Knowing Minds

Knowing Minds

What is the main thing that minds do? A survey of psychological (and philosophical) theories through the centuries suggests a variety of answers: copy, interpret, react, introspect, sense, repress, think, remember, reason, imagine, learn, believe, create, compute, process information, and no doubt others. Each of these might be proposed as the central operation of mind—the salient feature of the natural kind mind. Speaking biologically, this comprises the function of the mind—what it was naturally selected to do. It is what enables survival and reproduction. The trouble is that none of these gives us a plausible overall theory of the main thing that minds do. Is the mind, then, a mere conglomeration? Bodies do a variety of things too—breathe, copulate, eat, excrete, etc.—and this variety seems irreducible. Is that the way it is with the mind—a bunch of discrete organs or functions or features? Granted, we can say that all such traits contribute to survival and reproduction (hence gene propagation), but can we say anything more specific about what all mental traits have in common? Can we say what the science of mind is the science of? What is psychology about—generally, unifyingly? I mean this question to concern not just human minds but all animal minds: what is the mind in general all about? It evolved, to be sure, but what in particular did it evolve to do?[1]

Absent from my list is this word: theorize. Can we say that mind exists in order to theorize? That sounds farfetched, given that much mental activity is not theoretical in the scientific sense. But I think it is close to the truth: for it is possible to understand the word “theorize” in a broad sense and thereby name a distinctive psychological natural kind. The point is familiar enough: people and animals regularly go beyond the data of sense to construct a conjecture about what is out there—from smells to predators (or prey), from bird songs to potential mates, from the ambient temperature to the passing of the seasons. We might say that they infer(again broadly). This is very useful, indeed indispensable—survival depends on it.  Animals need to know the truth about reality, but this truth is seldom immediately given, so they have to theorize—conjecture, guess, speculate, infer, postulate. They are like natural-born scientists. I take it this picture is plausible to the point of banality. But it suggests an answer to our question: the purpose of minds (hence their nature) is to seek truth by means of theoretical methods, the better to survive and reproduce. Bodies don’t seek the truth, but minds do. Sensation, learning, remembering, reasoning, imagining—all these contribute to the enterprise of truth discovery. And truth is what you need if you are going to prosper in a hostile world intent on selecting you out; falsehood will not serve you well. The ability to theorize, in the broad sense, is vital to this goal.

But it would be stretching a point to say that all mentality is theorizing—don’t we also have data, evidence? So, let’s generalize a bit: the mind is what produces knowledge. The organ of the mind (the brain) is the organ of knowledge, as the lungs are the organ of breathing. Knowledge is an evolutionary adaptation; it arose by mutation and natural selection millions of years ago. It has a biological function. It is also the essence of the mind, according to the current proposal. There would be no mind without knowledge. Knowledge is the whole point. The concept of mind is the concept of a knowledge machine (producer, storehouse). It is the main event. Descartes was onto something, but he misdescribed it by saying that the essence of mind is thought—because you can think without knowing. The idea isn’t to think per se but to know by thinking. Evolution has no interest in thinking as such, but it cares very much about knowing, because knowing is what gets you success in your biological goals. The problem that all animal life faces is that the reality of things is not fully revealed by how they impinge (or fail to) on the organism’s surface; so, it is necessary to find a means of going beyond the surface to the reality beyond. This requires theorizing. The mind evolved to fill this epistemic gap. No gap, no mind to fill it. God has no mind, because he is not confronted by a gap—everything is already in his…not his mind but his divine cranium (words fail us). There is no mind without the possibility of ignorance. The natural history of mind is a history of ignorance overcome; ignorance is the natural condition of all living creatures. Minds are designed to overcome it. Thus, intelligence, rationality, logic, theory construction, verification and falsification, self-criticism, communication, actual science, technology. It all stems from the primal requirement to know. What would be the point in creating a mind if there was nothing to know with it? It would be like creating space with nothing to put in it (in fact, even more pointless).

You might feel an objection rising up: what about emotion, desire, will, intentional action? Right, we do need to find a place for these in the overall conception; but it is not far to seek. For we need to connect knowledge with behavior, or rather the genes do—or else the knowledge will not serve its biological purpose. Knowledge is no practical use if it just hangs there, so we need an apparatus that links it to action—hence desire, emotion, and will. These things need to evolve too, simultaneously. But notice that their point is precisely to convert knowledge into useful behavior—behavior infused with knowledge. Intelligent informed behavior. I act in the light of the knowledge I possess. I desire what I know is good for me. I feel emotions about what I know to be scary or attractive (I am afraid of what I know will harm me). What about language—how is it connected to knowledge? It can communicate knowledge in the form of speech, so it will be useful in knowledge-heavy communities; but it also helps in the acquisition of knowledge, by providing an instrument of thought. Or rather, an instrument of knowing: thought matters only insofar as it leads to knowledge. No one needs an instrument of false thought. Language evolved in order to aid knowledge—its acquisition, vehicle, transmission, expression, medium. Language is an epistemic resource (though it can be coopted for other purposes such as scolding or singing). One way or another it all comes back to knowledge—the need to get at the truth. At the center of the concept of mind is the concept of truth. Even consciousness must trace back to truth, because it must facilitate access to truth. We (and other animals) are conscious because we are perforce truth-seekers—consciousness is a handy way to gain access to truth (why, is not so clear). All of psychology is truth-oriented, knowledge-imbued. Psychology is really the science of knowing– fundamentally, originally (despite some divagations). It is best to admit it instead of hiding behind jargon. Even conditioning, classical or operant, is really about knowledge: the dog knows that food will come when it hears the bell (Pavlov); the pigeon knows it will receive a pellet if it pecks a certain lever (Skinner). These experiments are about inductive knowledge when you cut through the behaviorist jargon. The same goes for talk of “information” or “computation”. Why psychologists fight shy of using the concept of knowledge explicitly is an interesting question—is it because it doesn’t sound “scientific” enough, too close to philosophy? Is it not mechanistic enough (physics doesn’t study knowledge)? But actually, the study of child development, say, is largely about the growth of knowledge in the child (see Piaget)—hence the growth of his or her mind. Language development is a matter of acquiring knowledge of language, and the language acquired is a means of communicating and processing knowledge. It isn’t just a matter of making the right noises (“speech behavior”).

We use our minds all the time (as we breathe all the time) and this consists of deploying our knowledge. All jobs involve knowledge of one kind or another, as do all hobbies, sports, and human interactions. We are knowing beings—the best knowers of the lot (though bees are pretty impressive). Knowledge means everything to us; without it we are nothing. All of culture depends on knowledge. It is instinctive and deep-seated. We put a lot of effort into acquiring it; education is systematic knowledge increase. Knowledge has status, brings wealth, helps you find a mate. This is why skepticism cuts at the heart of what we are and aspire to be—consummate knowers. For skepticism insists that we don’t know after all; we can’t know—we are not capable of it. Skepticism is tantamount to declaring us null and void—empty of the very thing we prize most. If we have no knowledge, then we have no nature—just the aspiration towards a nature. No one knows more than another, because no one knows anything. The mind is rendered pointless, incapable of performing its proper function. You may as well not have a mind. So the skeptic insinuates and he can be very persuasive. You pride yourself on your knowledge, but your pride is baseless. You are therefore nothing—a total blank slate. We badly want to be able to respond to the skeptic who insults us thus, but that is no easy task. The fear remains that our minds are not up to the job—incompetent impostors, phony knowers. But then we slip back into the marketplace and the warm glow of knowing returns. It’s nice to know stuff. It makes having a mind worthwhile. All minds are knowing minds (putting skepticism aside).[2]

[1] There was almost certainly an intermediate stage between non-knowledge and knowledge—a kind of twilight zone in which knowledge proper does not yet exist. This stage will have showed adaptive promise so that natural selection naturally led to knowledge as we know it today. Far down the evolutionary line advanced knowledge came to exist—science, philosophy, etc. No doubt this was a long, convoluted story that gradually allowed knowledge to progress. Presumably, it will continue to develop in the future. The first law of knowledge: knowledge keeps growing, improving, evolving. Knowledge is one of evolution’s best ideas, like walking on four legs. There would be no minds to speak of on planet Earth unless knowledge had been invented.

[2] Epistemology and psychology are not really separable: you need the former to do the latter. You need an analysis of knowledge and a theory of justification and a theory of truth. You need to know what knowledge is, how it is justified, and what its aim is (i.e., what truth is).  Psychology thus needs philosophy. Cognitive science needs epistemic science. The concept of knowledge is the central concept of any cognitive science worthy of the name. And the mind is ultimately all about cognition. Emotions without knowledge are empty and blind. Plato was right to see in knowledge the key to self-understanding. Descartes was right to appreciate the urgency of defeating skepticism. Philosophy of knowledge is philosophy 101. There is no alternative to the epistemic turn (even the linguistic turn is all about knowledge—knowledge of language). Human (and animal) life is shot through with epistemic concerns—with what we know and what we don’t know. The mind (or soul) is an epistemic engine. It has no other being. For the self, to be is to know. (Am I exaggerating? A little, but the point needs some rhetorical excess.)