Dr. Natalia Janson, senior lecturer in applied mathematics, discusses: Can We Resolve the Mind-Body Problem with Mathematics? at TEDxLoughboroughU Conference (Transcript)
Listen to the MP3 Audio here: Can We Resolve the Mind-Body Problem with Mathematics by Natalia Janson at TEDxLoughboroughU
Dr. Natalia Janson – Senior Lecturer in Applied Mathematics
In the 1600s, a philosopher and mathematician, René Descartes, suggested that the mind was an immaterial entity, isolated from the body and — notably from the body and from the brain.
On the contrary, in the middle of the 20th century, a philosopher, Gilbert Ryle, proposed that the mind is simply the physical processes occurring in the brain, and there is no separate entity which needs to be called the mind. So, in fact, he proposed that the mind was material.
In between these two extreme standpoints, there was a theory of a 19th century philosopher, Arthur Schopenhauer, who admitted that the mind and the body were distinct entities, but the properties of the mind were largely determined by the properties of the body to which it belonged.
There has been a lot of philosophical dispute about whether the mind is totally unobservable, or perhaps observable. In the 20th century, it has been widely recognized that we need to start handling the mind with the methods of natural sciences. The ancient mind-body problem about the relationship between mental and physical processes has been reformulated with account of the achievements of modern science.
Nowadays, the scientific hypothesis is that the mind is the product of the brain, and it emerges from interactions between the brain components. So the mind-body problem now reads: What is the exact relationship between the brain and cognitive functions, between the brain and behavior? Several people hypothesized that the mind could be some field produced by the brain, possibly an electrical field.
A psychologist, Benjamin Libet, proposed that the mind is not a physical force field, not like an electrical or a gravitational one, and is rather some immaterial field which is not directly observable.
What else do we assume about the mind? It develops throughout our life. Indeed, we are not the kids we used to be: we learn, we change every day, we develop. It is largely shaped by the environment, by nurture, for example. It governs our behavior. And, importantly, it is assumed that all minds are unique.
There seems to be some contradiction between what different theories attribute to the mind. If only one of these theories is correct, does it mean that all others are wrong? Or is there any chance that maybe all of these theories are correct? Well, in science, it happens from time to time, when conflicting theories are reconciled by the appearance of a more general theory. And a very famous example is the wave-particle duality of light, which was resolved when quantum mechanics appeared.
To study the mind with the methods of natural sciences, we first of all need its rigorous definition. But it should be such a definition, which connects the mind with brain data. And there are two kinds of brain data: Brain activity data, which tell us what the brain does; and the brain connectivity data, which inform us how the brain is made.
There is one standard way to define an object: to list all of its features. Can’t we simply define the mind as an object having all the features listed here? No, because it will not connect the mind with the brain, and it will not explain how features which seem to contradict each other, to exclude each other, can coexist. So, basically, we need to resolve the mind-body problem first. In mathematics, there happens to be an entity, which is called into being by the brain, and which combines all of the mind features listed here in a non-conflicting manner.