Huxley compared mental events to a steam whistle that contributes nothing to the work of a locomotive. But how does Huxley explain consciousness if not in the Cartesian dualist way (the mind and body being separate entities)? Thomas Huxley held the view of epiphenomenalism mental effects are caused by physical events but have no effect on the physical whatsoever. Yet Huxley further states that we humans posses a conscious existence and that, as an evolved phenomenon, couldn’t have just suddenly sprung up in human beings. Paralleling between a dissected frog and a wounded French sergeant Huxley clearly illustrates the similarities between man and beast and concludes that both man and beast are automata creatures. However, Huxley found Descartes doctrine that animals are merely automata beasts ‘startling’. Huxley praised Descartes as one of the great philosophers and an equally a great physiologist and commented on Descartes contributions to the world of anatomy. Huxley wrote an essay in 1874 called “ On the Hypothesis that Animals are Automata, and its History” and focussed greatly on Descartes work. THE THIRD comes from Thomas Henry Huxley (1825-1895), a defender of Charles Darwin’s theory of natural selection. Secondly, how can he account for the apparently simplistic language of whale song or bird song and why they should not count as a language at all? Descartes gives himself the problem of explaining firstly why he believes non-verbal communication plays no part in the play of life.
Zoologists suggest that animals (right down to insect level!) have a form of communicating with other animals of the same species. Or, how a horse seems to ‘know’ if it has been hurt by accident or not and will react accordingly. The problem that surfaces here is how we can explain away the phenomenon of the dog that cowers in the corner on ‘bonfire night’ (a ‘celebration’ with fireworks in the UK, on the 5th November, every year) as this seems to be the same type of non verbal communication we express. (A question to stump Descartes: what would he think of mute people? Those who cannot hear or speak, who cannot vocalize or hear the sounds of language?) Humans it seems need this form of communication. But by following Descartes, we are unable to explain why we rely very heavily on ‘body language’ to communicate. The point you can make simply through a facial expression, or a shrug of your shoulders, is not the type of language we can dismiss as a non-event. He uses the argument that through language, we can discover that humans are thinking and are capable of explaining their complex thoughts to one another.ĭescartes as far as we can see did not deal with what is popularly known as ‘body language’. He argued animals are automata, but humans through the ‘soul’ were not. But it seems fair to assume he was talking about human and so animal automata.įOR THE SECOND THEORY, we have Descartes. James did not talk about non-human experience. We were not persuaded by his argument but it is well worth reading James’s paper so you can form your own opinion. Again to use James's own example, a ‘foot rule’ (something that is one foot long and not an instrument for measuring your feet) can have the extension of actually being in the world out there and an extended thought in your head. So the room you are currently sitting in somehow is an extended thought. His solution was that the thoughts you think you are currently experiencing are extended thoughts. He tried to explain the mental picture show that (I assume) you are experiencing at this time, such as your awareness of where you are, and of what you are looking at. This is all well and good but he gave himself a problem. What we seek then is found by looking at the completed product not the individual parts. He further argued we should go about the task of discovering consciousness not through this method of subtraction but through means of addition. He claimed we find the thing called “consciousness” by separating out all the constituent parts such as, the oil and the pigment of the paint. His example was paint (of the artist variety, not the stuff you put on your walls!). He claimed we discover consciousness by way of division. He argued there is a simple category mistake going on consciousness in his argument is a nonentity. De facto, if humans do not have consciousness then the other animals also will be automata.įor James we were just wrong when we thought there was such a thing as consciousness. This debate has implications for our discussion on whether animals are automata. WILLIAM JAMES argued for human automata in an essay called " Does 'Consciousness' Exist? " (1904).
0 kommentar(er)
