In “Descartes’ Myth” by Gilbert Ryle, Ryle focuses on the body and mind being connected to make the body function. Ryle recognizes the difference between mind and body: the body houses the mind but the two are not controlled by the same actions—the correlation is not always understood. One can see the physical aspects of another person’s body but can never truly understand what is going on within a person’s mind. The body takes up space, but does the mind?
When someone claims to know something, the verb denotes an occurrence of a stream of consciousness. This definition is not the same for everyone, though. For example, I can claim to know calculus and the process of Rolle’s Theorem. The way I “know” the Theorem may not be the exact same way that someone else “knows” the Theorem. We could have different learning mechanisms that lead us to the same conclusion, but we reach those conclusions through different thought processes.
This information leads to Ryle’s falsification of Descartes’s idea of ‘The Ghost in the Machine.’ Ryle claims that Descartes makes “one big mistake… a category-mistake.” Ryle rejects Descartes’s idea based off the fact that the idea attempts to describe mental processes through physical ones. Ryle argues that the categorical mistakes stem from people not knowing how to understand specific concepts such as “University, division, and team spirit” (page 27.) These categorical mistakes are often made when a person understands the word (the physical) and can apply the concept of a word, but not in every situation i.e. where is the team spirit? Can you see it? Ryle’s goal is to describe thought processes and thinking and feeling as “counterpart idioms” rather than categorical ideas—they are connected.
What is important to note, is that Ryle rejects idea of free will. He argues that free will stems from the acceptance or rejection of someone’s moral actions. If someone is not able to actually know the exact processes of what is going on in someone else’s mind, then how can the morality of an action be determined? Furthermore, how can we determine what insanity, stupidity or intelligence is if the thought processes and mental states cannot be seen? Psychology aims to connect the widespread ideas of these words, but in an individual, mental states could be very different. Ryle reaches the conclusion that in order for our actions to be considered free, they must be moral (Doyle.)
This idea, therefore, would falsify the idea in court that someone committed a crime due to his or her mental states. If our society rejected the use of mental insanity excuses (for lack of a better word) in court, it would no longer be acceptable to argue against or for someone’s sanity. Instead, legal systems would have to focus on the morality of someone’s actions in order to determine the thought processes of the criminal and the actions that the criminal should be punished for.
Below, I have included a cartoon that shows people in a lounge as “puppets.” The cartoon pokes fun at the idea of free will, or better yet, the lack of free will.
Additionally, please click here to watch a video explaining Ryle’s argument.
Sources: http://imgc-cn.artprintimages.com/images/P-473-488-90/65/6569/EF82100Z/posters/victoria-roberts-free-will-is-overrated-new-yorker-cartoon.jpg
Doyle, Robert O. “Gilbert Ryle.” The Information Philosopher. Dr. Robert O Doyle, n.d. Web. 10 Nov. 2014. <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/ryle/>.
I somewhat agree with the fact that if we do not really understand the mine and our motivations then it is much harder to render judgement on a person’s actions. However, I would like to allude to the other Ghost in the Machine Interpretation. Arthur Koestler built on the Ghost in the Machine concept in his 1967 book “The Ghost in the Machine”. In his novel Koestler postulates that as humanity’s mental functions have evolved, these more advanced capabilities were built on the foundation of more primal instincts. Koestler theorizes that it is these lower level processes that are are responsible for negative emotions such as hate, jealousy, and violence. Moreover, Koestler theorizes it is this concept of the “Ghost of the Machine” that has set humanity on the predestined path towards destruction. However, if humanity is inherently violent then why does society continue to exist, what is it that separates our society from chaos an anarchy? One could argue that it is religion that upholds our society but that would ultimately be false.
At the end of the day it is the conscious choice of humans to stray towards evil, and the betterment of society. At the end of the day if all humans solely cared about their self interest the world would erupt into chaos, as people murdered and stole to satisfy their own selfish desires. However, the world continues to remains stable, and while crime will always be an issue the world does not seem as though it is set to erupt into chaos anytime soon.
To bring the point home we cannot definitely understand the mind, and that is because physical states and mental states are inherently different. However, the ghost in the machine, and the inherent category mistake does not concretely determine that has no free will, since it is our conscious decision to largely stray from the ultimate path of evil that cements the existence of freedom of will.
Jared, your argument that our conscious decisions largely stray us from the ultimate path of evil is very interesting. I agree that the ghost in the machine and the category mistake does not concretely determine there is no free will, however I do not believe it is our conscious that strays us from evil. I am defining conscious as the personal human thought process. Functionalism tries to explain this conscious by talking about it is just a very complex series of casual relations between what is being put in and what previous experiences you have had in the past. In this case, it can be argued that it is a certain person’s environment that leads them to choose good over evil or vice versa. If you just look at their choices and not what caused them, you are missing out on half of the choice. The actual action is not all there is when someone makes a decision. It is what lead them to that opinion that also matters.
I like what you are saying in this post about how mental states are interpreted in a court of law. If it is the case that our actions must be moral in order to be considered free, denies the angle for lawyers to question a person’s mental state. So I guess what I am asking is, what do you think about this? Would it be appropriate for legal systems to focus on the morality of a person’s actions when determining the punishment for a person in trial? Should we consider the fundamental physical laws discussed in class:If there are physical laws that determine the way life works, then how can a person be morally responsible for their choices?
Hi, thanks for the questions. Examining how we view mental states in a court of law is very important because people are excused from crimes all the time based on their mental states. Based off of Ryle’s view, I think it would be appropriate for legal systmes to focus on the morality of a person’s actions. That being said, it is hard to form a morality of people when everyone is so different. The question would become what makes one person’s actions moral and another person’s immoral. I think courts would become more complicated if we chose to legally follow Ryle’s ideology. Additionally, the physical laws we discussed are important. It is hard to determine whether our physical laws do, in fact, determine a person’s actions. How can we be sure?
First, I was drawn to the question, “the body takes up space, but does the mind?” Immediately my response to this question was no, but that doesn’t mean that just because the mind doesn’t occupy space that doesn’t lead one to believe that the mind doesn’t exist. The mind is a part of what makes us who we are. Without our minds and having free will, we would just be controlled by others (the brain in a vat example), zombies, etc. I personally choose to believe that my mind and body work together, along with my brain. For example, science has taught us about the nervous system and how when our body touches something hot, a stimulus is sent throughout the system, to the brain, to create a response that is a reflex to pull away from the hot object. If our body and mind weren’t connected, would we be burning ourselves every time we touched something hot and not even realize it? When we would cut ourselves on something sharp, would we feel the pain?
I do completely agree with you Alex, I too choose to believe without real proof that the mind does exist separate in some way from the brain and body. It is a somewhat spiritual belief for me and I think the mind is at the core of what makes us human without having very much to do with the brain or neuroscience itself. However, I do think that pain is more of the brain’s jurisdiction rather than the mind as you suggest in your final examples.
I too am fascinated with the idea of the court of law. If a court were to focus on the morality of a person’s actions, it would be difficult. For example, people occupying various roles in society may have different explanations for their actions. This has caused a lot of debate regarding police shootings, specifically the Brown case. Is a cop shooting a man considered more moral than just a regular person shooting another person? Clearly, shooting someone is immoral, but these two cases differ. Thus, it is not so simple to determine moral actions if other factors apply.