The Mind-Body Problem

Introduction to Cognitive Science

 What is the ‘Mind’?
• One reason why cognitive science is such a
young science, is that its subject matter, the
mind, is so ill-defined.
• This is rather strange, as there is almost nothing
that we are so intimately familiar with as our
mind.
• But the problem is that you would be hard-
pressed to say what that mind actually is:
– Where do you point to when asked to show your
mind?
– What would you place under the microscope or on the
dissection table when you are asked to study the
mind?
 What is the Mind-Body
Connection?
• Our body and mind seem to be intimately
connected:
– When I hit your foot with hammer, you will feel pain.
– When you decide to raise your hand, you do it
• But what exactly is this connection between our
body and mind? Why is there such a
connection? How does it work?
– Is the mind part of our body? Is it simply our brain?
• We know that changes in our brain result in changes to our mind.
• But does that really make them the same? It certainly seems very
strange to say that our mind weighs 3 pounds (like our brain does)!
– Or is our mind the way our body behaves?
• We often judge that someone has certain mental abilities (and
hence has a mind) by their behavior.
• But does that make them the same? Most of us think that behavior
is a result of our mind, not part of it!
 The Problem of Other Minds
• The difficulty in trying to figure out what
the mind is, is nicely illustrated by the
Problem of Other Minds:
– You know that you yourself have a mind in
that you have direct access to your own mind.
You are aware of your thoughts, perceptions,
emotions, etc.
– However, does anyone else have a mind? Do
animals have minds? Machines? How can
you tell? It seems like you don’t (indeed,
can’t!) have any access to their minds like you
have to your own.
– Indeed, can you be sure they even have
minds? This is the Problem of Other Minds.
 Judging Other Minds
• Observing cognitive agents other than ourselves
seems to only provide indirect evidence of a
mind
– For example, suppose that I ask you a question, and I
get a (somewhat intelligent) response from you. Now,
I may well infer from that that you have a mind. But,
notice that the reason I make this inference is
because I know that I have a mind, and that, in using
my mind, I would answer the question in a way similar
to your answer. So, I suspect that you went through a
similar process that I would go through, i.e. that you
are using your mind (and thus you have one). But
again, I never got any direct glimpse of your mind.
Indeed, maybe you answered the question without
using any mind at all (e.g. maybe you were just
‘hardcoded’ or ‘hardwired’ to give that response).
 Anthropomorphism
• This is also what makes it so hard for us to
attribute minds to things other than human
(other animals, machines, etc)
– If I see something that doesn’t behave or respond in
ways I (or humans in general) behave, then we can’t
explain that by attributing an underlying mind like
ours, and since I know of no other minds, I may well
declare that this entity has no mind at all.
– Or, based on certain responses I may declare it to
have certain mental states that it doesn’t have at all
– In sum, the fact that we can’t observe someone or
something else’s mental states directly, means that
we almost by necessity have to anthropomorphize,
which most likely leads to misattribution of mental
states or mental capacities.
– Hopefully, a mature cognitive science will correct this!
 Descartes’ Skepticism
• The French mathematician/philosopher Rene
Descartes continued this line of thinking (i.e. of
not being sure of what really exists) even further.
• According to Descartes, it is possible that
nothing that I observe (such as my body, or
anything else physical for that matter!) actually
exists:
– I could be dreaming
– I could be deceived by a perceptual illusion
– I could be in the Matrix 
– There could be an “Evil Genius”, who is putting
thoughts and observations about things into my mind
that have no actual counterpart in the real world.
 Cogito Ergo Sum
• However, even the Evil Genius cannot deceive
me that I have certain thoughts:
– Yes, I can be wrong about there being a hand in front
of me:
• I think there is a hand
• … But there is no hand
• … no contradiction there
– However, I can’t be wrong about having thoughts:
• I think I have thoughts
• … But I have no thoughts
• … but wait: if I think I have thoughts, I do have a thought!
• Cogito Ergo Sum! I think, therefore I exist!
• What is the ‘I’?
– A thinking entity: a mind!
 Idealism
• Inspired by Descartes’ line of thought, Idealism
is the view that the mind is in fact all that exists,
and that the whole physical world we perceive to
be around us is just a construction of our mind.
• In fact, Solipsists believe that only their own
mind exists!
• Idealism and Solipsism are kinds of Monism,
which states that there is only one kind of
substance in the world. In the case of Idealism
and Solipsism, that one substance is something
non-physical.
 Cartesian (Interactive) Dualism
• Descartes himself did not believe that his mind is the
only thing that exists. In fact, he argued that there are
physical things (such as his body) besides his mind.
• So, Descartes thought that there must be two distinct
kinds of entities in the universe: physical ones, such as
our body, and non-physical ones, such as our mind. This
view on the world is called Dualism.
• Moreover, the clear connection between our body (brain)
and mind led Descartes to conclude that while the mind
and the body are completely distinct entities, the two do
somehow communicate, probably through the brain. This
elaboration on Dualism is called Interactive (Cartesian)
Dualism.
Descartes’ Argument for Dualism

– I am certain that my mind exists

– I am not certain that my body exists

• (or any part thereof, or anything else physical)

– Therefore, my mind is not the same as my body

• (or any part thereof, or anything else physical)
 Problem with
Descartes’ Argument
• The following argument seems to use the
same logic, but is clearly invalid:

– I am certain that Professor Bram is the

instructor for Introduction to Cognitive Science
– I am not certain that the 2011 winner of
Dancing with the RPI Stars is the instructor for
Introduction to Cognitive Science
– Therefore, Professor Bram is not the 2011
winner of Dancing with the RPI Stars
 Intuitive Argument for Dualism
• OK, so maybe the mind is just physical …
but it certainly doesn’t seem like it is!
• Physical stuff:
– Takes up space
– Has mass
– Is ‘manipulable’ (it can be touched, kicked,
painted, observed, etc)
• Our mind doesn’t seem to be like that at
all!
 Intuitive Appeal of Dualism
• Throughout history many (if not most) people
have believed in Dualism, probably based on the
Intuitive Argument.
• In fact, even now, many people believe in
Dualism, and make a fundamental distinction
between mind and body:
– When asked who or what we are, people will usually
respond that we are (or have) a mind as well as a
body
– Many people also believe that the mind can survive
the death of the body
– Indeed, many people see the mind as some kind of
‘soul’ or ‘spirit’ that inhabits and controls the body (the
‘ghost in the machine’, or the ‘captain of the ship’).
 The Free Will Argument
for Dualism
• This last idea translates into a common
argument for dualism:
– If we are just purely physical objects, subject
to the laws of physics, then everything we do
is already determined by these laws.
– But, we can make decisions, we can make
choices: we have free will!
– Therefore, we are not purely physical objects
 Classical Dualism
• Moreover, many people see a kind of ‘priority’ to
the mind. Again, the mind is what controls the
body, and the mind is what is ‘running the show’.
– Indeed, the mind is often thought to be able to survive
the death of the body, but not vice versa
• Consequently, Classical Dualism sees the
connection between mind and body more of a
one-way street: the mind tells the body what to
do, not vice versa
– This view follows the thousands of years old
‘animistic’ views on the universe
– (the fact that I feel pain when my body gets hit is
merely because I choose to feel pain; I could choose
not to feel pain, and many people claim to have that
kind of power of ‘mind over body’).
 Materialism
• In more modern times, and influenced by the
worldview that modern science provides us with,
more and more people believe that the mind is
simply part of the physical universe.
• This view is called Materialism (or Physicalism),
and is another kind of Monism, but quite different
from Idealism.
– Monism: there is only one kind of ‘stuff’
– Idealism: there is only ‘mental stuff’
• Physical ‘stuff’ is either an illusion (there is no external
physical world the way we think there is), or an abstract
description of my mental experiences
– Materialism: there is only ‘physical stuff’
• Mental ‘stuff’ is either an illusion, or the product of physical
stuff (e.g. an abstraction, or combination, of physical stuff)
 Materialism vs Dualism:
Science vs Religion?
• Materialists and Dualists have been fighting
hard.
• During this fight, I often hear students make the
following argument:
– “Dualism is old and pre-scientific. In fact, most
dualists are religious people who still believe in souls
and spirits. Materialism is new and scientific, and is
free from any religious thinking. Therefore, dualism is
false and materialism is true.”
• Please don’t do this!! You’re making cheap ad
hominems and circumstantial reasoning. Do not
frame this debate as a “religion vs science” fight!
 Some Arguments for Materialism
• The Neural Dependency Argument

• The Science-Has-Shown-Everything-Else-To-
Be-Physical Argument
– Ockham’s Razor Argument
– Physical Closure Argument
– Conservation of Energy Argument

• The Biological History Argument

– Earth’s History
– Personal History
The Neural Dependency Argument
• The existence of our mind, and its nature, seems
to be a direct function of the nature of our brain.
– Physical changes (damage, direct stimulation) to the
brain result in changes in the mind
– Chemical changes (e.g. drugs) have effect on our
mental states
• The best explanation of this fact is that our mind
is simply a product of the brain; the logical result
of what the brain is doing.
 Minds without Brains?
• What about Out-of-Body Experiences?
– Materialists say that Out-of-body experiences
are just that: experiences, produced by the
brain, that can be explained by science
without having to postulate any kind of soul or
spirit that somehow leaves the body
– In fact, if the mind and body really are distinct,
wouldn’t such experiences be common-
place? Why would the mind leave the body
only under physically traumatic
circumstances?
• We have never found any clear evidence
of the possibility of there being a mind
without a brain.
 Dualist Defense to the
Neural Dependency Argument
• Dualists often reply that the neural dependency
argument is not absolute proof though.
• If the mind and brain are fundamentally distinct
entities, but there is nevertheless a tight
connection (of communication) between them,
then that would also explain why changes to the
brain would result in changes to the mind: you
are simply changing the input to the mind, so of
course the mind will react differently!
 Materialist Reply to the
Dualist Defense
• On that story, wouldn’t changes to the brain
merely effect the sensory input to the mind? So
why couldn’t the mind still have independent
thoughts? That never seems to happen in such
cases. In fact, with serious brain damage, whole
parts of the mind seem to be completely gone!
Why? If the mind is separate from the brain,
shouldn’t the mind still be intact?
• Also, ‘absolute proof’ is never to be found in
science. Science always works by inference to
the best explanation, and the best explanation
seems to be that the mind has a purely physical,
neural, basis.
 The “Everything Else Is Physical”
Argument
• Science seems to show that everything in the universe is
physical, or at least is some kind of abstraction of what
are ultimately physical processes:
– Chemistry seems to reduce to physics: chemical reactions and
properties can be explained by reference to underlying physical
processes.
– Biological processes seem to be purely physical (or chemical,
and thus ultimately still physical) processes as well.
• For a while we thought that living entities would have some kind of
‘entelechy’ or ‘vital spirit’ inside them, as we couldn’t explain the
difference between alive and dead beings. But, as technology and
science progressed, we actually can observe the differences that
would explain why certain things are alive and others are dead.
– Similarly, psychology, and all of cognition will ultimately be
shown to reduce to merely physical processes in the end: the
idea of the mind as a non-physical ‘soul’ or ‘spirit’ will go the way
of the ‘entelechy’: a fantasy that has had its time.
 Ockham’s Razor Argument
• An argument very much related to the ‘everything-else-
has-turned-out-to-be-physical’ argument is the Ockham’s
Razor Argument
• Ockham’s Razor states that when two theories explain
some phenomenon equally well, then the simpler theory
is preferred
– Why is this?
• Sometimes this is simply a matter of simplicity itself: simpler
theories are easier to work with
• Also, simpler theories tend to be more general as well, which means
that it can be used and applied to more cases
• But sometimes, the simpler theory is actually more likely to be true:
sometimes, theories are complex because they have incorporated
certain idiosyncrasies from our data or observations that don’t
generalize to all cases under the intended scope of the theories.
• Since Materialism offers a much ‘simpler’ worldview
(“Everything is physical. Period.”) than Dualism, this
argument goes, Materialism is the preferred theory.
 Problem with the use of Ockham’s
Razor in this Context
• The problem with this argument is that neither
Dualism nor Materialism explains the mind
– Dualism states that the mind is ‘non-physical’. OK, so
it is not physical. But then what is it? Dualism doesn’t
say!
– Materialism states that the mind is physical. OK, but
how so? What is the physical explanation for the
mind? How do physical processes come together to
form a mind? Materialism has (as of yet!), no answer
to this question, so it really doesn’t explain anything
either!
– Ockham’s Razor is really not applicable in this case!
 The Physical Closure Argument
• Science seems to show that the universe is ‘physically
causally closed’, meaning that every physical event is
caused by other physical events alone.
• The reason for this claim is simple: Science has been
very successful in explaining every physical event in
terms of other physical events alone, and hence there is
no need to appeal to, or even postulate the existence of,
non-physical events. Thus, the argument goes, there is
no need to postulate a non-physical mind either.
• Unfortunately, this arguments has one immediate
problem, which is that just because we can explain
physical events by physical events alone, doesn’t mean
that we can explain everything (including the mind) by
physical events alone, unless we already assume that
everything (including the mind) is physical.
 The Conservation of Energy
Argument
• A well known expression of the ‘physical
closure’ claim is the Law of Conservation
of Energy, which can be used in the
following argument: If the mind is non-
physical, interacts with the physical body,
then energy would not be conserved (e.g.
me ‘willing’ to raise my hand would
introduce energy). But, since energy does
get conserved, the mind must not be non-
physical, i.e. it is physical.
 Problem with the Law of
Conservation Argument
• Unfortunately, also this argument has problems:
– First, the dualist can point out that this law has only been
confirmed in situations involving entities that don’t involve any
kind of mind.
– Second, the Law of Conservation of Energy seems to merely be
an expression of the Uniformity of Nature:
• Suppose we ran some kind of experiment, and measured all of the
known forms of energy ‘before’ and ‘after’, and found some
difference. Would we now reject the Law of Conservation of
Energy? No, as long as this difference is systematic (i.e. as long as
nature behaves in a uniform fashion!), we would define a new form
of energy relative to what happens in the experiment and which, we
would postulate, accounts for exactly this difference.
• In other words, given that we define energy in terms of action
potentials, it is no wonder that we find that energy gets conserved!
• But, does the uniformity of nature imply that all of nature is
physical? No. As long as non-physical entities behave in uniform
ways themselves, and interact with physical entities in uniform
ways, we will continue finding that ‘energy gets conserved’. But this
shows nothing about the fundamental nature of the universe!
 Epiphenomenalism
• Still, the Conservation of Energy principle has
some Dualists worried, leading to another form
of Dualism: Epiphenomenalism
• Epiphenomenalists state that the mind is the
result of (i.e. caused by) physical processes, but
that it is causally inert itself. Thus, our conscious
thoughts, experiences, and feelings are like the
‘sparks’ produced by a running ‘machine’ (the
brain): they are produced by the machine, but
have no effect on the functioning of the machine.
 Non-Interactionist Dualism
• The idea that the mind does not interact with the body
actually precedes Epiphenomenalism.
• This is because conceptually, how could something non-
physical even interact with something physical in the first
place?!?
– We can intuitively conceive of how two physical entities would
interact: they both occupy some part of space, and since no two
physical objects can occupy the same part of space, these
entities can collide when moving through space, and thus
interact (the ‘billiard ball’ conception)
– But, Dualists see the mind as something non-physical;
something that does not have an extension in space; a ghost-
like, ethereal ‘substance’. Well, how can that ‘collide’ with
something physical? (see the movie ‘Ghost’ for a nice depiction
of this kind of thinking. Also: what was Descartes’ answer?)
• Thus, some Dualists not only proposed that the
mind and body are completely distinct, but that they
don’t even interact!
 Parallelism
• The German mathematician/philosopher
Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz explained the
tight connection between the mind and
body as an illusion, brought about by the
‘running in parallel’ of events on the
physical side of the universe and events
on the non-physical side of the universe.
 Positions on the Mind-Body Problem

Monism Dualism

Interactionist Non-Interactionist
Materialism Idealism
Dualism Dualism

Cartesian Classical
Dualism Dualism

Epiphenomenalism