Skip to main content

Mind or Mechanism: Which Came First?

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: Biosemiotics ((BSEM,volume 8))

Abstract

This chapter questions the reductionist assumption that bits of lifeless matter must have grouped themselves into complex patterns that eventually became living conscious beings. There is no decisive reason to question Peirce’s suggestion that mind came first and that mechanical causality emerges when regions of a fundamentally conscious universe settle into deterministic habits. If we define consciousness in a way that ignores clearly accidental properties such as looking and behaving like us, some form of panpsychism is not only possible but plausible. Ignoring this possibility could cause us to subconsciously exclude legitimate avenues of research.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   219.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    In this passage, Peirce was referring only to the psychological continuity of ideas in experience. However, in Peirce 1892, he specifically endorsed applying these ideas to the external world as well (footnote p. 480).

  2. 2.

    Many people, especially Dawkins himself, do not think of Dawkins’ Blind Watchmaker theory as a theology. At one point, Dawkins even says that theology does not have a subject matter at all. This is an important mistake. It creates the illusion that Dawkins’ position is only denying, rather than asserting, a fact about the world, which in turn gives the false impression that his theology is more parsimonious than its competitors. This assumption ignores the fact that the boundaries of an intellectual discipline are determined not by the answers it gives, but by the questions it asks. That is why Ptolemaic and Copernican astronomy are both forms of astronomy despite the vast differences in the answers they give to their shared questions. For the same reason, the Blind Watchmaker theology and Calvinist theology are both theologies because they ask the same questions and give radically different answers to them.

  3. 3.

    I don’t like the phrase “in the sandpile,” because it conflicts with Hartshorne’s more accurate reference to the “larger whole” which is the true determining factor of consciousness.

  4. 4.

    Even though he makes no specific comments about metaphysics or cosmogeny, I believe that Judea Pearl’s new mathematical formulation for causal laws strongly supports this framing of the question. Pearl says that mechanical causality, in which the cause follows the effect, occurs only when one system interacts with another. Although his theory can in principle accommodate situations in which two mechanical systems interact, most of his examples involve purposive agents whose actions give rise to a mechanical set of causal laws. This is one reason he refers to his causal mathematics as an “Algebra of Doing.”

References

  • Clark, D. (2004). Panpsychism: Past and recent selected readings. Albany: State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dawkins, R. (1976). The selfish gene. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dawkins, R. (1986). The blind watchmaker. New York: Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dawkins, R. (2006). The God delusion. Boston: Houghton Miflin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dennett, D. (1979). True believers: The intentional strategy and why it works. (Reprinted in Mind Design II, by J. Haugeland, Ed., 1997, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press)

    Google Scholar 

  • Hartshorne, C. (1962). The logic of perfection. Lasalle: Open Court.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haugeland, J. (Ed.). (1997). Mind design II. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hawking, S. (1988). A brief history of time. New York, NY: Bantam Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pearl, J. (2009). Causality: Models, reasoning and inference. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peirce, C. S. (1892, October 1–22). Man’s glassy essence. The Monist (Reprinted in Essential Peirce, Vol 1, by N. Houser & C. Kloesel, Eds., 1992, Bloomington: Indiana University Press)

    Google Scholar 

  • Peirce, C. S. (1940). Philosophical writings of Peirce (J. Buchler, Ed.). New York: Dover Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peirce, C. S. (1958a). Peirce: Collected papers (vols. I–VII, P. Hartshorne & P. Weiss, Eds.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. (Original work published 1931)

    Google Scholar 

  • Peirce, C. S. (1958b) Charles S. Peirce: Selected writings (P. P. Weiner, Ed.). New York: Dover Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Port, R. F., & Van Gelder, T. (Eds.). (1995). Mind as motion: Explorations in the dynamics of cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rockwell, T. (2005). Neither brain nor ghost: A nondualist alternative to the mind/brain identity theory. Cambridge, MA: Bradford Books, MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rockwell, T. (2008). Processes and particles: The impact of classical pragmatism on contemporary metaphysics. Philosophical Topics, 36(1), 239–258.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenberg, G. (2005). A place for consciousness: Probing the deep structure of the natural world. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Royce, J. (1901). The world and the individual. New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seager, W. (2004). The generation problem restated. In D. Clark (Ed.), Panpsychism: Past and recent selected readings. Albany: State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sellars, W. (1963). Philosophy and the scientific image of man. In Science, perception, and reality. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skrbina, D. (2001). Participation, organization, and mind: Toward a participatory worldview. Doctoral thesis, University of Bath, Bath, UK. http://people.bath.ac.uk/mnspwr/doc_theses_links/pdf/dt_ds_chapter4.pdf

  • Skrbina, D. (2005). Panpsychism in the West. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skrbina, D. (Ed.). (2009). Mind that abides. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strawson, G. (2006). In A. Freeman (Ed.), Consciousness and its place in nature: Does physicalism entail panpsychism? Exeter: Imprint Academic.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Teed Rockwell .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Rockwell, T. (2013). Mind or Mechanism: Which Came First?. In: Swan, L. (eds) Origins of Mind. Biosemiotics, vol 8. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5419-5_12

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics