Materialism and the “First Breath” of Mentality (A Revised Version with Objections (to the Original Argument) and Replies)

According to Materialism, there was, at some point in time, an instant, M, whose “content” was the first-ever mental state; and this instant, M, was preceded in time by a compact series of non-mental instants (i.e., a compact series wherein each instant had a “content” that was exhaustively non-mental in character). How, then, does the Materialist go on to explain the “first breath” of mentality? He invokes an alluring word: “causality.” A reader sympathetic to the Materialist’s case might protest against such a brief statement of his position, so it would only be fair to let the Materialist interject and present his view in his own words:

Modern Materialism holds that mental states are nothing “over and above” physical states; mentality is but a delicate, rare, and ephemeral form of physicality. Old Materialism made an error that Modern Materialism has since corrected; it blundered by declaring a priori that (i) all physical states are non-mental in nature and that (ii) all mental states are non-physical in nature. Despite this categorical difference between mental states (i.e., non-physical states) and physical states (i.e., non-mental states), Old Materialism went on to assert that every mental state located in the series of past, present, and future mental states is the causally-generated “effect,” or the epiphenomenal “by-product,” of a corresponding non-mental state located in the series of past, present, and future non-mental states. Thus, each mental state is causally dependent upon a particular non-mental state located in the total series of non-mental states. Although the total series of mental states was not itself conceived by these Old Materialists as being a “segment” of the total series of non-mental states, it was nevertheless made subordinate to it. While the thread of mental states lacked self-sufficiency, the chain of physical states (i.e., the totality of past, present, and future non-mental states—or the chain of non-mental states ordered in relations of “earlier than” and “later than”) constituted an independent series—resting on nothing other than itself. The Old Materialists recognized the difficulties in their position (e.g., the relationship between the two series), and failed to build an explanatory bridge that could intelligibly, and non-arbitrarily, unite “cause” with “effect.” Modern Materialism, by contrast, rejects the Old Materialist’s dogmatism and refuses to declare a priori that (i) every physical state is non-mental in nature, and that (ii) every mental state is non-physical in nature. Instead of maintaining that the thread of mental states is populated by non-physical, causally-generated “effects” or epiphenomenal “by-products” of an “independent” series that is exhausted by non-mental states, Modern Materialism, by contrast, holds that when a mental state occurs, this occurrence is identical to a particular physical state located in the total series of physical states. Thus, mental states are no longer viewed as “residual excrescences” that supervene upon the “shock of atoms” in the physical order; they are no longer granted a unique series of their own. On the contrary, mental states just are physical states. This is Modern Materialism.

Now, like any other physical state, the first-ever mental state (i.e., the “content” of the first-ever mental instant, M) would have been the effect of a preceding physical state, and this prior physical state would have been a non-mental state (i.e., the “content” of a non-mental instant)—but Modern Materialism assures us that there are no difficulties inherent in such a transition. By assimilating mental states into the physical order by way of “identity,” the Modern Materialist has advanced further than any of his predecessors: he has taken a step forward towards explaining the “first breath” of mentality.

Let’s examine the Materialist’s account in detail. The Materialist postulates two temporally-distinct instants: (i) a definite instant, M, whose “content” was the first-ever mental state, and (ii) a definite instant, Pn, whose “content” was a non-mental state that preceded the “content” of the first-ever mental instant in time. Let’s offer a brief sketch of the nature of the time-series by specifying some of its properties:

“A series is continuous when any term divides the whole series unambiguously into two mutually exclusive parts which between them comprise all the terms of the series, and when every term which so divides the series is itself a term of that series. From this second condition it obviously follows that a number of intermediate terms can always be inserted between any two terms whatever of a continuous series; no term of the series has a next term….The whole series of real numbers is continuous [because] every member of the number-series divides it into two classes, so that every number of one is less than every number of the other, and every number which thus divides the series is itself a term of the number-series....From the continuity of the series of real numbers it follows that any other series which corresponds point for point with the terms of the number series will be continuous. Now one such series is that of the [time series]. Every moment of time divides the whole series of moments into two mutually exclusive classes, the moments before itself and the moments which are not before itself. And whatever thus divides the time-series is itself a moment in that series.” (Taylor, Elements of Metaphysics, 171-172)

Thus, it follows from time’s continuity that no two instants in the time-series ever “touch.” When this fact and the Materialist’s proposed connection between the “content” of Pn and the “content” of M are brought into focus, we find that the “content” of Pn and the “content” of M cannot temporally overlap—i.e., the first-ever mental state (i.e., the “content” of instant M) and the non-mental state (i.e., the “content” of instant Pn) had to be not only not simultaneous with each other, but also had to be in a relation of “earlier than” and “later than” to each other. Indeed, if the “content” of Pn was simultaneous with the “content” of M, then we would have a contradiction on our hands: there would be a moment in time when there was mentality present in a world that, ex hypothesi, was exhausted by non-mentality. In light of this, we must ask the Materialist several questions:

Question (i): Was the “content” of Pn—rather than the “content” of any preceding non-mental instant—the “cause” of the “content” of M?

The Materialist’s theory requires that he answer question (i) in the affirmative. And so, in response to question (i), the Materialist declares the “content” of Pn—rather than the “content” of any preceding non-mental instant—to be the “cause” of the “content” of M.

Question (ii): What was it about the “content” of Pn that made it the non-mental state—rather than any preceding non-mental state—the “cause” of the “content” of M?

On pain of inconsistency, the Materialist must respond to question (ii) by asserting that the “content” of Pn was a non-mental state that possessed certain “special properties” (i.e., a set of characteristics absent from all prior non-mental states), and that its possession of these “special properties” made the “content” of Pn—rather than the “content” of any preceding non-mental instant—the “cause” of the “content” of M.

Question (iii): What were the “special properties” present in the “content” of Pn and absent from the “content” of all preceding non-mental instants, that made the “content” of Pn–rather than the “content” of any preceding non-mental instant—the “cause” of the “content” of M?

In reply to question (iii), the Materialist will likely posit a bunch of features that allegedly capture the essence or identity of these “special properties.” Let’s symbolize the identity of these “special properties” present in the “content” of Pn—but absent from all the “content” of all preceding non-mental instants—as C.

At first glance, all seems fine and well; however, there is a puzzle lurking beneath the surface: a puzzle involving (i) the continuous nature of the time-series, (ii) the Materialist’s identification of the “content” of Pn—rather than the “content” of any of the other non-mental instant—as being the possessor of the aforementioned “special properties,” and (iii) the Materialist’s identification of what these “special properties” actually are. Let’s explore this latent puzzle in the Materialist’s theory.

As we have noted above, the “content” of Pn (i.e., a state exhaustively non-mental in character) cannot be simultaneous with the “content” of M (i.e., a state that was not exhaustively non-mental in character)—on pain of contradiction. M must be “later than” Pn because, ex hypothesi, if the “content” of M was simultaneous with (or in any way overlapped with) the “content” of Pn, the time of the first-ever mental state would also be a time when the world was exhausted by solely non-mental states; and this, of course, is contradictory. Therefore, the “content” of Pn and the “content” of M are not simultaneous, but instead are in relations of “earlier than” and “later than” to each other. However, since the continuity of time implies that between any two instants in the time-series there is an intermediate instant, it follows that between Pn and M there was another instant, X, distinct from both Pn and M and whose “content” separates the “content” of Pn and the “content” of M in time. This prompts us to ask the Materialist more questions:

Question (iv): Is the “content” of X a non-mental state or a mental state?

The Materialist must answer question (iv) by declaring the “content” of X to be a non-mental state. Since he must hold that the “content” of X is a non-mental state, we can represent X as Pn+1. Now, if the Materialist asserted the “content” of X to be a mental state, then he would have fallen into inconsistency; indeed, he would have been mistaken about the “content” of M being the first-ever mental state because the “content” of X would have preceded the “content” of M in time.

However, if the Materialist answers question (iv) by declaring the “content” of Pn+1 (i.e., X) to be a non-mental state, then he either contradicts his answer to question (i) or his explanation becomes muddled in arbitrariness. Indeed, since the “content” of Pn+1 is “later than” the “content” of Pn in time, between the “content” of Pn—the supposed sufficient condition for the occurrence of the “content” of M—and the “content” of M, there would have been the occurrence of the purely non-mental “content” of Pn+1. However, if the identified “content” of the non-mental instant Pn was genuinely sufficient to produce the “content” of M, then the Materialist’s explanation stumbles into a difficulty.

If the occurrence of the intervening non-mental “content” of Pn+1 between the “content” of Pn and the “content” of M matters causally to the occurrence of the “content” of M, this would contradict the sufficiency of the “content” of Pn—rendering the “content” of Pn insufficient to be the “cause” of the “content” of M. However, if the occurrence of the intervening non-mental “content” of Pn+1 between the “content” of Pn and the “content” of M does not matter causally to the occurrence of the “content” of M, then this makes the timing of the occurrence of the “content” of M arbitrary and inexplicable. Moreover, if the “content” of Pn was sufficient to be the “cause” of the “content” of M, this leads us to ask why the “content” of Pn+1—a “content” that, ex hypothesi, lacked the “special properties” necessary and sufficient for it to be the “cause” of the “content” of M—occurred between the “content” of Pn and the “content” of M.

In order to avoid introducing arbitrariness and inexplicability into his explanation of the “first breath” of mentality, the Materialist must revise his answer to question (i). He must now hold that the “content” of Pn+1—rather than the “content” of any preceding non-mental instant (e.g., Pn)—was the “cause” of the “content” of M.

Question (v): What was it about the “content” of Pn+1 that made it the non-mental state—rather than any preceding non-mental state (e.g., the “content” of Pn)—the “cause” of the “content” of M?

On pain of inconsistency, the Materialist must answer question (v) by asserting that the “content” of Pn+1 possessed certain “special properties” (i.e., a set of characteristics absent from the “content” of all prior non-mental instants), and that its possession of these “special properties” made the “content” of Pn+1—rather than the “content” of any preceding non-mental instant (e.g., Pn)—the “cause” of the “content” of M.

Question (vi): What were the “special properties” present in the “content” of Pn+1 and absent from the “content” of all preceding non-mental instants (e.g., the “content” of Pn), that made the “content” of Pn+1—rather than the “content” of any preceding non-mental instant (e.g., the “content” of Pn)—the “cause” of the “content” of M?

The Materialist is forced by his own hand to answer question (vi) by positing a bunch of features that allegedly capture the essence or identity of the “special properties” present in the “content” of Pn+1 (i.e., features present in the “content” of Pn+1 but absent from the “content” of all preceding non-mental instants) that made the “content” of Pn+1—rather than the “content” of any preceding non-mental instant (e.g., the “content” of Pn)—the “cause” of the “content” of M.

Now, the Materialist cannot, on pain of contradiction, supply us with the same list of “special properties” that he provided in his answer to question (iii). If, in response to question (vi), the Materialist simply regurgitated his answer to question (iii), then, ex hypothesi, the “special properties” of the “content” of Pn+1 would have been present in the “content” of an earlier non-mental instant (i.e., the “content” of Pn)—thereby contradicting the Materialist’s answer to question (v). Moreover, the Materialist cannot simply provide his answer to question (iii) in response to question (vi) because he himself has admitted, by implication, that the properties of the “content” of Pn were not of such a nature as to make the “content” of Pn the cause of the “content” of M. Let’s symbolize the Materialist’s revision of these “special properties” as C’.

However, another problem arises. In the same way the “content” of Pn had to be earlier in the time-series than the “content” of M, so too must the “content” of Pn+1 be earlier in the time-series than the “content” of M. If this were not so, and the “content” of Pn+1 was simultaneous with the “content” of M, there would be a moment in time when there was mentality present in a world that, ex hypothesi, was exhausted by non-mentality—and this, of course, is a contradiction. And, as we have seen, since the continuity of time implies that between any two instants in the time-series there is an intermediate instant, it follows that between Pn+1 and M, there was another instant, X’, distinct from both Pn+1 and M and whose “content” separated the “content” of Pn+1 and the “content” of M in time. This prompts us to ask the Materialist more questions:

Question (vii): Is the “content” of X’ a non-mental state or a mental state?

In answer to question (vii), the Materialist must, of course, respond by declaring the “content” of X’, to be a non-mental state. Since the “content” of X’ is a non-mental state, we can represent X’ as Pn+2.

Now, if the Materialist asserted the “content” of X’ to be a mental state, then he would have fallen into inconsistency; indeed, he would have been mistaken about the “content” of M being the first-ever mental state because the “content” of X’ would have preceded the “content” of M in time.

However, if the Materialist answers question (iv) by declaring the “content” of X’ to be a non-mental state, then he either contradicts his answers to questions (v) and (vi), or his explanation becomes muddled in arbitrariness. Indeed, since the “content” of Pn+2 is “later than” the “content” of Pn+1 in time, then between the “content” of Pn+1—the supposed sufficient condition for the occurrence of the “content” of M—and the “content” of M, there would have been the occurrence of a the purely non-mental “content” of Pn+2. However, if the identified “content” of the non-mental instant Pn+1 was genuinely sufficient to produce the “content” of M, then the Materialist’s explanation stumbles into a difficulty.

If the occurrence of the intervening non-mental “content” of Pn+2 between the “content” of Pn+1 and the “content” of M matters causally to the occurrence of the “content” of M, this would contradict the sufficiency of the “content” of Pn+1—rendering the “content” of Pn+1 insufficient to be the “cause” of the “content” of M. However, if the occurrence of the intervening non-mental “content” of Pn+2 between the “content” of Pn+1 and the “content” of M does not matter causally to the occurrence of the “content” of M, then this makes the timing of the occurrence of the “content” of M arbitrary and inexplicable. Moreover, if the “content” of Pn+1 was sufficient to be the “cause” of the “content” of M, this leads us to ask why the “content” of Pn+2—a “content” that, ex hypothesi, lacked the “special properties” necessary and sufficient for it to be the “cause” of the “content” of M—occurred between the “content” of Pn+1 and the “content” of M.

In order to avoid introducing arbitrariness and inexplicability into his explanation of the “first breath” of mentality, the Materialist must revise his answer to question (i). He must now hold that the “content” of Pn+2—rather than the “content” of any preceding non-mental instant (e.g., Pn+1)—was the “cause” of the “content” of M.

In doing so, the Materialist must also revise his answer to question (v) and question (vi). He must assert that the “content” of Pn+2 possessed certain “special properties” (i.e., a set of characteristics absent from the “content” of all prior non-mental instants) and that its possession of these “special properties” made the “content” of Pn+2—rather than the “content” of any preceding non-mental instant (e.g., the “content” of Pn or the “content” of Pn+1)—the “cause” of the “content” of M. However, this is possible only insofar as the Materialist specifies the “special properties” of the “content” of Pn+2. Just as before, the Materialist must list a set of features that allegedly capture the essence or identity of the “special properties” present in the “content” of Pn+2 (i.e., features present in the “content” of Pn+2 but absent from the “content” of all preceding non-mental instants) that made the “content” of Pn+2—rather than the “content” of any preceding non-mental instant (e.g., the “content” of Pn or the “content” of Pn+1)—the “cause” of the “content” of M. However, the Materialist cannot, on pain of contradiction, supply us with the same list of “special properties” that he provided in his original answer to question (vi). If the Materialist did so, then the “special properties” of the “content” of Pn+2 would have been present in the “content” of an earlier non-mental instant (i.e., the “content” of Pn+1); however, he himself has admitted, by implication, that the properties of the “content” of Pn+1 were not of such a nature as to make the “content” of Pn+1 the cause of the “content” of M. Ergo, the Materialist must supply us with a new set of properties that were allegedly present in the “content” of Pn+2, and made the “content” of Pn+2—rather than the “content” of any preceding non-mental instant—the “cause” of the “content” of M. Let’s symbolize the Materialist’s revision of these “special properties” as C’’.

However, the problem has only been aggravated. As we’ve seen before, the continuity of time implies that between any two instants in the time-series there is an intermediate instant; ergo, it follows that between Pn+2 and M there was another instant, X’’, distinct from both Pn+2 and M and whose “content” separates the “content” of Pn+2 and the “content” of M in time. This prompts us to ask the Materialist another question:

Question (viii): Is the “content” of X’’ a non-mental state or a mental state?

The Materialist must answer question (viii) by declaring the “content” of X’’ to be a non-mental state. Since the “content” of X’’ is non-mental, we can represent X’’ as Pn+3. And we know where this will lead us. The Materialist is trapped in a vicious regress; inconsistencies in the Materialist’s responses require that he continually revise his answers ad infinitum. He is unable to consistently identify the non-mental instant whose “content” allegedly gave birth to the “content” of the first-ever mental instant, M, and he is unable to consistently specify the identity of the alleged “special properties” present in the “content” of this non-mental instant that would have made it—rather than the “content” of any preceding non-mental instant—the cause of the “content” of the first-ever mental instant, M.

With every step the Materialist takes towards his first-ever mental state, he is forced to take one step back—he is forever barred from receiving his final reward. The Materialist fails to harmonize the “first breath” of mentality within an asphyxiatingly barren, non-mental world.

Objections to the Original Argument (with Replies)

Issue 1: “It is not clear to me why Pn must have a last instant. An event could occur over an open or half-open interval of time. If t is the time index of the first mental event, then Pn could be an event that occurs on [m, t) for any m < t. In this case there is neither overlap, nor intermediate causes.”

Reply to Issue 1: I have now revised the essay so that it makes a clearer distinction between positions in time and the “contents” that are isochronal to those positions in time. The “content” of an instant Pn is the state (i.e., the non-mental state) that obtains at Pn. By reframing the argument in terms of instants and their “contents,” rather than in terms of intervals and the boundaries of said intervals (e.g., their “first” and “last” instants, if they have a “first” or “last” instant), I think the revised argument avoids the objection that you bring up in “Issue 1.”

Issue 2: I also don't see why the existence of a moment in time between Pn and M implies that [the “content” of] Pn is not the cause of [the “content” of] M. If we identify special properties of [the “content” of] Pn that justify its being the cause of [the “content” of] M, it does not follow that every state between [the “content” of] Pn and [the “content” of] M also has those properties. It seems to me that you have introduced an additional assumption about the nature of causality, that one state can be the cause of another if and only if there is no state between them.

Reply to Issue 2: The second version of the argument does not depend on the assumption that a causal relation can only obtain between “temporally adjacent” “contents.” As mentioned above (in the second version of the argument), as soon as we acknowledge there being a purely non-mental instant (Pn+1) with its own distinct “content” (i.e., the “content” of Pn+1) intervening between the purely non-mental instant Pn and the first-ever mental instant M, we can reasonably ask whether we need to revise our list of “special properties” that we took to be responsible for the “coming into existence” of the “content” of M. For consider, if we assume that the “content” of Pn was the “cause” of the “content” of M, then we have a right to ask what “special properties” were present in the “content” of Pn and absent from the “content” of all preceding non-mental instants that made the “content” of Pn—rather than the “content” of any preceding non-mental instant—the “cause” of the “content” of M. However, our only reason for supposing the “content” of Pn to be the cause of the “content” of M was based upon our supposed identification of some properties of Pn as being the “special properties” responsible for its giving rise to the “content” of M. And, by implication, the “content” of Pn had these properties whereas and the “content” of all preceding non-mental instants lacked them. If it turns out that the “content” of Pn+1 intervenes between the “content” of Pn and the “content” of M, then our ordinary causal reasoning prompts us to reconsider if the properties of the “content” of Pn which we took to be the “special properties” were in fact the “special properties” responsible for giving rise to the “content” of M, or if we had instead only misidentified those properties as being the “special properties.”

Moreover, if we try and double down on our original assertion that those properties identified in the “content” of Pn were in fact the “special properties,” then we are left with no good reason for why the “content” of M didn’t occur before the “content” of Pn+1 occurred rather than after the “content” of Pn+1 occurred (i.e., why there was a “delay” even though the all the conditions were already present (only to vanish with the occurrence of the “content” of Pn+1)). However, if there was nothing about the intermediary “contents” (in addition to the “special properties” of the “content” of Pn) such that the occurrence of these intermediary “contents” were necessary for the occurrence of the “content” at time M, then we are left with a puzzle as to why the “content” of time M occurred earlier than some of the intermediary “contents” rather than before some of them. Moreover, this means that if the “content” of M could not occur unless the some of the intermediary “contents” occurred, then the occurrence of some of the intermediary “contents” were necessary to the occurrence of the “content” of M; yet if these were necessary to the occurrence of the “content” of M, then it would not be the case that the “content” of Pn was the necessary and sufficient condition for the occurrence of the “content” at M—thereby conflicting with the assumption that none of the intermediary “contents” mattered causally in the occurrence of the “content” of M. We can illustrate this by means of another argument:

Premise 1: Materialism posits that at some finite point, there occurred the first-ever mental state (i.e., the “content” of instant M), preceded solely by non-mental states.

Premise 2: Any causal explanation for the emergence of a first mental state (i.e., the “content” of instant M) from purely non-mental states (i.e., the “content” of non-mental instants) requires identifying specific non-mental conditions sufficient to produce mentality.

Premise 3: If an identified “content” of a non-mental instant Pn is genuinely sufficient, then the occurrence of intervening purely non-mental “content” of instants Pn+1, Pn+2,… between Pn and M either:

(a) Contradicts the sufficiency of the “content” of Pn, if those intermediates matter causally.

(b) Makes the timing of the occurrence of the “content” of M arbitrary and inexplicable, if those intermediates are causally irrelevant.

Premise 4: Both horns—causal contradiction or explanatory arbitrariness—are unacceptable to a coherent causal account. But if the Materialist cannot provide a coherent causal account, then he cannot adequately explain the causal origin of the first-ever mental state from purely non-mental states.

Conclusion: Therefore, the Materialist cannot adequately explain the causal origin of the first-ever mental state from purely non-mental states.

Issue 3: I also think it is possible for Pn and M to share a boundary point t. You argue that this is impossible because it would imply that, at time t, the world contained mental properties (because M is a mental event), but also was exhausted up to and including time t by non-mental events (because Pn is non-mental and contains t). But it does not necessarily follow that because an event has a property that each moment comprising the event has that property. For example, a physical object can have the property of being liquid, and be exhaustively comprised of subatomic particles, yet none of the subatomic particles are liquid. So too the materialist can coherently claim that the instants of time comprising a mental event do not have the property of mentality, but their agglomeration does have that property.

Reply to Issue 3: This objection does not apply to the revised version of the argument. This new version is framed in argument in terms of instants and their “contents,” rather than in terms of intervals and the boundaries of said intervals (e.g., their “first” and “last” instants, if they have a “first” or “last” instant).

Issue 4: I also think, perhaps most importantly, that the materialist simply does not have to agree that there is a first mental event. Because mentality is not metaphysically fundamental in the materialist theory, they don't even need to specify clear boundaries on the concept of “mental,” which could function rather like the notion of a species of animal, where there is a gradient of descent with no clear first member.

Reply to Issue 4: It seems that by denying that there was a “first-ever mental event” you either wade into some form of panpsychism (wherein there was never an instant whose “content” was solely “non-mental” (i.e., that “mentality” featured in the “content” of every past instant in some degree)), or you end up shifting the problem by introducing some form of “proto-mental continuum” (which, ultimately, seems to slip into some form of panpsychism again). Either way, the Materialist cannot give up the position that there was a point in time where the universe was solely non-mental—and it is precisely this position that generates the puzzle.

Inconsistencies in Keith Frankish’s Case Against Panpsychism (Part I)

I’m not a Panpsychist, or, rather, I’m not a Panpsychist in any contemporary sense of the term. Nevertheless, Panpsychism has a rich and rigorous history. It deserves to be taken very seriously. With that being said, I stumbled across an article written by the Illusionist philosopher, Keith Frankish—an article that criticizes Panpsychism severely. I wanted to come to Panpsychism’s defense. I also wanted to examine several inconsistencies in Frankish’s own arguments against Panpsychism.    

“Panpsychism’s popularity stems from the fact that it promises to solve two deep problems simultaneously. The first is the famous “hard problem” of consciousness. How does the brain produce conscious experience? How can neurons firing give rise to experiences of color, sound, taste, pain and so on? In principle, scientists could map my brain processes in complete detail but, it seems, they could never detect my experiences themselves—the way colors look, pain feels and so on: the phenomenal properties of the brain states involved. Somehow, it seems, brain processes acquire a subjective aspect, which is invisible to science. How can we possibly explain this?” (Frankish, Why Panpsychism is Probably Wrong, 1)

Keith Frankish insists that colors, sounds, tastes, and pains are real, and that our experiences of colors, sounds, tastes, and pains are also real (he simply qualifies this by saying that we mischaracterize our experiences (or objects of those experiences) as having properties which they don’t actually instantiate but only “seem” to). If we take the above passage at face value, then Frankish seems to be suggesting that my experience of a color, sound, taste, or pain is the way in which the color, sound, taste, or pain looks, sounds, tastes, or feels to me. Or, to simplify, “my-experience-of-a-color” is “the-way-in-which-the-color-looks-to-me,” “my-experience-of-a-pain” is “the-way-in-which-the-pain-feels-to-me,” and so on. 

Frankish goes on to say that the ways in which colors, sounds, tastes, and pains look, sound, taste, and feel to me are “phenomenal properties.” For example, he says, “the way colors look, pain feels and so on: the phenomenal properties of the brain states involved,” (Why Panpsychism is Probably Wrong) “It seems obvious that phenomenal properties, such as the feel of pain,” (Panpsychism and the Depsychologization of Consciousness), etc. To Frankish, “phenomenal properties…seem completely inaccessible to science. They are wholly subjective features, which simply do not show up on the scientific radar.” (Panpsychism and the Depsychologization of Consciousness). Now, if “phenomenal properties” were real, and were instantiated in the world, then what would these “wholly subjective features” be properties of? Frankish states that these “phenomenal properties” (if they were indeed instantiated in the world) appear to be properties of the brain states involved in our experiences of colors, sounds, tastes, pains, and so on (Why Panpsychism is Probably Wrong).

Confusion ensues. If “my-experience-of-a-color” is just “the-way-in-which-the-color-looks-to-me,” and “the-way-in-which-the-color-looks-to-me” is a “phenomenal property,” then we are faced with several inconsistencies.

(I) Frankish denies that “phenomenal properties” are “real” and instantiated in the world. Since Frankish holds that “my-experience-of-a-color” is just “the-way-in-which-the-color-looks-to-me” (cf. “my experiences themselves—the way colors look, pain feels and so on...” (Why Panpsychism is Probably Wrong)), and that “the-way-in-which-the-color-looks-to-me” are “phenomenal properties” (cf. “the way colors look, pain feels and so on: the phenomenal properties…” (Why Panpsychism is Probably Wrong)), it follows that Frankish is committed to the unreality of my experiences of colors, sounds, tastes, and pains. However, this conflicts with his insistence that “our lives are filled with conscious experiences—episodes of seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, feeling, and of having bodily sensations of various kinds” and that these experiences are indeed real (Cf. The Demystification of Consciousness). 

(II) Furthermore, Frankish, being an Identity Theorist, is committed to the view that “my-experience-of-a-color” is identical to a process in my brain. However, Frankish asserts that “phenomenal properties” (if they were instantiated in the world) would be properties of the brain states involved in our experiences of colors, sounds, tastes, pains, and so on. (cf. “the way colors look, pain feels and so on: the phenomenal properties of the brain states involved.” (Why Panpsychism is Probably Wrong)) This is a manifest contradiction. Let me illustrate this. If “my-experience-of-a-color” is identical to “the-way-in-which-the-color-looks-to-me,” and “the-way-in-which-the-color-looks-to-me” is a “phenomenal property,” then it cannot be the case that the “phenomenal property” is a property of the brain processes involved in “my-experience-of-a-color.” Indeed, “my-experience-of-a-color” is ex hypothesi identical to that very brain process. A property (“phenomenal” or “non-phenomenal”) of the brain process cannot be identical to the brain process of which it is a property—an adjective cannot have itself as its own substantive!

A Question Concerning Bernard Lonergan’s “Questions for Intelligence” and “Questions for Reflection”

According to Bernard Lonergan, “questions fall into two main classes. There are “questions for reflection,” and they may be met by answering ‘Yes’ or ‘No’. There are “questions for intelligence,” and they may not be met by answering ‘Yes’ or ‘No’.” (Lonergan, Insight, 271-272) A “question for intelligence” asks ‘What?’, ‘Why?’, ‘How?’, and ‘What for?’. A “question for reflection” asks “whether our answers to the previous type of question are true or false, certain or only probable.” (Lonergan, Reality, Myth, Symbol, 1) With this distinction in mind, we can proceed by asking whether the following question is itself a “question for reflection” or a “question for intelligence”:

“Is the answer to this question, ‘No’?”

The above question is a ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ question, and so it appears to be a “question for reflection” and not a “question for intelligence.” Indeed, as Lonergan says, it is incoherent to answer a “question for intelligence” with a mere ‘Yes’ or ‘No’. By contrast, “questions for reflection” are those questions which are met by answering ‘Yes’ or ‘No’. Indeed, “questions for reflection” can only be answered with ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; they involve phrases like, “Is it so?” and “Is it probably so?”. However, if we declare the question, “Is the answer to this question, ‘No’?” to be a “question for reflection,” we find that it cannot be met by answering ‘Yes’ or ‘No’—on pain of contradiction—and this contradicts our assertion that such a question is a “question for reflection.” We can illustrate this by examining the question in detail: 

“Is the answer to this question, ‘No’?”

If the answer to the question is ‘Yes’, then the answer to the question is ‘No’. But if the answer to the question is ‘No’, then the answer to the question is ‘Yes’. Since the question, “Is the answer to this question, ‘No’?”, cannot be met by ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ without contradiction, it follows that it is not a “question for reflection.” If it is objected that a question cannot refer to itself, we can reply that there are many questions that refer to themselves and are perfectly meaningful. Take, for example, the following question.

“Is the answer to this question, ‘Yes’?”

The above question is a “question for reflection” that not only references itself, but also can be answered without contradiction—it can be met by a simple ‘Yes’. We can also illustrate the same paradox that we outlined above by invoking two distinct questions rather than just one:

“Is the answer to the following question, ‘No’?”

“Is the answer to the preceding question, ‘Yes’?”

Let’s label the top question with the letter, A, and let’s label the bottom question with the letter, B. On the one hand, if the answer to A is ‘Yes’, then the answer to B must be ‘No’; however, if the answer to B is ‘No’, then the answer to A must be ‘No’—and this contradicts the original answer to A as being ‘Yes’. On the other hand, if the answer to A is ‘No’, then the answer to B must be ‘Yes’; however, if the answer to B is ‘Yes’, then the answer to A must be ‘Yes’—and this contradicts the original answer to A as being ‘No’. If it is objected that A and B are not “questions for reflection” at all since each has its meaning only in relation to the other, we can provide an instance of two more questions: 

“Is the answer to the following question, ‘Yes?”

“Is the answer to the preceding question, ‘Yes’?”

The above questions have their respective meanings only in relation to the other and can be answered without contradiction—both can be met by a simple ‘Yes’.

Reading Notes: October 16th, 2024

“Reason is to be examined, but how? It is to be rationally examined, to be known; this is, however, only possible by means of rational thought; it is impossible in any other way, and consequently a demand is made which cancels itself. If we are not to begin philosophical speculation without having attained rationally to a knowledge of reason, no beginning can be made at all, for in getting to know anything in the philosophical sense, we comprehend it rationally; we are, it seems, to give up attempting this, since the very thing we have to do is first of all to know reason. This is just the demand which was made by that Gascon who would not go into the water until he could swim. It is impossible to make any preliminary examination of rational activity without being rational.” (Hegel, Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion, 53)

“I form ideas, I have perceptions, and here there is a certain definite content, as, for instance, this house, and so on. They are my perceptions, they present themselves to me. I could not, however, present them to myself if I did not grasp this particular content in myself, and if I had not posited it in a simple, ideal manner in myself. Ideality means that this definite external existence, these conditions of space, of time, and matter, this separateness of parts, is done away with in something higher; in that I know this external existence, these forms of it are not ideas which are mutually exclusive, but are comprehended, grasped together in me in a simple manner.” (Hegel, Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion, 84)

“What was there before this time?—[in] the other of time (not another time, but eternity, the thought of time)? In this, the question [itself] is suspended (aufgehoben), since it refers to another time. But in this way, eternity itself is in time, it is a “before” of time. Thus it is itself a past, it was, was absolutely, is no longer. Time is the pure concept—the intuited (angeschaute) empty self in its movement, like space in its rest. Before there is a filled time, time is nothing. Its fulfilment is that which is actual, returned into itself out of empty time. Its view of itself is what time is—the nonobjective. But if we speak of [a time] “before” the world, of time without something to fill it, [we already have] the thought of time, thinking itself, reflected in itself. It is necessary to go beyond this time, every period – but into the thought of time. The former [i.e., speaking about what was “before” the world] is the bad infinity, that never arrives at the thought from which it goes forward.” (Hegel, The Philosophy of Spirit, Pt. III, C.)

“Earlier, Hegel establishes that a being is determinate in not being another. Thus, it appears to have its being for another. But Hegel goes on to contrast this sort of finite being, which is merely the negation of another, to one which possesses its determinate character in virtue of its internal self-differentiation. In other words, rather than being what it is merely in contrast to others, it is what it is in virtue of contrasts (or distinctions) within itself. Being-for-self is ‘the infinite determinacy that contains distinction within itself as sublated’….In being-for-self, Hegel is anticipating…the Concept, or concrete universal—or, more simply, the whole: a being which is absolute because it subsumes all finite determinations within itself, and thus does not derive its being from its opposition to anything outside itself.” (Magee, The Hegel Dictionary, 46-47)