What do you think?
Rate this book
The Mind and the Machine: What It Means to Be Human and Why It Matters
Are humans just complex biochemical machines, mere physical parts of a causally closed materialist universe? Are we approaching the so-called "Singularity" when human consciousness can (and will) be downloaded into computers? Or is there more to the human person-something that might be known as soul or spirit? As this book makes clear, the answers to these questions have profound implications to topics such as heroism, creativity, ecology, and the possibility of reason and science. In exploring this important topic, Dickerson engages the ideas of some well-known twentieth- and twenty-first-century espousers of physicalism, including philosopher Daniel Dennett (Consciousness Explained), biologist Richard Dawkins (The God Delusion), futurist-engineer Raymond Kurzweil (The Age of Spiritual Machines), psychologist B. F. Skinner (Beyond Freedom and Dignity), and mathematician-philosopher Bertrand Russell (Why I Am Not a Christian). Through a careful reading of their works, Dickerson not only provides a five-fold critique of physicalism, but also offers a Christian alternative in the form of "integrative dualism" which affirms the existence of both a physical and spiritual reality without diminishing the goodness or importance of either, and acknowledges that humans are spiritual as well as bodily persons.
242 pages, Paperback
First published April 9, 2011
6 people are currently reading
95 people want to read
About the author
Matthew Dickerson
41 books77 followersMatthew Dickerson (PhD, Cornell University) is a professor at Middlebury College in Vermont, a writer, the former director of the New England Young Writers’ Conference at Bread Loaf and the current co-director of the Northern Pen Young Writers' Conference. His previous works include fantasy novels The Gifted and The Betrayed; works about fantasy including From Homer to Harry Potter along with Narnia and the Fields of Arbol: The Environmental Vision of C. S. Lewis, A Hobbit Journey, and Ents, Elves, and Eriador: The Environmental Vision of J. R .R. Tolkien; some medieval historic romance including The Rood and the Torc; and even philosophy of mind and computation The Mind and the Machine: What it Means to be Human and Why it Matters.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews
September 26, 2012
Any book that combines a discussion of Raymond Kurzweil’s theory of the coming singularity with analysis of the writings of J.R.R. Tolkien is probably going to be a good read. Matthew Dickerson’s The Mind and The Machine: What it Means to Be Human and Why it Matters does not disappoint. Dickerson’s basic question in the book is to ask whether a human can be understood as just a complex biological machine. This view he calls physicalism, where the physical world of matter is all there is. Dickerson contrasts this with dualism, the view that a human consists not just of body, but of body and spirit.
The first half of the book is focused on showing the shortcomings of a physicalist view. He argues that under physicalism, things like creativity and heroism cease to exist. Creativity is defined as the bringing of something new into existence, something original. Heroism is making virtuous choices. The problem is that under physicalism there is no free will. If humans are just biological machines, extremely complex computers, we can only do what we have been programmed to do by nature or nurture.
He also argues, suprisingly, that physicalism leads to a devaluing of nature. This appears surprising because it is often religious people, at least of certain persuasions, who are seen as so valuing the spiritual that they care nothing for the world around them. But Dickerson says that the views of Kurzweil and others devalue the body: if we’re going to merge with computers, what need is there for the natural world? Further, if the only things that exist are physical things, Dickerson argues than everything humans do is “natural.” Humans, as part of nature, do natural things, whether this is polluting rivers or cleaning them. And if determinism is true, which it must be under this view, then it is inevitable that we will do whatever we do. There is nothing “unnatural.”
Dickerson’s third argument may be even more surprising, as he argues that physicalism gives less reason to trust in reason or science than does dualism. In this he turns some physicalist arguments back on themselves. Many say that humans only believe in religion as part of our evolutionary programming, it was something helpful in the past. Yet if all our beliefs only come about out of usefulness, then the same is true of our trust in reason. If a mind outside the physical brain is illusion, then so to is reason.
The second part of the book then goes through the same subjects, showing how a dualist perspective better accounts for human creativity, heroism and the rest. It should be noted that Dickerson argues for an integrative dualism where body and soul cannot be separated from each other, both are needed for a human to be fully human. This differs from a “ghost in the machine” dualism where the soul is like an entity living in the body, pulling the levers and running the show.
Overall, this is a fantastic book. It covers a lot of ground while engaging with a variety of fields from science to literature. Dickerson does not claim to have a knock-down rational argument for or against naturalism or dualism. Instead his point is to ask which view better explains our existence as humans: “What I have suggested was that if humans are spiritual beings, then we ought to have some spiritual compass” (206).
To Dickerson, and I think he’s right, it comes down to assumptions. If you assume from the outset that humans are just physical creatures and nothing more, that the brain is just the matter you can see inside a skull, then no argument for a soul makes sense. Dickerson asks us to question that assumption. What if we leave open the possibility that there is more to the world than what science can find, then what is physical and material? Does a spiritual sense better explain creativity and heroism, reason and a moral basis for ecological practice (i.e., polluting the planet is wrong). If so, perhaps there is something out there beyond the natural world.
That said, questioning our assumptions is tough. If Dickerson can get us to do that, he has succeeded.
Finally, I did think the book slowed down near the end. Perhaps, and this will sound bad coming from a Christian pastor, it is because that while his defense of creativity and heroism relied on the work of Tolkien, his defense of reason and science rested on scripture. I believe everything he said about scripture is true and that there is a strong motivation in there for trusting reason and doing science. But using scripture to support the argument in one chapter and not another seemed uneven. It would have been better either to add scripture to the heroism and creativity chapter, or to find examples (like Tolkien) for the science and reason chapter.
The first half of the book is focused on showing the shortcomings of a physicalist view. He argues that under physicalism, things like creativity and heroism cease to exist. Creativity is defined as the bringing of something new into existence, something original. Heroism is making virtuous choices. The problem is that under physicalism there is no free will. If humans are just biological machines, extremely complex computers, we can only do what we have been programmed to do by nature or nurture.
He also argues, suprisingly, that physicalism leads to a devaluing of nature. This appears surprising because it is often religious people, at least of certain persuasions, who are seen as so valuing the spiritual that they care nothing for the world around them. But Dickerson says that the views of Kurzweil and others devalue the body: if we’re going to merge with computers, what need is there for the natural world? Further, if the only things that exist are physical things, Dickerson argues than everything humans do is “natural.” Humans, as part of nature, do natural things, whether this is polluting rivers or cleaning them. And if determinism is true, which it must be under this view, then it is inevitable that we will do whatever we do. There is nothing “unnatural.”
Dickerson’s third argument may be even more surprising, as he argues that physicalism gives less reason to trust in reason or science than does dualism. In this he turns some physicalist arguments back on themselves. Many say that humans only believe in religion as part of our evolutionary programming, it was something helpful in the past. Yet if all our beliefs only come about out of usefulness, then the same is true of our trust in reason. If a mind outside the physical brain is illusion, then so to is reason.
The second part of the book then goes through the same subjects, showing how a dualist perspective better accounts for human creativity, heroism and the rest. It should be noted that Dickerson argues for an integrative dualism where body and soul cannot be separated from each other, both are needed for a human to be fully human. This differs from a “ghost in the machine” dualism where the soul is like an entity living in the body, pulling the levers and running the show.
Overall, this is a fantastic book. It covers a lot of ground while engaging with a variety of fields from science to literature. Dickerson does not claim to have a knock-down rational argument for or against naturalism or dualism. Instead his point is to ask which view better explains our existence as humans: “What I have suggested was that if humans are spiritual beings, then we ought to have some spiritual compass” (206).
To Dickerson, and I think he’s right, it comes down to assumptions. If you assume from the outset that humans are just physical creatures and nothing more, that the brain is just the matter you can see inside a skull, then no argument for a soul makes sense. Dickerson asks us to question that assumption. What if we leave open the possibility that there is more to the world than what science can find, then what is physical and material? Does a spiritual sense better explain creativity and heroism, reason and a moral basis for ecological practice (i.e., polluting the planet is wrong). If so, perhaps there is something out there beyond the natural world.
That said, questioning our assumptions is tough. If Dickerson can get us to do that, he has succeeded.
Finally, I did think the book slowed down near the end. Perhaps, and this will sound bad coming from a Christian pastor, it is because that while his defense of creativity and heroism relied on the work of Tolkien, his defense of reason and science rested on scripture. I believe everything he said about scripture is true and that there is a strong motivation in there for trusting reason and doing science. But using scripture to support the argument in one chapter and not another seemed uneven. It would have been better either to add scripture to the heroism and creativity chapter, or to find examples (like Tolkien) for the science and reason chapter.
August 23, 2022
I had to put it down after the first chapter. The author goes over fallacies of others such as Dawkins and Dennett but fails to see that he is the one using circular logic. The first chapter was devoted to why materialists are wrong and there are super natural forces.
Here is how the typical argument the author uses goes. --God(or miracles or the mind) is supernatural. The supernatural is outside of the realm of science and can't be understood with science. If it's not understood with science, it can't be disproved. Therefore god must exist.-- It really felt forced and I would guess reading the works of Dawkins and Dennett challenged his faith so he just put his hands top his ears and says that's stupid. I stopped before the book told me the earth is flat because Matthew Dickseron says he can see really really far.
Here is how the typical argument the author uses goes. --God(or miracles or the mind) is supernatural. The supernatural is outside of the realm of science and can't be understood with science. If it's not understood with science, it can't be disproved. Therefore god must exist.-- It really felt forced and I would guess reading the works of Dawkins and Dennett challenged his faith so he just put his hands top his ears and says that's stupid. I stopped before the book told me the earth is flat because Matthew Dickseron says he can see really really far.
June 18, 2014
Why Physicalism Does not Support Reason
Dickerson discusses the concept of computers and self-consciousness, in the broader context of the mind-matter question. He reviews the physicalist or materialist) argument that nothing exists except physical and biological processes, and a brain that has developed as a biological machine, with no mind or identity behind or within it.
He discusses common arguments of physicalists, who deny any mental or spiritual reality, pointing out the logical fallacies and circular reasoning, with ample examples from all the major proponents. This is a clear and detailed philosophical discussion, with practical implications for daily personal and social life.
Disorder versus Order
The moral implications and rational conclusions he draws from this indicate that if all that exists is the physical, then we have no reason to trust reason. Physicalism is based on the assumption that there is no order in the universe, only random processes.
Physicalism's attendant theories explain that everything came to be through random processes. The common human experience contradicts this, and if Physicalism is correct the idea of a free society and a right to safety and peace have no foundation.
Undercuts Science
The concept of reason depends on order and regularity. In fact the traditional "scientific method" depends on such order and reliability of the world around us. If Physicalism is correct, ironically, the expectation of systematic discovery that underlies scientific investigation is unreliable.
And yet our experience of reality has found that investigation and prediction is highly reliable. The world at large is admirably consistent and predictable. It is at the level of human interaction that so much variability occurs, due to the very basis of human rationality and free agent initiative.
The whole basis of science that things can be systematically investigated precisely because there is a consistent pattern to the way things happen and the chain of repeatable and demonstrable cause and effect.
Insufficient
He concludes that physicalism is an insufficient philosophy to account for reality and is in fact self-contradictory. On the other hand, if we do believe that the mind or personal consciousness is more than just random nerve and synapse energy, there is a basis for personal responsibility, moral and legal accountability and social rules or patterns for the good of society and humanity as a whole.
If there exists only the physical, then whatever happens is indeed natural, including the irresponsible destruction of the world and our environment. If, on the other hand, there is a personal identity associated with the physical body that can be held responsible, and if there is an individual identity operating within the body and brain, we can make decisions that make a difference.
Public Safety
We can hold each other accountable for what we decide and we can expect acts that are "good" and "positive" instead of being at the mercy of a random universe where whatever happens is whatever must be. Dickerson reasons that if only the random physical and its current state exist, then there is no rational basis for "should" or "must," and no reason to trust reason.
If there is an order and pattern, or even intelligence, then we have a basis to trust our reasoning and discernment, which is lacking in the physicalist concept.
Dickerson discusses the concept of computers and self-consciousness, in the broader context of the mind-matter question. He reviews the physicalist or materialist) argument that nothing exists except physical and biological processes, and a brain that has developed as a biological machine, with no mind or identity behind or within it.
He discusses common arguments of physicalists, who deny any mental or spiritual reality, pointing out the logical fallacies and circular reasoning, with ample examples from all the major proponents. This is a clear and detailed philosophical discussion, with practical implications for daily personal and social life.
Disorder versus Order
The moral implications and rational conclusions he draws from this indicate that if all that exists is the physical, then we have no reason to trust reason. Physicalism is based on the assumption that there is no order in the universe, only random processes.
Physicalism's attendant theories explain that everything came to be through random processes. The common human experience contradicts this, and if Physicalism is correct the idea of a free society and a right to safety and peace have no foundation.
Undercuts Science
The concept of reason depends on order and regularity. In fact the traditional "scientific method" depends on such order and reliability of the world around us. If Physicalism is correct, ironically, the expectation of systematic discovery that underlies scientific investigation is unreliable.
And yet our experience of reality has found that investigation and prediction is highly reliable. The world at large is admirably consistent and predictable. It is at the level of human interaction that so much variability occurs, due to the very basis of human rationality and free agent initiative.
The whole basis of science that things can be systematically investigated precisely because there is a consistent pattern to the way things happen and the chain of repeatable and demonstrable cause and effect.
Insufficient
He concludes that physicalism is an insufficient philosophy to account for reality and is in fact self-contradictory. On the other hand, if we do believe that the mind or personal consciousness is more than just random nerve and synapse energy, there is a basis for personal responsibility, moral and legal accountability and social rules or patterns for the good of society and humanity as a whole.
If there exists only the physical, then whatever happens is indeed natural, including the irresponsible destruction of the world and our environment. If, on the other hand, there is a personal identity associated with the physical body that can be held responsible, and if there is an individual identity operating within the body and brain, we can make decisions that make a difference.
Public Safety
We can hold each other accountable for what we decide and we can expect acts that are "good" and "positive" instead of being at the mercy of a random universe where whatever happens is whatever must be. Dickerson reasons that if only the random physical and its current state exist, then there is no rational basis for "should" or "must," and no reason to trust reason.
If there is an order and pattern, or even intelligence, then we have a basis to trust our reasoning and discernment, which is lacking in the physicalist concept.
March 26, 2016
An excellent critique of the pervasive scientific assumptions of naturalism and physical materialism as adequate explanations for human nature (e.g., Kurzweil's "Age of Spiritual Machines"). As a bonus, Dickerson also defends the real possibility of creativity, heroism, science as a process and an accurate source of knowledge about the physical world/universe, and moral implications for ecology and the protection of the natural world. However, I thought Dickerson's defense of Taliaferro's "integrative dualism" as an alternative to interactive, independent/parallel, or more nebulous forms of dualism fell short of an accurate, Biblical account of human nature. Instead, I would suggest an "interdependent dualism" where the mind and the body simultaneously interact with and depend on each other, both in time & space. Although the mind may ultimately be primary (to preserve free will), the body can influence the mind. Thus, the mind and body exert reciprocal influence on each other, exhibiting causal isomorphism. This allows the study of the body (brain) to provide accurate knowledge about the mind (and vice versa). Biblically, after the entrance of sin (and divine denial of access to the tree of life), human beings are mortal, both soul & body. No consciousness (mind) survives the death of the body--until "this corruption has put on incorruption, and this mortal has put on immortality." For now, "God, who alone has immortality" suggests that the mind/soul of humans is at the very least completely unconscious ("sleep" is the way Jesus characterized the first, or bodily, death) in death, awaiting the resurrection of the life-Giver.
December 1, 2016
This book was given to us as a wedding gift from a college professor/mentor of ours. Sadly, it's taken me five years to finally get around to reading it. I appreciated the progression from differing views of the mind and of human nature to the logical outworkings of those views in different areas of life. Like most books of its kind, it could have been distilled down to a much shorter collection of statements, but then it wouldn't have been a book. All in all, it was a decent read, and made a few good points that I hadn't thought about before.
January 15, 2016
Thoroughly enjoyed reading this! There are so many great thoughts to consider. I particularly like the consideration of what the naturalist position means for heroism and creativity. I think more could be written on this
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews