Review of Teed Rockwell’s Neither Brain nor Ghost: A Nondualist Alternative to the Mind-Brain Identity Theor

Marsh, Leslie

English

Cognitive Sciences ePrint Archive

ARTICLE IN PRESSBook ReviewDewey: the first ghost-buster?
Neither Brain nor Ghost: A Nondualist Alternative to the Mind-Brain Identity Theory by W. Teed Rockwell. MIT Press, 2005.
£23.95/$36.00 (256 pp.) ISBN 0-262-18247-5
Leslie Marsh
Centre for Research in Cognitive Science (COGS) and Department of Informatics, University of Sussex, Falmer BN1 9QH, UKGhost-busting
Ghost-busting, or less colloquially,
anti-Cartesianism or non-representa-
tionalism, is a loose and internally
fluid coalition (philosophical and
empirical) comprising Dynamical,
Embodied, Extended, Distributed,
and Situated (DEEDS) theories of
cognition. Gilbert Ryle – DEEDS’
anglophonic masthead [1] – suppo-
sedly exorcised the Cartesian propen-
sity to postulate mind as an apparition-like entity
somehow situated in the body. Ryle’s behaviouristic
recommendation was, that just as we don’t see the wind
blowing but only see the trees waving, so too should we
conceive intelligence as manifest though action. The
Cartesian ghost of old has mutated, taking the form of
the ‘Machine in theMachine’, the brain as a self-contained
system within the body. This bifurcation of the person into
brain and body, apparent in the methodological supposi-
tion that cognition can be studied independently of any
consideration of the body and the physical and ambient
social environment is, in effect, a naturalized and perhaps
more insidious variant.
For Rockwell, the philosopher John Dewey should be
the patron saint to the DEEDS strand of cognitive science
albeit before the event. Dewey, in Rockwell’s view, has
been grossly overlooked as a fertile source for non-
Cartesian philosophy of mind. Indeed, Rockwell’s Dewey
prefigured behaviourism and cognitive psychology, articu-
lated the basic principles of dynamic systems theory
(DST), and anticipated many Heideggerian notions
central to current non-Cartesian cognitive science!Minds, brains and bodies
Rockwell’s target is the mind–brain identity theory, which
conceives of the brain as a self-contained causally closed
organ on the basis of philosophers’ assumption that the
brain–body distinction has been proven by neuroscience,
rather than presupposed (p. 31). However strong the
temptation may be, perhaps the brain is not a bona fide
natural kind (p. 36). Rockwell, like all DEEDS theorists,
disputes that the brain can be the entire supervenience
base of the mind (p. 69). If mental functions have been
found in the skull that’s ‘only because that is where most
people have been looking for them.’ (p. 18). Of course, this
generates intuitions that deny that there is an essentiale-mail: l.marsh@sussex.ac.uk
www.sciencedirect.com 1364-6613/$ - see front matter Q 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reservedrelation between human physicality and cognition. Rock-
well’s Deweyan inspired remedy is to expand the super-
venience base across the tripartite of brain–body–world
(as Andy Clark said ‘putting brain, body and world
together again’) [2].
What Rockwell is proposing is that the body must be
factored into a satisfactory explanation of how a cognitive
system works. He is not making the trivial claim that the
mere fact of our having olfactory, visual, somatosensory
and auditory experience implies that one’s body has a
nose, eyes, skin and ears. The more interesting claim he is
making is that the body is part and parcel of the cognitive
system. Rockwell accepts new evidence that the neural
networks that are distributed throughout the body ‘are not
structurally that different from the ones in the cranium’
(p. 23). The example of phantom limbs is invoked: if the
embodiment of sensation is distributed throughout the
nervous system would we not expect such a phenomenon?
(pp. 26–27).I act, therefore I think
For nigh on 350 years Cartesian philosophy of mind has
had cogito, ergo sum (‘I think, therefore I exist’) as its
central methodological and metaphysical presupposition.
DEEDS, by contrast, inverts this view: ago ergo cogito
(‘I act, therefore I think’).
Rockwell’s emphasis on the notion of embodiment
implies a goal driven and purposeful engagement with
the world. Thought changes the world, but only via its
effects on action, and action needs a body. Rockwell
welds this emphasis on active engagement, a Deweyan
conception of process and experience, to current DST.
Pragmatism (Dewey’s no exception) has had an
intimate association with process philosophy, a meta-
physics and epistemology that gives primacy to tempor-
ality, activity and change. DST runs on a weave of
embodiment, environmental situatedness, temporality
and the goal-directedness of intelligent action (intention-
ality). Thus the ground is prepared for Rockwell’s
suggested amalgamation.
Rockwell’s Deweyan alternative to the current externa-
lism/internalism debate is what he terms ‘a theory of
middle-sized content’ (p. 93). For Dewey, ‘all intentional
phenomena take place within a background of experience,
which was itself irreducibly intentional’ (p. 141). Extern-
alism, broadly speaking, is the view that the content of a
mental state is in part determined by elements of the
external world. Internalism or individualism, is the view
that the content of mental states is determined by featuresUpdate TRENDS in Cognitive Sciences Vol.xx No.xx Monthxxxx. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2006.04.004
Update TRENDS in Cognitive Sciences Vol.xx No.xx Monthxxxx2
ARTICLE IN PRESSof the conscious subject without recourse to environmental
conditions. Rockwell’s mediating proposal conceives of
environment as ‘constituted by its relationship to the
mind (goals, projects, functions)’, a reciprocal relation
between our conceptual creativity and the environment
(natural and artefactual), to intimate, regulate and inform
concepts and action (pp. 105–106). This reciprocity is not
dissimilar to David Wiggins’ ‘conceptual realism’ captured
by his slogan ‘themind “conceptualises” objects, yet objects
“impinge” upon the mind’ [3]. BothWiggins and Dewey (as
expounded by Rockwell) seek to redress the stark polarity
of, on the one hand, the empiricist conception of discrete
unmediated ‘raw’ moments, and on the other hand, the
idealists’ constructivism or antirealism.
Following on from Dewey’s legacy
Dewey’s legacy is highly contested. Much of course
depends upon which of Dewey’s works are being trawled
[4]. I don’t think that Rockwell’s suggestive reconstruction
of Dewey can be accused of being unduly fanciful. I do,
though, have three gripes with this book. First, Rockwell
doesn’t tackle head-on the controversial and very live
Chalmers–Clark–Wilson ‘extended mind’ thesis [5,6],
despite claiming that their ‘active externalism’ has not
been bold enough (p. 17). (Although cited in the text, the
classic Clark and Chalmers paper is omitted in the
References). Second, although Rockwell is of the view
that current neuroscientific knowledge no longer fully
supports the mind–brain identity (p. 9), I don’t share
Rockwell’s optimism: a PubMed search does not lendwww.sciencedirect.comsupport to this assertion. Third, what is an eminently
readable book comes to an abrupt end: there is a distinct
sense of unfinished business. I felt that a brief chapter
summarizing the Deweyan approach was called for, at the
very least.
All said and done, Rockwell has done cognitive science
the immense service of ‘rehabilitating’ Dewey. Rockwell
himself is a welcome addition to what is now a third wave
of DEEDS theorists: he writes with an empirically
informed clarity and a healthy ecumenical spirit,
attitudes conspicuously missing from orthodox philos-
ophy of mind. This is reflected, for example, in his
ambivalent attitude to philosophers’ Zombies (Chapter 7),
a logical but not physically possible thought experiment
ostensibly illustrating the poverty of heterophenomenol-
ogy (a scientific third-person approach to the study of
consciousness [7]).References
1 Ryle, G. (1990/1990) The Concept of Mind, Penguin
2 Clark, A. (1997) Being There: Putting Brain, Body, and World Together
Again, MIT Press
3 Wiggins, D. (1980) Sameness and Substance, Oxford University Press
4 Godfrey-Smith, P. (2002) Dewey on Naturalism. Realism and Science.
Philos. Sci. 69, S25–S35
5 Clark, A. and Chalmers, D. (1998) The extended mind. Analysis 58,
10–23
6 Wilson, R.A. (2004) Boundaries of the Mind: The Individual in the
Fragile Sciences: Cognition, Cambridge University Press
7 Dennett, D. (2005) Sweet Dreams: Philosophical Obstacles to a Science
of Consciousness, MIT Press


Being There: Putting Brain, Body, and World Together Again,

Boundaries of the Mind: The Individual in the Fragile Sciences: Cognition, Cambridge University Press Update TRENDS in Cognitive Sciences Vol.xx No.xx Monthxxxx2 ARTICLE IN PRESSRockwell’s optimism: a PubMed search does not lendwww.sciencedirect.com7

Dewey on Naturalism. Realism and Science.

The Concept of Mind,

The extended mind. Analysis 58,

Review of Teed Rockwell’s Neither Brain nor Ghost: A Nondualist Alternative to the Mind-Brain Identity Theory

CogPrints Cognitive Sciences Eprint Archive

Review of Teed Rockwell’s Neither Brain nor Ghost: A Nondualist Alternative to the Mind-Brain Identity Theory

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Cognitive Sciences ePrint Archive

CogPrints Cognitive Sciences Eprint Archive