Non-Material vs. Material MInd

A purely physical world denies the reality of God; a world that is more than physical opens the door to God's existence. Maybe that's why the discussion has been so unusually fast-paced, regarding whether there is more to our minds than just what is physical. The debate so far has mostly been about whether it's conceivable for a purely material mind to work the way we experience ours to work--the non-material challenge to physicalism. The reverse question was also raised, though: if minds are not material entities, how can they have any effect on the material world? Can we explain that?

It's a fair question. I'm going to take it in steps, starting with the nature of explanation in this case.

We use the word "explanation" in myriad ways, but when we want to get technical with it, we often default to the expectation it will have something to do with physical causation or composition. We might explain photons in terms of electrons' changing energy states--that's physical causation. We might explain an internal combustion engine in terms of valves and pistons and so on--that's composition. When an explanation covers both causation and composition, then we're especially satisfied with it.

The explanation for non-material minds affecting the material world cannot be of that sort. If we say that a belief caused a behavior, by this hypothesis we are specifically saying that the belief is not a physical cause; and obviously we cannot talk about the composition of non-material mind.

So are we going to be able to suggest any meaningful explanations whatever? If by "meaningful" one means explanation in terms of physical cause or composition, then the answer is no, we can't do that. To expect that, though, would be to say, "you must explain your beliefs and your system, Tom, and you must do it only in terms that are true according my belief and my system." I would have to do my explaining in terms of something that is denied by what I'm trying to explain.

So I'm not planning to try that. And I say, what else is new? You don't always rely on those types of explanations, either. Consider how we explain these things:

1. What is a quark?

2. How can electromagnetic radiation be both waves and particles?

3. Why is mathematics so astonishingly fit for describing so much of the universe?

What is a quark? It's one of the fundamental units (probably) of particles like protons and neutrons. But that's more about what it does than what it is. What is its composition? There are, I believe, hints that quarks may be made of more fundamental properties, but as far as I know that has not been confirmed yet. Suppose those hints are wrong, and quarks are the really fundamental particles. In that case, there is no answer to the question. There is no explanation of quarks in terms of their composition. Quarks are just quarks, and that's it. Now, if there are indeed sub-particless to quarks, then we could ask the same question and get the same answer again: there is no explanation in terms of composition. (Sure, there could be sub-particles to sub-particless, but not infinitely, not even in principle;* you get to the same barrier eventually. Democritus had that much right.)

How can electromagnetic radiation be both waves and particles? Well, we just don't know the answer to that, but we know it's true.

Why is mathematics so good for describing the world? It almost seems there ought to be a causal principle working in one direction or the other there, but the relationship is actually a mystery to those who have tried to figure it out. The most common answer I've encountered is either, "we don't know," or, "the rational order of the universe and of mathematics, and their relation to each other, implies a rational Mind behind it all." We know there is this great fit between mathematics and nature, but we can't explain how it works.

Therefore when the time comes to suggest explanations for non-material mind affecting the material world, it will do no good to argue that it isn't about physical causation or composition. That's okay--there are plenty of examples of things we all believe to be true, which we are unable to explain that way. I just wanted to get that straight in advance.

*You can't regress to smaller and smaller particles, all the way to infinity, because a finite number of infinitely small particles is infinitely small, unless these infinitely small particles are separated by finite distances, which seems to yield just a picture of nothingness. An infinite number of infinitely small particles poses paradoxes that would be tedious to go into here.

Part 2 in a Series
Part 1: Neural States and Rationality: Can a Materialist Think?
Part 3: We Know . . .
Part 4: Mind and the Material World

Posted: Thu - March 9, 2006 at 04:58 PM |

Thinking Christian by Tom Gilson getCategoryName("<$CategoryUUID$>");

Non-Material vs. Material MInd

Thinking Christian by Tom Gilson