Homunculus

Kimberly Baltzer-Jaray

Selections from Ricky Gervais Podcast, Series 2, Episode 6

166 Kimberly Baltzer-Jaray

At its core, the homunculus fallacy (HmF) happens when a person attempts to account for a phenomenon or occurrence in terms of the very phenome­non or occurrence she was supposed to be explaining.

Jane: How do you think life ultimately began?

Sarah: I think aliens came here from a distant galaxy and planted seeds millions and millions of years ago.

Jane: Okay, so how did those aliens and their galaxy begin? How did life

start there?

Sarah: Well, aliens from another farther galaxy came there and planted seeds billions of years ago.

The HmF is not always an easy one to overcome because sometimes we lack specific information or the complete explanation for an occurrence. Looking to the example above, it might be true that aliens are responsible for starting and spreading life, we just don’t have the proof for this yet - so it could technically be right - but the way this argument has proceeded will never answer how life ultimately began because it just goes in an infinite loop.

Historically this fallacy is connected to the theory of vision or what is sometimes called the Cartesian theater. Someone might explain human vision by saying that when we look around at objects in the world, the light forms an image on the retinas of our eyes and something or some little per­son (where the term homunculus comes from) in the brain looks at these as if they were images on a movie screen. But if this is true, how does the homunculus see this movie inside my head? Is there a homunculus in his head? If you say yes, then the explanation essentially does nothing and goes nowhere but in an infinite loop.

The HmF was coined by Anthony Kenny in 1971, in his essay by the same name. Following Ludwig Wittgenstein, Kenny describes the fallacy as occur­ring when we ascribe to the brain attributes that can be ascribed only to the animal as a whole: “This dictum is often rejected in practice by psycholo­gists, physiologists and computer experts, when they take predicates whose normal application is to complete human beings or complete animals and apply them to parts of animals, such as brains, or to electrical systems.

a brain but only a whole, living, breathing person. The brain wouldn’t be working if there wasn’t a body with its organs and vital systems.

In the example above from the Ricky Gervais Podcast, the fallacy is actu­ally committed by both Karl and Ricky albeit slightly differently: Karl tends to speak about his brain as separate from himself, like a little homunculus at the controls, whereas Ricky is telling him that he is his brain. Ricky’s error is failing to mention the body - Karl is both his brain and body equally - and is more like what Kenny spoke about. Karl’s mistake, however, is in the vein of the classic Cartesian theater, since he sees his brain as controlling the rest of himself at times such as when making shopping lists (don’t forget that onion!). Similarly, some people will say, “Oh, my stomach was craving chips” or “My legs were just itching to dance.” The remedy for this fallacy, for both Karl and Ricky, is easy though: they both need to talk about themselves and other people as whole human beings. Karl might also need some instruction on how his brain and body work together too, as he clearly is confused.

Reference

Kenny, Anthony. 1971. “The Homunculus Fallacy.” In Interpretations of Life and Mind: Essays around the Problem of Reduction, edited by Marjorie Grene. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul Books, 65-74.