Mental representation as resemblance?
It won’t work across the board, since some of the things of which we have ideas don’t look like anything (since they are abstract, e.g., the number 43, or immaterial, e.g., God), but maybe some ideas are ideas of what they are ideas of because they resemble them. Maybe Tyler’s idea of a football is an idea of a football because it looks like a football. Its shape resembles that of a football.
Materialists say that the mind is just the brain, so if Tyler has any mental pictures, they are in his brain. However, if we look inside his brain while he is thinking about the football, we won’t see anything that looks like a football, nothing shaped like a football. So, either there are no mental pictures in the brain, or they are a very special sort of picture, ones we can’t see even though we look at them (invisible pictures?) Only Tyler sees them, even though he never looks at his brain.
Dualists say that the mind is immaterial, something that has no physical properties, no shape, size, color, etc. If Tyler has a mental picture, it is some state of, or event in, this immaterial mind. But if something looks like a football in virtue of having the same shape as a football, then it is hard to believe there is a picture in his mind, since it’s hard to believe something that has no shape, size, or any other physical property contains something shaped like a football.
So, if there are mental pictures that represent physical things in virtue of resembling them, where are they?
P.S. At the end of this sentence there's a picture of a football viewed from 1000 yards.
5 comments:
What about the other senses? Seeing creates these "mental pictures" in your brain but what happens with smelling, hearing and the rest? Smells represent some source that is producing the smell. How, why and of what image is a smell translated? I think this comment kind of jumps off the topic or Art but this ideas and brain talk leads to many other questions.
i like scott's point.
i also want to address wacome's question: "So, if there are mental pictures that represent physical things in virtue of resembling them, where are they?"
is it completely necessary that we define this as a "mind" property vs. a "brain" property? or is it enough just to say our mental processing unit recognizes distinctive properties of the thing being portrayed (ie. the shape, color, and stiching on a football), compares it with our previous notions of "football," and as a result we think, "it's a football," without necessarily reproducing our own version of this picture somewhere in our mind/brain?
Scott raises an important point: We have mental representations that are not visual. Whatever these are, it's hard to see how they could really be anything like pictures. Does, e.g., the sensation you have when you smell something resemble the thing it represents? Does it smell like something?
Katie reasonably asks why we should suppose those things we call "mental pictures" are really like pictures, given the apparent implausibility of finding anything like a picture either in the brain or in an immaterial mind. Her account pushes everything back one step. If we dispense with mental pictures, the question to ask is what's a notion, and what makes the notion of a football a notion of a football.
An idea of something is just an idea because it may not exist in reality outside the creator's or thinker's mind. Unless it is a case similar to Tyler's thinking of the football. Even though we can not see the picture in his mind he can see it because he uses his imagination. We use our imaginations and visualize things that once existed in reality or have the potential to exist, as is the case in art.
I honestly don't understand where the discussion of "are there really mental pictures based on resemblence" that show up in our brain. I feel like it's completely obvious that we can't just think of something and automatically our brain/mind will produce that physical, tangible thing. So what is the question exactly?
Is it all about association? We can think of something because we have touched, smelled, seen, (etc..) it before, and then... is that when we develop a "notion" about it? Then when we see, hear, or talk about things at a different time, we link them with the other connections we have learned and made previously. (Isn't this called like mylenization on the synapses of the brain or something, for all you psych majors out there?)
Wow, what a complex thing. I'm in awe of how God created us! Are we really a blank slate (tabula rosa) when we are born, and then through a lifetime we connect all these dots and keep learning new things! And we can imagine them, and represent them in art, and think about them. I stand in awe, God! :)
Post a Comment