Philosophy of Mind

Most scientists would have their readers think they arrived at their conclusion via the well trodden scientific method. After a period spent carefully studying previous theories and performing experiments, they arrived at a set of conclusions that were forced into the open by the facts themselves. That account is almost always wrong. That’s not how human minds work, and it isn’t how science works. In reality, there is a near instantaneous leap from observation to explanation, which comes without effort. When presented with a fact or observation, a person cannot help but come up with an explanation. The thought may seem silly to its thinker, and so she’ll insist that her mind is still sifting through the facts, still mentally testing various hypotheses. And indeed the difference between the mentally agile and slow may be the ability to rapidly alternate between explanations in the way a painter can mentally substitute different colors before choosing the most appropriate. But it is impossible to reign in the brains ability to complete the pattern and issue a verdict before all the facts are in. Our brains cannot help but jump to conclusions.

So when examining the theories of the mind held by other philosophers, it is impossible to subtract out all I believe about how the mind works and see it from another perspective. My beliefs could be wrong. But the only way I can discover that is if I, during a formal construction of my beliefs, find a flaw in my logic, or if someone with similar thoughts can find a flaw. My goal is to understand how the mind works and its relation to the world. I intend to do this by studying the beliefs of others, analyzing their arguments, and deciding which to reject and which to accept. I don’t have formal training in logic or philosophy, so my criteria for rejection or acceptance might reside more with my intuition than with some abstract, objective rulebook outside of myself. Perhaps the study of the mind will formalize my criteria.

I will justify my beliefs as I go, but first let me state them as precisely as I can without yet having acquired the philosophic vernacular. As far as I know, I am a materialist. I believe the brain is composed of neurons which operate by physical principles, many of which are well understood. I believe that neurons are connected to each other in a very particular way that somehow gives rise to my mental experiences. My consciousness, my self-awareness, my perception of self is created by the operation of these neurons firing. I believe that not every network gives rise to a mind, but in the subset of networks that do, the mind is a product of as yet not understood physical processes in the same way that a magnetic field is caused by current through a loop of wire.

I am starting my journey into the mind as a neuroscientist who knows a fair bit about the physical underpinnings of the brain, or at least some significant fraction of all science knows to date. I’m hopeful that as I study the theories from the philosophy of mind, I will getting closer to the truths I was seeking when I opened my first neuroscience textbook as an undergraduate. How is it possible that in a world made up of energy and matter which totally obeys physical laws that I, a physical being, am able to reflect back on myself and the world? Why do the collection of neurons which give rise to me feel a particular way and think a particular way? What properties of my mind make me different from a dog or a fish? I believe in the application of reason to answer these questions, and that’s what I intend to do.