36. Brain, Thought, and the Error-Prone Mind

Subscribe in Podcast App | Download Transcript

Lecture Notes

Main Topics #

The Brain-Thought Confusion #

• Ancient philosophers and modern thinkers incorrectly assume the brain must be the organ of thought because interference with the brain interferes with thinking
• This reasoning commits a logical fallacy: confusing what relates to knowing through the object with what relates through being an organ
• The brain relates to thought through the object (providing images), not as the instrument (organ) of thought itself
• This distinction only becomes clear once we recognize that reason is immaterial

The Light Bulb Analogy #

• If a blow to a light bulb interferes with seeing, we cannot conclude the bulb is the organ of sight—it is the object
• Similarly, if removing a person interferes with my seeing them, that person is not my organ of sight
• Just as these examples show, damage to the brain proves a connection between brain and thought, but not which type of connection
• Only through recognizing reason’s immateriality can we determine the brain’s proper role

Aristotle’s Critique of Materialist Philosophers #

• Ancient philosophers explained the cause of knowing (likeness) but failed to explain the cause of deception
• Error and mistake are more characteristic of animals than knowledge itself
• Men from themselves are naturally prone to being deceived and must be taught by others to avoid error
• Truth is achieved only through long study (“vix pervenitur”—hardly does one arrive)
• The history of philosophy demonstrates this: disagreement is universal; at best, one thinker is correct while most err

The Distinction Between Sensation and Thinking #

• Sensation of proper sensibles is always true and universal in all animals
• Thinking can be both true and false and is present only in creatures with reason
• Example: Ten children given candy all say “sweet” (universal, true); asked a philosophical question, they give ten different answers
• This shows sensation and thinking cannot be the same power

The Distinction Between Imagination and Thinking #

First Distinction: Freedom vs. Necessity

• Imagination: I am free to imagine anything—terrorists, lottery winnings, being in Rome—without any reason
• Thinking: I cannot freely think something is true without having a reason for it
• Example: I can imagine winning the Massachusetts Lottery ($50 million) without having bought a ticket; I cannot think I’ve won without reason
• Thinking involves discourse—moving from one known thing to another as justification

Second Distinction: Emotional Response and Assent

• If I think there’s a terrorist with a gun present, I become afraid and want to flee
• If I merely imagine the same scenario, I remain calm and unafraid
• If I think I’ve won the lottery, I become excited; if I merely imagine it, I remain composed
• Imagination is “like seeing something in a play”—we know it is not real and do not respond with genuine emotion or conviction
• This reveals that imagination does not carry the mind’s assent to truth the way thinking does

Key Arguments #

Argument Against Materialism from the Brain’s Role #

1. A blow to the brain interferes with thinking
2. Alcohol affecting the brain interferes with thinking
3. Sleep interferes with thinking
4. Conclusion from these facts alone: The brain must be connected to thought
5. But this is insufficient: The brain could relate to thought either as organ or as object
6. Additional premise needed: Reason is immaterial (to be shown later)
7. Final conclusion: Therefore, the brain must relate to thought through the object (images), not as the organ

Argument from the Prevalence of Human Error #

1. If reason worked like sensation through material likeness, error should be as rare as sensory deception in proper sensibles
2. But error is ubiquitous in human knowledge, requiring long study to overcome
3. History of philosophy shows universal disagreement; at best one thinker is correct
4. Men must be taught by others to avoid the natural tendency toward error
5. Conclusion: This pervasive error shows reason cannot work the way sensation does; it must operate through a different principle

Important Definitions #

Phantasia (Imagination)

• A power distinct from both sensation and thought
• Depends on sensation but operates without present sensory input
• Free with respect to content (can imagine anything)
• Not subject to truth or falsehood in the same way thought is
• Can represent what is false without the mind assenting to the falsehood as true

Noēsis (Thinking/Understanding)

• Involves judgment about truth or falsehood
• Requires reasons or justification for its assertions
• Not free with respect to assent—the mind cannot freely think what is false as true
• Produces emotional and volitional responses corresponding to its judgments
• Operates through discourse (from one known thing to another)

Doxa (Opinion)

• Mentioned in passing as distinct from both understanding and science
• Discussed in the Nicomachean Ethics with other intellectual virtues

Examples & Illustrations #

The Light Bulb Example #

• A light bulb in a windowless room is the only source of light
• A blow to the bulb interferes with seeing the other person
• Incorrect conclusion: The bulb must be the organ of sight
• Correct analysis: The bulb is the object (light source), not the organ

The Terrorist and Lottery Examples #

• Imagination: I can imagine a terrorist with a machine gun about to enter and shoot us
• But thinking: I cannot think this is true without evidence
• Imagination: I can imagine winning the Massachusetts Lottery ($50 million) without a ticket
• But thinking: I cannot think I’ve won without having bought a ticket and having reason to believe I won
• The difference: Imagination is free; thinking requires justification

The Logic Classroom Example #

• Berquist taught if-then syllogisms with four forms on the blackboard for years
• Students were asked to write what follows necessarily or “no conclusion”
• Result: In all years of teaching, students never got all four correct
• Common errors:
  • Affirming the consequent (thinking “If A then B, B, therefore A” is valid when it is not)
  • Denying the antecedent (thinking “If A then B, not A, therefore not B” is valid when it is not)
• Counterexample given: “If you’re the man who robbed the bank, then you are a man. You are a man. Therefore, you robbed the bank.” (Obviously invalid)
• This demonstrates the natural tendency toward error even in simple logic

The Historical Examples of Error #

• Pre-Socratic philosophers disagreed on the fundamental nature of reality:
  • Some said the beginning of all things is one; others said many
  • Among those saying one: some said water, others air, others fire
  • At best, one could be correct; most were mistaken
• Even Aristotle and Thomas were mistaken about light being instantaneous
• This pattern shows error is the usual condition of man

The Theater Comparison #

• Imagining something good or bad is like seeing it on stage in a play
• We know the actor’s death is not real and don’t respond with genuine fear
• Similarly, imagining a terrorist does not produce fear; thinking one is present does
• This illustrates the fundamental difference in the mind’s relation to imagination versus thinking

Notable Quotes #

“If a blow on the brain interferes with thinking… the brain must be either the organ of thought or pertain to the object of thought in some way. But the fact that a blow on the brain interferes with thinking doesn’t, by itself, tell you which of those two possible connections it is.” — Berquist

“Error, mistake, right? Magna pars miseries, that’s a great part of misery, to be mistaken, right? Especially to be mistaken about these great things.” — Thomas Aquinas (Summa Contra Gentiles), cited by Berquist

“Men from themselves are able to be deceived and to err… For this, that they know the truth, it is necessary that they be taught by others.” — Aristotle (De Anima III.3), cited by Berquist

“To a knowledge of the truth, vix pervenitur, hardly does one arrive, post-studium, after the study of a long time.” — Aristotle (De Anima III.3), cited by Berquist

“If you give ten kids a piece of candy, they’re all going to say what? It’s sweet, right? But you ask them some philosophical question, and you probably get what? Ten answers, right?” — Berquist

Questions Addressed #

Q: Is the brain the organ of thought? #

A: No. While damage to the brain interferes with thinking, this only shows a connection between brain and thought—not which type of connection. The brain provides images (the object of thought), not the instrument (organ) of thought. Reason is immaterial and therefore cannot be a bodily organ.

Q: How does the brain relate to thought? #

A: The brain relates to thought through the object, just as the light bulb relates to sight through the object (light) rather than as the organ of sight. The images retained in the brain are to thought what exterior objects are to sensation.

Q: Why do philosophers make the mistake of calling the brain the organ of thought? #

A: Because they do not recognize that reason is immaterial. Once we establish that reason cannot be material (through the argument about knowing opposites), we can correctly understand the brain’s role as providing images rather than serving as the instrument of thought.

Q: Are imagination and thinking the same power? #

A: No. Imagination is free (I can imagine anything without reason); thinking requires justification. Imagining does not produce emotional responses; thinking does. Imagination does not require assent to truth; thinking does. These are fundamentally different powers of the soul.

Q: Why are humans so prone to error? #

A: Error is more natural to humans than truth because we must rely on images derived from sensation, and we naturally tend to think that whatever exists must be material and continuous. Also, correct reasoning requires long study and teaching by others. Men naturally make mistakes; arriving at truth requires disciplined effort over time.

Q: How does sensation differ from thinking in their relation to truth? #

A: Sensation of proper sensibles is always true and present in all animals. Thinking can be both true and false and is present only in rational creatures. This shows that sensing and thinking are fundamentally different powers of the soul.