The Supervenience of The Mind and The Human Zombie (Part 3)

To further extend my analogy of a computer, let us consider the nature of the data present both in a computer and in a human being as it relates to anomalies of nature, such as genetic mutations (an individual with Down Syndrome for instance). A question to ask is, "How can we account for such anomalies when we consider the nature of human beings as we perceive them a priori?" It would seem that an overwhelming majority of individuals who were asked to describe a human being would not, at least initially, describe the figure of an individual with Down Syndrome (or any other chromosomal anomaly). The a priori judgment that individuals with chromosomal anomalies do not initially fit our perception of a human being, in part due to their significant minority in comparison to the rest of the world, seems like a fair observation.

In a broad sense, it would seem that every being is composed of data, though at different levels. We frequently are caught up in examining the difference between humans and other non-humans, in terms of thought processes and instinct; though all beings exist in a hierarchical system (as dictated by evolution), and are by nature encoded to act and function in such a way. We can consider Social Dominance Theory to further examine and understand the nature of this system.

"Social Dominance Theory begins with the basic observation that all human societies tend to be structured as systems of group-based social hierarchies. At the very minimum, this hierarchical social structure consists of one or a small number of dominant and hegemonic groups at the top and one or a number of subordinate groups at the bottom (Sidanius, 31)."

While the theory pertains primarily to human social constructs, it is easy to imagine this concept being adapted in such a way that we may examine alternative species in relative comparison to our own. Perhaps most relevant to discussion of the similarities between human beings and lesser animals is an issue of how violence plays a vital role in the formation of beliefs, group structures, and hierarchy in general.

"Systematic terror (the use of violence or threats of violence disproportionately directed against subordinates) functions to maintain expropriative relationships between dominants and subordinates and enforce the continued deference of subordinates toward dominants (Sidanius, 41)."

As one may examine, there is little difference (as observations can tell us) between human beings and animals in terms of how power and control is kept. Though, it may be obvious that humans have adapted in such a way that "systematic terror" may be subtler; it still exists and is frequently used in one form or another. The very nature of the police department, for example, is in part to invoke fear into otherwise animalistic and anarchist human beings so they do not act out in morally and ethically apprehensible ways. The importance of understanding social dominance and hierarchy is to allow a realization that the similarities between humans and lesser animals are undeniably close when one removes the idea that humans are "superior" (in that, their actions differ due to "mental" attributes).

In direct relation to chromosomal "anomalies" as discussed earlier, it would appear that, given the nature of the hierarchical system we exist within, any "anomaly" in this system is not truly an anomaly (though it may appear to be at first glance); but simply encoded into the nature of the system in such a way that it is merely a minority. It would appear that, over time, all anomalies would simply come to be viewed as minorities as they find a place in new or adapted physical theories.

Throughout the ages of scientific exploration, human beings are only now beginning to understand the nature of the body; though, in ways that our ancestors may have never been able to dream of or even fantasize about in their imaginations. As time continues, the nature of the physical body is slowly explaining the nature of the "mind" as it has been viewed for millennia. As science furthers the exploration of microbial cells and neurological systems, human beings will be able to make more and more rational judgments regarding why particular sensations are occurring and how elements of our nature function.

To utilize a relatively extreme example, one may consider hallucinogenic drugs and how some individuals claim to have "spiritual" mental experiences. For example, in a study done on the effects of Psilocybin; results were found that Psilocybin "produced a range of acute perceptual changes, subjective experiences, and labile moods including anxiety. Psilocybin also increased measures of mystical experience. At 2 months, the volunteers rated the psilocybin experience as having substantial personal meaning and spiritual significance and attributed to the experience sustained positive changes in attitudes and behavior consisted with changes rated by community observers (Griffins, et al., 1)." By studying science and psychology, one may be able to draw a conclusion that there are simply chemical alterations occurring within the brain (as well as throughout the entire body as a whole).

"Hallucinogenic drugs cause both physical and psychological effects on humans. The physical effects of these drugs include: dilated pupils, elevated body temperature, increased heart rate and blood pressure, appetite loss, sleeplessness, tremors, headaches, nausea, sweating, heart palpitations, blurring of vision, memory loss, trembling, and itching. A user of hallucinogenic drugs will also experience a number of psychological alterations in the brain. These drugs may cause hallucinations and illusions as well, as the amplification of sense, and the alterations of thinking and self-awareness (Ebbitt)."

The sensory perception of being out of the body or flying is simply an interaction between physical chemicals and functional mental states, and is therefore an altered physical state. For the many whom cling to conceptions of the supernatural, a materialistic atheist would simply right those experiences off as a delusion.

The mind is constructed through physical processes (as it is in itself an alternative physical state [mental]. When one examines the functionalist theory of the mind, there are many qualities that appear to be accurate a priori. For example, it is reasonable to believe that most rational individuals would, in the least, believe in mental states. This does not force a belief in dualism (or minimally, a strict dualism) as there are no two substances (physical and mental). The fundamental flaw with functionalism is that, as a theory, it seemingly plays it safe by only acknowledging the reality of what most people would agree with. Due to this, the functionalist theory allows too much room for sensible opposition; and as far as my argument for materialism is concerned, allows too much room for an opposing dualist to then insist on two separate substances because there are two different states (mental and physical).

Materialism appears to be the most concise evaluation of the mental and physical, though often it is viewed in such a way that mental states do not exist at all. It would appear to me that the best solution to this dilemma is merging some functionalist ideas with materialism. Functionalists would say that "mental states are functional states." As a materialist, I am pressed to further this logical thought process. Mental states are functional states, and functional states are physical states.

To examine this in a logical equation, it would be as follows:

Mental states (A) are Functional states (B), and Functional states (B) are Physical states (C); therefore Mental states (A) are Physical states (C).

The supervenience of mental states on physical substances appears to be a very logical conclusion to draw, though it may be a matter of sheer linguistics and a common public misconception (the fallacy of argumentum ad populum: "the appeal to the masses") that we perceive the mind as being much more than dependent on physical material.

For those who missed the first two installments of this article series, check out the following links:

The Supervenience of The Mind and The Human Zombie (Part 1)

and

The Supervenience of The Mind and The Human Zombie (Part 2)

Hopefully you enjoyed this rather long article series on the supervenience of the mind and the human zombie. I understand it is a rather complex topic on the whole, so if you have any questions or see any problems with my line of thinking, please feel free to leave a comment and let me know below!

The Supervenience of The Mind and The Human Zombie (Part 2)

To further begin my argument for materialism (and by extension, an atheistic worldview), I will be analyzing the nature of zombies as human beings perceive them through our rampant imaginations in films, comic books, mythic lore, and popular culture. In David Chalmers' article, "Can Consciousness Be Reductively Explained", he argues that there is a logical possibility that zombies could exist; as they are essentially like "lesser" and "unconscious" animals; however they have the same physical form as a human being.

"He (the zombie) is physically identical to me, and we may as well suppose that he is embedded in an identical environment. He will certainly be identical to me functionally: he will be processing the same sort of information, reacting in a similar way to inputs, with his internal configurations being modified appropriately and with indistinguishable behavior resulting. He will psychologically be identical to me. He will even be "conscious" in the functional senses described earlier - he will be awake, able to report the contents of his internal states, able to focus attention in various places, and so on. It is just that none of this functioning will be accompanied by any real conscious experience. There will be no phenomenal feel. There is nothing it is like to be a zombie." - David Chalmers

The fear often associated with zombies in movies and other artistic mediums tend to stem from the fact that, if zombies would come to exist; it would make the most sense that they would spawn from our own species (the human being). The fear that some sort of plague or nuclear fallout would give rise to an enemy so familiar, but yet so different and terrifying is very sensible; and perhaps is a valid reason to examine zombies in a philosophical manner. Popular culture and movies have, specifically, engrained our minds with almost tangible images of zombies; often extremely mutilated and gored, though physically very similar to human beings. While Hollywood and many other outlets have primarily portrayed zombies as, essentially, blood-thirsty, mythological monsters; Chalmers has envisioned what one may deem a "functional" zombie. A being that would be capable of coexisting with humans (instead of attempting to murder and eat them). To further, and perhaps leave, his point; I am interested in the nature of a zombie (a strictly physical being with no mental states or substances) in comparison to a human being (a strictly physical being with mental states). For all intents and purposes, zombies and human beings are one in the same; except when we examine the supervenience of the mind on the body that is special to human beings. Despite this relatively minor difference, the similarities between a human and a zombie are undeniable.

My argument for materialism is then dependent on attempting to logically conclude that a human being and a zombie (both as described above) are equal, despite what I would deem a superficial difference (a supervenient mind). For the sake of my argument, I will give an example where I will describe two different human beings. As one can observe in day-to-day life, the human species is very diverse in that each individual has numerous differences on multiple levels (from skin tone to genetic make-up). It would appear that these physical qualities are superficial when one is asked to describe the appearance and overall nature of a human being. For example, if two men are sitting in a room; one is African and the other a Caucasian, would we view each individual as separate species? Or in our examination of the men will we seemingly ignore the significant difference between the two: skin color. It would appear that skin color (as well as most other features of a human being) is also superficial, and what would define a being as a "human" is much more broad (perhaps, a general body shape like the Vitruvian Man by Leonardo Da Vinci, bone structure as a fundamentally observable foundation, or even a specific neurological framework). Assuming features of the body are superficial, and therefore are strictly dependent on other aspects of the body (there is no skin color without a bone structure, for instance); it would appear that a dependent mind would be equally superficial if it is exclusively dependent on a physical body. Without a mutually exclusive mind substance, mind states logically must depend on the physical body in the same way observable features (such as skin tone) are. If this is truly the case, then mental states appear to be nothing more than an anomaly, perhaps developed through evolutionary means. To reexamine the zombie and the human being explained earlier, a zombie and a human both appear to be equal to one another; despite the human beings' mental states. This is due to "mental" states equaling physical states (identity theory). Logically, my argument would be as follows:

If mental states (A) equal physical states (B), then strictly physical zombies (B) must equal humans with mental states (AB). To further this logic by removing the variable "mental states", since I have concluded that mental states equal physical states, then: physical states (A) contain both zombies (B) and human beings (C).

Upon reaching this rather general conclusion, I feel it is important to backtrack and consider qualia (subjective experience) as it is a vital element that is frequently debated when considering the nature of the mind, and for those engaged in folk psychological thought processes, an element that may define one's "soul" in the afterlife. In truth, as far as my argument is concerned, subjective feels are of no significant value in similar fashion as mental states are of no significant value. It would appear that every "subjective" experience is simply programmed by nature. For example, I subjectively experience eating a piece of pie. I am able to utilize my physical senses, such as taste and smell, while I do this. The qualities of my personal experience eating the pie are merely sensory inputs, which I then am able to perceive and distinguish between. While there is subjective experience, it is limited to physical constructs (and perhaps mental states, though one could argue that beings with no mental states, such as a zombie or a dog, still may have subjective experiences; in that their experiences are different relative to another beings).

For a more in depth example of qualia as it fits into a functional materialistic view, consider the nature of a computer. It seems that the mind is essentially a compilation of "coding" on which we rely which allows us to function in such a way that appears to be free, yet without being completely free (separate from the physical body). Much like one can not run a video game without a video game console, or HTML code a website without a computer; the human animal may have a mind (a video game, HTML code) but its value and existence is solely dependent on its processor (the body, a video game console, a computer). It would seem that due to these dependency relationships, existence (and by extension, any other concept that requires a conscious, existent being to exist, such as freedom, beauty, and national pride) is very linear due to one being (or part of a being) needing to exist prior to another is even capable of existing. In strictly physical terms, one can examine the process of conception. I did not exist prior to being conceived by my parents, nor does my potential future son exist at the present time (even if he may come into existence in the future). Mental states exist in the same way. No one was developing video games for the Playstation 3 until the Playstation 3 (hardware) was developed. HTML coding was not being used until computers were invented, and any concept of HTML code was non-existent until computers were created. In a more broad sense, as it relates to the mind and body, the mind only comes into existence after the physical body is created.

For those who missed it, here is the first part of this article series: The Supervenience of The Mind and The Human Zombie (Part 1)

The final part can be viewed here: The Supervenience of The Mind and The Human Zombie (Part 3)

The Supervenience of The Mind and The Human Zombie (Part 1)

PHOTO CREDIT: Fotopedia

Questions regarding the mind and the body have plagued humanity for as long as we could think, and more so as we evolved in such a way that has allowed us to read, write, and share our thoughts with one another. The question of why we exist (if for any reason at all), and what this existence exactly is has always been an important question; and human beings (in all of our superiority in the hierarchy of animals) still lack the ability to give a concise answer. Countless theories have been thrown around, however it would appear (by mere speculation) that many individuals adhere to "mainstream" philosophical theories; whether they be theories provided in social settings (through the church, for example) or through other social means (hearing someone talk about being an atheist on television). While there are some redeeming qualities of this "sheep-like" mentality, such as the opportunity to engage in a social environment or simply have something in common with others who adhere to a particular religion or non-religion; as individuals tend to lose ourselves if we do not examine our own beliefs more closely. I am in most respects very critical of my own thought processes, and therefore will be writing this article with the intent to structure my belief in what I deem functional materialism. I will begin by examining the nature of supervenience, the mind as it has been conceived in modern times, similarities and differences between zombies and human beings, strict materialism, and finally functional materialism. Supervenience is perhaps one of the most interesting concepts I have come across in all of my philosophical studies. In mainstream views, the "mind" is not typically viewed as anything less than existing on its own (or plainly, not existing at all). For example, in most mainstream Christian churches; it is taught that the mind is the soul; and that soul will continue to live even after death of the physical body. The cultural requirement of viewing the physical and potentially non-physical as two separate entities seems to exist, albeit with a graceful subtlety. This is a dualistic way of thinking which dates back to very early philosophers and thinkers like Renee Descartes and Socrates (and even further back before them).

Supervenience, however, indicates that there may be a dependency relationship between the mind and body. In layman's terms, there is an area of grey amidst the extreme ends of the black and white dichotomous spectrum. While this may, at least in theory, go either way (the mind supervenes on the body, the body supervenes on the mind) the former is typically the most examined concept due to the qualities of the physical being more tangible than those that make up the mind. In short, most people are more willing to accept that the physical realm exists in comparison to a notion of the mind which requires metaphysical analysis. Some people consider themselves to be solipsists, who believe that we cannot even know that the physical world exists. I will not be addressing these individuals in this article, as I feel their viewpoint on the world creates an outlook that cannot even be discussed because we utilize the physical world when we speak, write, and so forth. If you doubt the mere existence of the physical words on your screen, then you cannot hold a valid conversation on anything really.

Anyways, in the case of this article, any reference to supervenience will be referring exclusively to the mind supervening on the body unless otherwise noted. The dependency relationship present in this form of supervenience would be that of mental events requiring physical substances and causing physical events. There is no mutually exclusive mental substance.

In the same way that there can be multiple forms of supervenience, there can also be multiple different ways of perceiving the mind. One of the most important factors I consider when I examine the nature of the mind is its fallibility. If the mind is a substance and exists in an alternative plane of existence (though is still present in our physical world), I would fathom that human beings should be capable of one hundred percent accuracy as far as what the nature of this "mind-world" is like. It seems fairly illogical to believe in a mind substance, though not understand, in the least, the general nature of its very existence outside of the physical realm. I am a materialist on the account that I am able to examine the physical realm, and in the least know all there is to know about it on a general, observational level. In comparison, human beings know nothing of the mind except for what can be observed through physical senses. For example, a psychologist may study the mind; however the nature of the mind is tightly connected to the nature of the physical body (even on a neurological level). A majority of modern psychological theories would indicate that there are mental states, however they are dependent on physical states. There is no mind being examined without a patient, nor is their a mind being examined that is separate from a physical being.

There is something it is like to be a physical being. Similarly, there is nothing it is like to be a mind substance.

Furthermore, it is important to examine the mind as it has been perceived throughout the ages in folk psychology. Folk psychology is generally a form of thinking that is viewed as "common-sense" thinking, however this definition is not entirely accurate as the concepts developed through folk psychology are typically those that are easiest to explain and conceptualize; and not necessarily those that hold much weight once further analyzed. Folk psychology may also be viewed as "popular belief" as adherents to folk beliefs are abundant, even in modern day. A very common conception of the mind is that it is a substance that exists mutually exclusively from the body (Cartesian dualism), often in a form typically called the soul (a strictly mental being). In folk psychology, the mind and the soul are typically words that are interchangeable; the former typically invoking a concept of the mind while it is with the body; and the latter expressing a concept of the mind when the physical body dies and only it is left. From this basic concept of the soul, numerous other ideas have been considered; such as concepts of an afterlife (generally, where the mind/soul go after physical death), concepts related to god(s), and even attempts at rationalizing folk psychology by describing the mind as ether (a substance from the heavens). For example, one common concern many individuals tend to have at some point in their life is the nature of the afterlife (if there is one at all). For myself (and countless others), the notion of Hell (as portrayed in the Bible, and depicted through art and literature such as in Dante's Inferno and in Gustave Dore's paintings depicting Hell) is a very frightening concept which begs the question, "If I truly have a soul and am aware of the potential consequences, why am I not following the guidelines for salvation from this damnation?" The questions I have come to pose against this are, "Why can I not know with one hundred percent certainty that this is the true nature of the potential afterlife? Why can I not be fully aware that my mind is a substance that will continue to exist after my body dies?" Inevitably, in depth analysis of each of these concepts alone would require multiple articles to be written (and perhaps I will do this at a later time); however it is important to acknowledge the general public perception of the mind as it is portrayed in the media, in church, in school, and in other social environments.

Read on to the next parts in this article series using the following links:

The Supervenience of the Mind and The Human Zombie Part 2

The Supervenience of the Mind and The Human Zombie Part 3