Atheism and Theism JJ Haldane - Common Sense Atheism
Atheism and Theism JJ Haldane - Common Sense Atheism
Atheism and Theism JJ Haldane - Common Sense Atheism
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
<strong>Atheism</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>Theism</strong> 93<br />
channels to which the various parties have access. The present worry is that<br />
any theory claiming that communication produces the channels – along with<br />
everything else – faces the objection that without the channels there could be<br />
no communication. They are part of what the organizational information<br />
creates. The envisaged reply is that initially something arises which is less than<br />
a power of transmission but enough to get the process of communication<br />
started.<br />
One way of framing the worry I have about this is that it seems to be trying<br />
to account for a significant qualitative difference in terms of a merely quantitative<br />
one. Let me illustrate what I mean, <strong>and</strong> indicate why I think there<br />
is a problem, by switching to a parallel case concerning the nature of mental<br />
phenomena. I shall be saying more about the philosophy of mind <strong>and</strong> theism<br />
shortly; at this point the feature to focus on is simply the structural analogy<br />
between the case I am about to discuss <strong>and</strong> that of reproduction.<br />
A few years ago I wrote an essay in the course of which I criticized the<br />
efforts of Daniel Dennett to give an adequate reductionist account of mental<br />
representation. 9 The problem is this. Thoughts are intentional in the technical<br />
sense that they are directed towards, or are about, something or other<br />
(from the Latin ‘intendere’: to aim or direct). How is this possible? One much<br />
discussed suggestion is that to think ‘There is a tree in the garden’ is for one’s<br />
mental system to be in a computational state involving a representation – a<br />
sentence in the mind <strong>and</strong>/or in the head – the content of which is that there<br />
is a tree in the garden. Very crudely indeed, one might thus suppose that someone<br />
thinks that p when his or her information-processing system entertains<br />
a mental sentence ‘S’ the meaning of which is that p.<br />
Much could be said about this, but here simply note that it involves a<br />
homuncular regress (‘homo’ (man), ‘-culus’ (little)). The problem of mental<br />
representation has not gone away. It has just been moved from the personal<br />
to the subpersonal level: I think that p because (in some sense or other) there<br />
is something – a ‘processing module’ – in me that can interpret a symbol ‘S’<br />
that means that p. To his credit, Dennett sees that this proposal is hopelessly<br />
regressive if treated in realist terms, i.e. as maintaining that representational<br />
power is derived from a representational subsystem, <strong>and</strong> so he offers an<br />
alternative reductionist-cum-eliminativist version of it. He writes:<br />
[You] replace the little man in the brain with a committee [whose members]<br />
are stupider than the whole; they are less intelligent <strong>and</strong> ‘know’ less. The<br />
subsystems don’t individually reproduce all of the talents of the whole. That<br />
would lead you to an infinite regress. Instead you have each subsystem doing a<br />
part, so that each homuncular subsystem is less intelligent, knows less, believes<br />
less. The representations are themselves, as it were, less representational . . . a<br />
whole system of these stupid elements can get to exhibit behaviour which looks<br />
distinctly intelligent, distinctly human. 10