New mysterianism—or commonly just mysterianism—is a philosophical position proposing that the hard problem of consciousness cannot be resolved by humans. The unresolvable problem is how to explain the existence of qualia (individual instances of subjective, conscious experience). In terms of the various schools of philosophy of mind, mysterianism is a form of nonreductive physicalism. Some "mysterians" state their case uncompromisingly (Colin McGinn has said that consciousness is "a mystery that human intelligence will never unravel"); others believe merely that consciousness is not within the grasp of present human understanding, but may be comprehensible to future advances of science and technology.
Owen Flanagan noted in his 1991 book Science of the Mind that some modern thinkers have suggested that consciousness may never be completely explained. Flanagan called them "the new mysterians" after the rock group Question Mark and the Mysterians.[1] "But the new mysterianism is a postmodern position designed to drive a railroad spike through the heart of scientism".[2] The term "new mysterianism" has been extended by some writers to encompass the wider philosophical position that humans do not have the intellectual ability to solve (or comprehend the answers to) many hard problems, not just the problem of consciousness, at a scientific level.[3] This position is also known as anti-constructive naturalism.
According to Flanagan, "The 'old mysterians' were dualists who thought that consciousness cannot be understood scientifically because it operates according to nonnatural principles and possesses nonnatural properties." Apparently, some apply the terms to thinkers throughout history who suggested some aspect of consciousness may not be knowable or discoverable, including Gottfried Leibniz, Samuel Johnson, and Thomas Huxley. Thomas Huxley wrote, "[H]ow it is that anything so remarkable as a state of consciousness comes about as a result of irritating nervous tissue, is just as unaccountable as the appearance of the Djinn, when Aladdin rubbed his lamp."[4]
The consciousness of brutes would appear to be related to the mechanism of their body simply as collateral product of its working, and to be completely without any power of modifying that working, as the steam-whistle which accompanies the work of a locomotive engine is without influence upon its machinery. Their volition, if they have any, is an emotion indicative of physical changes, not a cause of such changes... The soul stands to the body as the bell of a clock to the works, and consciousness answers to the sound which the bell gives out when it is struck... To the best of my judgment, the argumentation which applies to brutes holds good of men... We are conscious automata.[2]
— Thomas Huxley, "On the Hypothesis that Animals are Automata, and its History", 1874
In the view of the new mysterians, their contention that the hard problem of consciousness is unsolvable is not a presupposition, but rather a philosophical conclusion reached by thinking carefully about the issue. The standard argument is as follows:
Subjective experiences by their very nature cannot be shared or compared side-by-side. Therefore, it is impossible to know what subjective experiences another person is having.
Noam Chomsky distinguishes between problems, which seem solvable, at least in principle, through scientific methods, and mysteries, which do not seem solvable, even in principle. He notes that the cognitive capabilities of all organisms are limited by biology, e.g. a mouse will never be able to navigate a prime number maze. In the same way, certain problems may be beyond our understanding.[3]
Adherents
Historical
William James, American philosopher, in his essay "Is Life Worth Living?" (1896). James makes the point that much human mental activity (e.g. reading) is forever closed to the mind of a dog, even though we may share the same household and have a deep friendship with each other. So, by analogy, the human mind may be forever closed to certain aspects of the larger universe. This was a concept which James found liberating, and which gave an implicit significance to certain distressing aspects of the human condition. James makes an analogy with the suffering of a dog during a vivisection: the meaning of the vivisection is inaccessible to the dog. But that does not mean that the vivisection is meaningless. So it may be with our suffering in this world.[5]
Carl Jung, Swiss psychiatrist and psychoanalyst, who, in the first chapter of his last work, "Man and His Symbols" (1964), wrote: "...even when our senses react to real phenomena, sights and sounds, they are somehow translated from the realm of reality into that of the mind. Within the mind they become psychic events whose ultimate nature is unknowable (for the psyche cannot know its own psychical substance)."
Contemporary
Colin McGinn is the leading proponent of the new mysterian position among major philosophers.[6][7]
Steven Pinker, American psychologist; favoured mysterianism in How the Mind Works,[10] and later wrote: "The brain is a product of evolution, and just as animal brains have their limitations, we have ours. Our brains can't hold a hundred numbers in memory, can't visualize seven-dimensional space and perhaps can't intuitively grasp why neural information processing observed from the outside should give rise to subjective experience on the inside. This is where I place my bet, though I admit that the theory could be demolished when an unborn genius—a Darwin or Einstein of consciousness—comes up with a flabbergasting new idea that suddenly makes it all clear to us."[11]
Roger Penrose, English physicist, mathematician and philosopher of science.
Sam Harris, American neuroscientist, has endorsed mysterianism by stating that "This situation has been characterized as an "explanatory gap" and the "hard problem of consciousness," and it is surely both. I am sympathetic with those who, like... McGinn and... Pinker, have judged the impasse to be total: Perhaps the emergence of consciousness is simply incomprehensible in human terms."[13]
Opponents
Daniel Dennett, American philosopher, who has explicitly attacked McGinn's notion of mysterianism.[14]
^"The Mystery of Consciousness II", 19 October 2011.
^Dennett, Daniel C. (May 10, 1991). . Times Literary Supplement (London). Archived from the original on 2018-02-02. Retrieved 2 February 2018. (Corrected by erratum notice, 24 May, pg 29.)
Sources
McGinn, Colin (1991), The Problem of Consciousness
Flanagan, Owen (1991), The Science of the Mind, 2ed MIT Press, Cambridge
McGinn, Colin (1993), Problems in Philosophy: The Limits of Inquiry, Blackwell, ISBN1-55786-475-6
Horgan, John (1996), The End of Science: Facing the Limits of Knowledge in the Twilight of the Scientific Age, Addison-Wesley; has a discussion of mysterianism (pp 177–180).
Blackburn, Simon (1999), Think: A Compelling Introduction to Philosophy, chapter two
mysterianism, this, article, about, response, mind, body, problem, general, article, limits, inquiry, cognitive, closure, commonly, just, mysterianism, philosophical, position, proposing, that, hard, problem, consciousness, cannot, resolved, humans, unresolvab. This article is about a response to the mind body problem For a general article on the limits of inquiry see cognitive closure New mysterianism or commonly just mysterianism is a philosophical position proposing that the hard problem of consciousness cannot be resolved by humans The unresolvable problem is how to explain the existence of qualia individual instances of subjective conscious experience In terms of the various schools of philosophy of mind mysterianism is a form of nonreductive physicalism Some mysterians state their case uncompromisingly Colin McGinn has said that consciousness is a mystery that human intelligence will never unravel others believe merely that consciousness is not within the grasp of present human understanding but may be comprehensible to future advances of science and technology Contents 1 Name 2 Philosophy 3 Adherents 3 1 Historical 3 2 Contemporary 4 Opponents 5 References 5 1 Citations 5 2 SourcesName EditOwen Flanagan noted in his 1991 book Science of the Mind that some modern thinkers have suggested that consciousness may never be completely explained Flanagan called them the new mysterians after the rock group Question Mark and the Mysterians 1 But the new mysterianism is a postmodern position designed to drive a railroad spike through the heart of scientism 2 The term new mysterianism has been extended by some writers to encompass the wider philosophical position that humans do not have the intellectual ability to solve or comprehend the answers to many hard problems not just the problem of consciousness at a scientific level 3 This position is also known as anti constructive naturalism According to Flanagan The old mysterians were dualists who thought that consciousness cannot be understood scientifically because it operates according to nonnatural principles and possesses nonnatural properties Apparently some apply the terms to thinkers throughout history who suggested some aspect of consciousness may not be knowable or discoverable including Gottfried Leibniz Samuel Johnson and Thomas Huxley Thomas Huxley wrote H ow it is that anything so remarkable as a state of consciousness comes about as a result of irritating nervous tissue is just as unaccountable as the appearance of the Djinn when Aladdin rubbed his lamp 4 The consciousness of brutes would appear to be related to the mechanism of their body simply as collateral product of its working and to be completely without any power of modifying that working as the steam whistle which accompanies the work of a locomotive engine is without influence upon its machinery Their volition if they have any is an emotion indicative of physical changes not a cause of such changes The soul stands to the body as the bell of a clock to the works and consciousness answers to the sound which the bell gives out when it is struck To the best of my judgment the argumentation which applies to brutes holds good of men We are conscious automata 2 Thomas Huxley On the Hypothesis that Animals are Automata and its History 1874Philosophy EditFurther information Cognitive closure philosophy In the view of the new mysterians their contention that the hard problem of consciousness is unsolvable is not a presupposition but rather a philosophical conclusion reached by thinking carefully about the issue The standard argument is as follows Subjective experiences by their very nature cannot be shared or compared side by side Therefore it is impossible to know what subjective experiences another person is having Noam Chomsky distinguishes between problems which seem solvable at least in principle through scientific methods and mysteries which do not seem solvable even in principle He notes that the cognitive capabilities of all organisms are limited by biology e g a mouse will never be able to navigate a prime number maze In the same way certain problems may be beyond our understanding 3 Adherents EditHistorical Edit William James American philosopher in his essay Is Life Worth Living 1896 James makes the point that much human mental activity e g reading is forever closed to the mind of a dog even though we may share the same household and have a deep friendship with each other So by analogy the human mind may be forever closed to certain aspects of the larger universe This was a concept which James found liberating and which gave an implicit significance to certain distressing aspects of the human condition James makes an analogy with the suffering of a dog during a vivisection the meaning of the vivisection is inaccessible to the dog But that does not mean that the vivisection is meaningless So it may be with our suffering in this world 5 Carl Jung Swiss psychiatrist and psychoanalyst who in the first chapter of his last work Man and His Symbols 1964 wrote even when our senses react to real phenomena sights and sounds they are somehow translated from the realm of reality into that of the mind Within the mind they become psychic events whose ultimate nature is unknowable for the psyche cannot know its own psychical substance Contemporary Edit Colin McGinn is the leading proponent of the new mysterian position among major philosophers 6 7 Thomas Nagel American philosopher Jerry Fodor American philosopher and cognitive scientist Noam Chomsky American linguist philosopher cognitive scientist logician and political commentator activist Martin Gardner American mathematics and science writer considered himself to be a mysterian 8 John Horgan American science journalist 9 Steven Pinker American psychologist favoured mysterianism in How the Mind Works 10 and later wrote The brain is a product of evolution and just as animal brains have their limitations we have ours Our brains can t hold a hundred numbers in memory can t visualize seven dimensional space and perhaps can t intuitively grasp why neural information processing observed from the outside should give rise to subjective experience on the inside This is where I place my bet though I admit that the theory could be demolished when an unborn genius a Darwin or Einstein of consciousness comes up with a flabbergasting new idea that suddenly makes it all clear to us 11 Roger Penrose English physicist mathematician and philosopher of science Edward Witten American string theorist 12 Sam Harris American neuroscientist has endorsed mysterianism by stating that This situation has been characterized as an explanatory gap and the hard problem of consciousness and it is surely both I am sympathetic with those who like McGinn and Pinker have judged the impasse to be total Perhaps the emergence of consciousness is simply incomprehensible in human terms 13 Opponents EditDaniel Dennett American philosopher who has explicitly attacked McGinn s notion of mysterianism 14 References EditCitations Edit Flanagan Owen 1991 The Science of the Mind MIT Press pp 313 ISBN 0 262 56056 9 Question Mark and the Mysterians a b Flanagan O J 1992 Consciousness Reconsidered Bradford Books MIT Press pp 10 131 ISBN 978 0 262 56077 1 LCCN lc92010057 a b Chomsky Noam The machine the ghost and the limits of understanding University of Oslo September 2011 https www youtube com watch v D5in5EdjhD0 The Elements of Physiology and Hygiene A Text book for Educational Institutions D Appleton 1869 p 178 William James Is Life Worth Living 1896 https archive org stream islifeworthlivin00jameuoft page n7 mode 2up McGinn Colin 1989 Can We Solve the Mind Body Problem Mind 98 391 349 366 doi 10 1093 mind XCVIII 391 349 JSTOR 2254848 Colin McGinn 20 February 2012 All machine and no ghost New Statesman Archived from the original on 7 February 2013 Retrieved 27 March 2012 A Mind at Play An Interview with Martin Gardner by Kendrick Frazier Skeptical Inquirer Volume 22 2 March April 1998 Mind Body Problems Pinker Steven 2009 06 22 How the Mind Works ISBN 9780393069730 Pinker Steven 29 January 2007 The Brain The Mystery of Consciousness Time Of Beauty and Consolation Ep 9 1h 10m 27s mark The Mystery of Consciousness II 19 October 2011 Dennett Daniel C May 10 1991 The Brain and Its Boundaries Times Literary Supplement London Archived from the original on 2018 02 02 Retrieved 2 February 2018 Corrected by erratum notice 24 May pg 29 Sources Edit McGinn Colin 1991 The Problem of Consciousness Flanagan Owen 1991 The Science of the Mind 2ed MIT Press Cambridge McGinn Colin 1993 Problems in Philosophy The Limits of Inquiry Blackwell ISBN 1 55786 475 6 Horgan John 1996 The End of Science Facing the Limits of Knowledge in the Twilight of the Scientific Age Addison Wesley has a discussion of mysterianism pp 177 180 Blackburn Simon 1999 Think A Compelling Introduction to Philosophy chapter two Horgan John 1999 The Undiscovered Mind Phoenix ISBN 0 7538 1098 0 McGinn Colin 1999 The Mysterious Flame Retrieved from https en wikipedia org w index php title New mysterianism amp oldid 1087792241, wikipedia, wiki, book, books, library,
