<<
>>

Conclusion

In this chapter we have discussed some of the central questions of the philosophy of mind. We started by asking, “Can machines have minds?” But that led us to ask how we know that people have minds, and to think about the special kind of knowledge we seem to have of our own minds.

Because we asked these epistemological ques­tions, we came, at the end, to a point where we could go no further until we had thought more about knowledge. We were also led to consider what the relationship is between a mind and its body. And because causation seems very important to this relationship— because thoughts seem to cause actions, and events in the world seem to cause sensations—we found at another point that we could go no further until we had thought some more about causation. That is one reason why I haven't been able to settle the central dispute of this chapter—between the functionalist and the phenomenologist— decisively in favor of one or the other. But even if I had given an explanation of the nature of causation and of knowledge, I should not have been able to settle that question decisively. For it is a question that divides philosophers now, and there is something to be said in favor of both sides. If, when we have gone further with knowledge, you decide to join the phenomenologist, on one hand, or the func­tionalist, on the other, I hope you will keep in mind that there are good arguments in support of each of them.

But I hope you will also entertain the possibility that these ten­sions in our thought reveal that we may need entirely new ways of thinking in order to understand what our brains are doing—even, perhaps, that we may end up giving up the idea of the mind alto­gether. After all, when Descartes began modern philosophy of mind, he did so by treating as a single category everything of which we can be directly conscious: but perceptions, beliefs, hopes, twinges, anxieties, emotions, wishes and desires—even as we nor­mally think of them—are a fairly diverse bunch of things. Perhaps it was a mistake to think that a single theory that covered all of them could be constructed. And, I have suggested, perhaps it was also a mistake to think that the deep puzzle is about the nature of the mind, rather than about the nature of matter. If, after all, as the best current theories of nature suggest, minds appear in the world through evolution in material organisms, then one of the facts about matter that needs explaining is that it can produce all the many diverse phenomena that we call “the mind.”


<< | >>
Source: Appiah Kwame Anthony. Thinking It Through: An Introduction to Contemporary Philosophy. Oxford University Press,2003. — 425 p.. 2003

More on the topic Conclusion:

  1. Conclusion and Future Directions
  2. Conclusion
  3. Conclusion
  4. Conclusion
  5. Conclusion
  6. Conclusion
  7. Conclusion: Underdetermination in Quantum Mechanics
  8. Conclusion
  9. CONCLUSION
  10. Conclusion