robbo203
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Mind is a function of matter, and the properties of mind include analytical thought, such as philosophical problems.
I am not a genetic determinist. But I am a determinist in that every effect is preceded by its cause. Hence, social history and the evolution of ideas, none of which would make sense or happen if the mind was a separate entity.Hi John
Nobody is saying the mind is a “separate entity”. You need a brain to think with. But this is not the issue. The issue is whether the mind is therefore a “function of matter”. To say that it is amounts to reductionist physicalism.
It is the same kind of reductionism that says there is “no such thing as society, there is only individuals (and families)”. Now it is clear that you cannot have society without individuals (just as you cannot have thoughts without the brains neurons) but that does not mean society is a mere epiphenomenon that does not really exist or that it cannot exert “downward causation” on individuals – in other words influence individuals.
If something exerts downward causation – acts as cause which induces an effect on that which it supervenes or depends for its existence – then it has a degree of relative autonomy – NOT absolute autonomy, note – with regard to that upon which it supervenes. Society has a degree of relative autonomy vis a vis individuals in that it has its own dynamic, it own laws which influence individuals.
Mind too has a degree of relatively autonomy vis a vis the brain inasmuch as it can exert downward causation. One example of this would be psychosomatic effects. Of course, it is true that direction of causality works the other way too. Consider the influence of hormones. The issue is not whether or not there is cause and effect coming into play but the orgin and direction of causality in particular instances.
Emergence theory is based on the idea that there is a hierarchy of levels of reality which corresponds to the way the world evolved – from inorganic to organic to consciousness itself. Each level is dependent on the one below but is nor reducible to it. Chemistry is nor reducible to physics any more than biology is reducible to chemistry or psychology to biology or sociology to psychology
Matter is not created, and mind is a property of matter. Matter has no beginning and no end. Mind, as one of the properties of matter, is subject to the same physical laws of motion, cause and effect.
John, one can accept that mind is a property of matter but it does not follow that everything that goes on in the mind is reducible to matter – the brain in this case – and “subject to the same physical laws of motion, cause and effect.”
Causation, as the philosopher David Hume said, means that “The cause must be prior to the effect.” A purely physicalist explanation of the mind would have to hold that a particular neurophysical event – the firing of a certain neurons in the brain – must have preceded a particular thought – for example, solving a complex arithmetical problem such as dividing 238 by 13 ( namely 18.3076923). But how?
What “reductive physicalism” implies is that whatever thought we might experience would be literally inconceivable without, as it were, the prior permission of the brain to obligingly accommodate our intention to do so in the form of the appropriate neurophysical event to underpin, or cause this thought to happen. Perhaps the solution to a relatively simply arithmetical problem, such as 2 plus 2, might conceivably have been imprinted on our brain as sensory input in the form of rote learning off a school blackboard which we remember having done as children. But how would this be true of a more complex arithmetical problem such as the one referred to above?
What neural pathway divined the solution to that? What memories are stored in the inner recesses of our brain’s wonderfully capable filing system that would yield such a solution? Presumably none – unless by some remote chance the teacher happened to have chalked it up on the blackboard and we still retain the memory of that as a vague sensory input we once experienced which we can mechanically reproduce on request. More than likely, though, the exact form of this arithmetical problem – 238 divided by 13 – will be completely novel to us and so the solution to it will depend on our cognitive ability to perform a calculation, not on the “memory” of that solution.
And that is the point, isn’t it? To say that the brain provides us with the cognitive ability to solve the problem is not the same as saying that the brain itself, as a neuro-physical entity, literally solves that problem, this solution then just being involuntarily flagged up in our conscious minds. That would presuppose something akin to a memory of the solution stored in, and retrieved by, the brain. But that surely cannot be the case in this example. Something else must intercede which utterly depends upon, and must indeed make use of, the brain, but is not reducible to it – namely, the mind. To deny the existence of a mind, and its capacity to function on its own terms, leaves us totally unable to explain how we could have otherwise arrived at the solution to this problem in the first place.
This is why I have been banging on about Emergence theory which is the only credible form of materialism we can adopt as a socialists. Crude mechanical reductionist materialism is totally against everything we stand for. Sociological explanations would be rendered completely useless and invalid because social phenomena would be turned into mere “epiphenomena”, reflecting a lower order of reality – namely the empirical individuals who make up society which is exactly what bourgeois theorists do when they go on about “human nature”. Society – capitalism – is said to be a reflection of our biological nature as individuals. It has no reality in itself, no autonomy , no social laws pertaining to itself, and no ability to exert “downward causation” as the jargon goes. We cannot possibly be influenced by our social environment because as Margaret Thatcher helpfully pointed out “there is no such thing as society only individuals and their families”
But why stop at the empirical individual if you are going to be a thoroughgoing reductionist? The individual is made of matter so presumably eveyrhing the individual does or thinks is entirely explicable in terms of the movement of atoms or even sub-atomic particles. Its not capitalism that is the cause of mass unemployment. Its those pesky quarks bent on creating problems for us. Bastards.
This link might help James
https://www.informationphilosopher.com/knowledge/emergence.html
Emergence theory is a kind of intermediate position between atomistic/reductionist theories about the world, on the one hand, and holistic theories on the other.
In very crude sociological terms, the former argues that there is no such thing as society (Margaret Thatcher) while the latter argues that there is no such thing as individuals only society with a capital S.
Both perspectives are questionable which is why I opt for the intermediate one – emergence theory. I think Marx held this view too. He was not a crude reductionist or mechanical materialist but he did not deny the importance of human agency in social affairs either.
The SPGB’s position on “value” is that it is essentially a social relationship. As Marx said “value of commodities is the very opposite of the coarse materiality of their substance, not an atom of matter enters into its composition”
However, this does not imply economic subjectivism or support for the subjective theory of value. There is a tendency to equate objectivism with “coarse materiality” which is wrong. Durkheim spoke of “social facts” as having an external coercive normative power. He demonstrated this in his famous study of suicide by attributing different rates of suicides among different sections of the population – for example Catholics versus Protestants – which he attributed to the existence of different social facts applying to each
Economic subjectivists argue that value is determined by the subjective desires of economic actors. Since subjective desires can only be experienced by individuals – society is not a thing that experiences desires – this fully accords with their own individualistic worldview. From this point of view society is the product of individuals and so we get absurd philosophical ideas being touted in 17th/18th centuries that society was the result of a social contract being drawn up between individuals. The opposite to this holism which is no less absurd is that individuals are purely a product of society. A third position is represented by Emergence theory – that society depends on empirical individuals but cannot be “reduced” to individuals anymore than mental acts be “reduced” to the firing of neurons in the brain. Crude or mechanical materialism in this sense is fundamentally atomistic and hence fully in accord with the individualistic worldview which we Marxists oppose.
This does not mean subjective desires do not enter in the picture as far as economics are concerned. The use value of an object is in a sense subjective. What the subjective theory of value does is to confuse or conflate use value with exchange value – the ratio in which commodities exchange – which is determined by objective factors. But for commodities to exchange they must have use value
As Marx put it:
To begin with, a commodity, in the language of the English economists, is ‘any thing necessary, useful or pleasant in life,’ an object of human wants, a means of existence in the widest sense of the term. Use-value as an aspect of the commodity coincides with the physical palpable existence of the commodity. Wheat, for example, is a distinct use-value differing from the use-values of cotton, glass, paper, etc. A use-value has value only in use, and is realized only in the process of consumption. One and the same use-value can be used in various ways. But the extent of its possible application is limited by its existence as an object with distinct properties. It is, moreover, determined not only qualitatively but also quantitatively. Different use-values have different measures appropriate to their physical characteristics; for example, a bushel of wheat, a quire of paper, a yard of linen. Whatever its social form may be, wealth always consists of use-values, which in the first instance are not affected by this form. From the taste of wheat it is not possible to tell who produced it, a Russian serf, a French peasant or an English capitalist. Although use-values serve social needs and therefore exist within the social framework, they do not express the social relations of production. For instance, let us take as a use-value a commodity such as a diamond. We cannot tell by looking at it that the diamond is a commodity. Where it serves as an aesthetic or mechanical use-value, on the neck of a courtesan or in the hand of a glass-cutter, it is a diamond and not a commodity. To be a use-value is evidently a necessary prerequisite of the commodity, but it is immaterial to the use-value whether it is a commodity. Use-value as such, since it is independent of the determinate economic form, lies outside the sphere of investigation of political economy. It belongs in this sphere only when it is itself a determinate form. Use-value is the immediate physical entity in which a definite economic relationship—exchange-value—is expressed.[Critique of Political Economy]
By the way, the Northite Trots (WSWS/’Socialist Equality Party’) are standing candidates:
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/11/18/cand-n18.html
I have made some interventions in the comments section of this article. Perhaps, others here might like to join. Typical Leftist misrepresentation of the postion of the SPGB on such matters as trade unionism etc
Yes I do wonder on what grounds these “renowned linguists and historians” believe that the Basque language can be the “direct descendant of the language spoken by the dwellers of the caves of Altamira, Ekain or Lascaux” But the uniqueness of the language is not in question. It seems to be unrelated to any Indo-European or Romance languages and is considered to be a “language isolate”. No doubt in part a product of the relative physical isolation of the region
I don’t know what the Catalan nationalists are complaining about.
I understand that a lot of it has to do with the financial/tax arrangements between the central state and Catalonia which is different from, say, Pais Vasco which has more control over its budget (though it too had/has its separatist movement, with an armed wing ETA, the Basque’s equivalent of the IRA which mercifully hasn’t happened yet in the case of Catalonia), Essentially, Catalonia as one of the richest regions of Spain pays a lot more in Madrid’s coffers than it receives and the Catalan capitalists dont like this, They resent having to, in effect, subsidise other autonomous regions (I think there 17 in all)
Incidentally, talking of languages, Euskara , the Basque language is quite unique. According to this:
Euskera is the oldest living language in Europe. Most linguists, experts and researchers say so. Euskera is a very old language whose origins remain unknown. Renowned linguists and historians believe that it can be the direct descendant of the language spoken by the dwellers of the caves of Altamira, Ekain or Lascaux.
The Basque language’s origins date back to the Neolithic, but there is evidence that it could be even older. In fact, it could be at the seeds of articulate language.Some more statistics provided by James Heartfield:
“To take the US working class as an example, they produce goods to the value of $18 trillion each year, and take home wages of around 44 per cent of that. They are exploited. They are not exploiting anyone else. Until that point that there is a transfer of income in their favour in excess of 54 per cent of $18 trillion that will remain the case. Return on US Foreign investments abroad is around $50 billion (http://www.nber.org/papers/w13313.pdf). That is a lot, but it is not enough to subsidise US workers, whose pay comes out of their own output.” (https://rdln.wordpress.com/2016/11/29/imperialism-study-group-some-discussion-on-the-labour-aristocracy/)
There are people around like Zak Cope, author of Divided World Divided Class: Global Political Economy and the Stratification of Labour Under Capitalism (Kersplebedeb Press: 2012) who is (I think) a Maoist and has indeed gone beyond even Lenin’s idea of the so called Labour aristocracy in declaring that the workers of the developed world are essentially no longer exploited but participate with the capitalists of the developed world in the super exploitation of the Global South. He produces a bunch of statistics to back up his claim relating to prices , wages and profits to back up his thesis that the cost of producing and reproducing the labour power of a worker in the developed world has in effect fallen below the wages he or she receives. Hence this worker is no longer exploited and has a vested interest in the maintenance of capitalism
Its been a while since I checked out the book so I am a bit hazy on the details (so the above interpretation might not be exactly correct) but, as I recall, it is a work that is held in quite high esteem by the “anti-imperialist” movement. It would certainly need to be referenced in any proposed pamphlet/article as would Charlie Post I referred to earlier on this thread who has done some sterling work in refuting the labour aristocracy thesis
The idea that workers are no longer exploited in the developed countries is bunkum on both theoretical and empirical grounds. As far as the latter is concerned I have come across some interesting figures – for example comparing the hourly wages of US manufacturing workers with their value added contribution to output per hour. It seems that the latter is about 3 times the magnitude of the former, demonstrating quite emphatically that two thirds of their labour is effectively unpaid labour. Meaning they are exploited. Indeed the gap between wages and productivity in the developed world has been steadily widening since the 1970s and the onset of neoliberal capitalism and in the opposite direction to which people like Cope would have use believe.
The argument comes across as a bit more nuanced if we take into account Marx’s distinction between productive and unproductive labour (only the latter actually produce commodities for sale on the market). We know there has been quite a significant shift in manufacturing to developing countries centred on export processing zones (EPZs). Many large corporations like Nike for example no longer produce the things they sell – in this case shoes. Rather they market them through a process of branding. Production is increasingly outsourced and contracted out to contractors based in the developing world in places like Vietnam and Cambodia. China used to the place to go for cheap labour but it has been eclipsed by some other countries in the race to the bottom (another reason why China is increasingly turning to robotics – the dirt cheap labour force has been drying for demographic and other reasons) .
I have only just recovered the WSM website and if the companion parties agree, perhaps we can make better use of the Forum on it called Community for all of what you say.
What is this WSM website, Matt. I have never seen it before. Are the companion parties actively involved? What plans do you have for it?. Will it include a discussion forum and a link to the archives on the SPGB forum.
I like the look of it but it maybe needs a padding out a bit I think. Perhaps it could serve as an umbrella website for all the companion parties websites with links to the growing number of official and unofficial WSM FB sites….
This might be of interest to provide a bit of context to the Catalonian issue…
So the far-right Vox party has increased its representation in parliament but at which other parties expense?
Ciudadanos mainly the centre right party whose sears fell from 47 seats to 10. I suspect what happened was a little more complicated though. Probably a large of its supporters voted for the PP which gained seats in this election and some PPs in turn voted for Vox though many of Vox supporters probably came from elsewhere as well. The Catalan Independistas also made gains and of course Vox has overtaken Ciudadanos as the most vociferous opponent of Catalan independence.
So we have a very polarised situation developing with no prospect of a resolution in the future. The parliament is hung if not drawn and quartered more than ever and I fear things could turn nasty with the right on the rise partly thanks to those idiot Catalan nationalists and their pseudo progressive nationalist claptrap
