (an actual tree) comes to somehow be connected to it? We agree to use that symbol to represent trees, you might say. We have minds, and it is our minds that connect the symbol with the reality, thereby creating meaning where there was none. While true, this only pushes the problem back a stage and relocates it in the mind instead of the physical objects themselves. If, as many modern types would argue, our minds are nothing more than our brains (and therefore nothing more than the electrochemically charged meat inhabiting our skull cavities), then our thoughts must also be part of our brains and therefore be comprised of physical symbols and patterns inhering in a purely material system. Our thoughts would be of a higher-yet “language” or system of symbols. Rather than the electrical patterns that cause the symbols on your computer screen, they would be electrochemical patterns firing in the neural network in your brain. The problem, however, is that these are still physical symbols regardless of where they are located. Whether the pulses and patterns are displayed on a computer monitor, pass through copper wire, or express themselves in a neural network, they are still alike in being material patterns inhering in a physical system. Being physical symbols, they are utterly devoid of meaning until given it by an agent with intentionality. If our minds are purely physical, then they are inherently meaningless – any meaning that we think we create or experience must either be an illusion or it must come from some immaterial source. Those are our two options to end the explanatory regress.

Let’s recap:

1. Physical symbols have no meaning inherent to them.
2. A mind is required to give meaning to otherwise meaningless symbols.
3. The mind is nothing more than a purely material system (the brain) and as a result our thoughts can be nothing more than physical patterns in that purely material system.
4. If our minds and thoughts are purely physical patterns, then they have no meaning in and of themselves.
5. A mind is required to give those physical patterns meaning.
6. Therefore the mind must somehow exist over and above the physical brain, or any purely material system for that matter.

We cannot give a purely material explanation for intentionality, since no material symbol can have a definite meaning in and of itself. We cannot locate meaning in the mind, and then propose that the mind can be explained on purely material terms, without eliminating meaning (and while we are at it, the mind as well. Intentionality is only one example of this problem. Our ability to perform determinate functions is another, and our ability to grasp universals yet another. All of these are crucial aspects of what we call “the mind.”)

As a result some philosophers argue that the mind must be something more than mere matter. I say something more, because the material part of us obviously plays a crucial role. Brain damaged persons display this. The point to emphasize, however, is simply that matter cannot explain the mind by itself. Whatever our understanding of the brain ends up being in the long run, it cannot be identical with the mind as the mind cannot be purely material.

Accepting that the mind is more than just matter is not the only option, as noted above. Some opt to argue instead that meaning is an illusion, and therefore poses no problem for a materialist worldview. Minds are nothing more than matter, they argue, and therefore it is intentionality and meaning that must give way to the truth of materialism. Intentionality (along with grasping universals and performing determinate functions) is eliminated, and therefore so is the mind. In the clash between two incompatibles – materialism and intentionality – it is intentionality that must be jettisoned, not materialism. This is, however (as far as I can tell) a self destructive and mad position. Intentionality is indispensable in any attempt to even formulate the eliminativist position. Eliminating the mind rather than attempting to explain it leaves us without the capacity to reason your way to and formulate your position in the first place.