Cause
For Concern?
When
we start to bring in theories related to mental causation of
non-conscious processes we have uncovered some stark contradictions
in our thinking, and also these questions have arisen so far in our
investigation:
How is it that we and others think emotions and reactions are
attributes of ourselves, or our identity, when it seems this is not a
faculty a self could even control?
Can we say that emotions are mentally caused? - If so, we would
have to hold the view that there are both conscious and unconscious
mental processes, which are necessarily non-physical according to
dualism.
If we do claim emotions and other non-conscious processes are
either mentally caused, or physically caused, can we account for
these positions from within our Cartesian framework? That is to say
simply, can we make non-conscious processes intelligible in terms of
our Cartesian picture?
We
might still be able to explain these questions away but the point at
this stage is that we simply always assumed this Cartesian picture
was true. However, under scrutiny it seems that we are running in to
difficulty maintaining our assumptions, and this is the only
certainty we have found so far in our endeavours.
These
non-conscious processes defy easy categorisation into either physical
bodily processes, or mental processes. On the one hand we want to say
that the self plays a causal role and emotions are mentally caused,
but we are very inconsistent in the way we apply this to ourselves as
we have illustrated.
We
might be tempted at this stage to allow that non-conscious actions
can be mentally caused.
For
instance, Sigmund Freud postulated a subconscious and unconscious
mind. In this way we could allow non-conscious actions to be
consistent with mental causation, and thus we can deny there is a
problem. In doing this we can allow a self, whatever that may be, to
be able to mentally cause emotions below the level of our conscious
awareness.
However,
this has ramifications for the way in which we conceptualise a self,
and forces us in to a number of counter intuitive views.
Dual
causes
If
we claim that emotions and non-conscious actions are mentally caused
then, being consistent with our model of dualism, we are committed to
the view that these mental states are also non-physical. That is to
say, all mental causes are necessarily non-physical in our
Cartesian picture.
Furthermore,
we can contrast these mental causes with the appearance of conscious
mental causation, e.g. thinking about raising our arm. In this sense,
there are two types of mental causation, namely mental causation that
is within our conscious awareness, and mental causation that is of
the non-conscious type (sufficient for emotions etc.)
In
subscribing to the Cartesian picture, we are also committed to the
view that any subjective aspect of experience is mental. The
experience of thought, emotions, pain etc. are purely mental and
subjective aspects of experience. They may have physical correlates
but ultimately, if we subscribe to the Cartesian picture we are also
committed to this view.
So,
if we postulate an unconscious mind which is responsible for all the
bodily processes below our level of consciousness, then we would also
assert that emotional triggers are controlled by a non-physical
process of mental causation that ultimately becomes the conscious
experience of emotion.
This
then leads us to 2 different problems. The first of these is related
to the causal mechanism of the brain. If we consider that emotions
are caused by a non-physical state, this then would have to trigger a
physical state in the body. Emotions have physical effects such as
racing heart, change in posture etc. However, the upshot of this view
is that in order for us to feel any sensation, which don't forget is
mental, then there has to be a conversion process back to the
non-physical.
So
not only do we have to have an unconscious non-physical mental state
causing a physical state, we also have to have, in turn, another
non-physical state i.e. the experience of emotion, which has to be
converted back from this physical event as a mental effect.
Rather
than just the simple cause-and-effect picture we had in our minds, we
now have to have a cause and effect and then another cause and effect
in the chain in order for us to feel the sensation.
This
means we have to bring in another auxiliary theory to account for
this, namely a theory of interactionism that explains how physical
states cause non-physical states. This means that in order for
dualism to work we have to postulate two auxiliary theories to
account for the interaction between the non-physical > physical
and vice versa.
Worryingly,
and more difficult on this view though, is that we are obliged to
account for how something unconscious and non-physical, triggers
something physical, which then becomes non-physical again, and then,
crucially at this point, becomes conscious.
Why
wasn't it conscious in the first place, and what is the cause of
non-physical states becoming conscious?
These
howling absurdities makes this view seem a very bizarre way of
formulating a cause-and-effect relationship. The notion seems almost
occult as we are literally inventing 'magical forces' which are
beyond the sphere of possible human experience. This is not enough to
prove its falsity, as a robust theory might appear in the future. However,
it is certainly enough to raise our suspicions and even if such a theory could be formulated coherently, it would always remain
beyond the realms of any kind of proof and would be considered crack
pottery.
A
more complex objection arises when we consider the purpose of
emotions. The emotional response of fear is characterised as a rapid
physiological response to the environment, which can bypass the
conscious mind.
If we had to think about reacting in these instances,
it would be already too late as the decision takes time. In
evolutionary terms we evolved to be able to avoid being the
sabre-tooth tigers meal.
Part
of this mechanism entails that we are 'saved from our rationality'.
To
illustrate, imagine if we had to assess whether something was a
threat before we ran away. In evolutionary terms we would stand far
more chance of survival if we bypassed our rational ability to ponder
whether the sabre tooth tiger has seen us or not, and make a sharp
exit. If this was not the case it would mean that we would not be
much good at survival.
Given
this evolutionary view, if we opted to explain this in terms of
mental causation, we would have to attribute this to a non-conscious
and, in line with our dualist assumptions, a non-physical cause.
However, such a theory of these causal states would have to account
for how non-conscious, non-physical mental states, are triggered by
our perceptual mechanisms to interact with the emotional system.
Surely
it is the perceptual mechanism that triggers the physical emotional
responses, and then this in turn causes the experience of emotion in
the moment? However, if this was true then how can we argue that
there is mental causation of emotions?
Again we are at a loss here to
even try and begin how to describe a chain of cause and effect. Any
chain will be convoluted and we have to appeal to a complex array of
different causes and effects!
The
problem simply stated, is how do we distinguish between mental and
physical causation in any chain of cause and effect? We can try and
do this but our Cartesian picture starts to look quite absurd and
over complicated. Whilst Occam's razor could hack this to pieces, for
all we know this is really going on.
The point though, is that we are
uncertain if this is the case.
What
we need to do now is bring in some other elements into the mix to
investigate the coherence of this further. It may seem these
objections are not insurmountable but when we start to investigate
the consequences further, then the Cartesian picture simply falls
apart, as it becomes increasingly counter intuitive to maintain in
light of our other assumptions about the world.
Posts
0 comments:
Post a Comment