![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
The evil demon and illusions of agency
Oct. 13th, 2010 03:25 amQuestion: Could Descartes's evil demon deceive you into thinking you're thinking?
My students' responses fall into 2 categories. 1: No, because if you're deceived into thinking you're thinking, you're nevertheless thinking; you're thinking you're thinking. 2: Yes, because the thought's being yours could be an illusion.
It took me awhile to see the argument for 2. I think it has several intuitions behind it.
Still, it's an intriguing thought that there might be illusions of agency for mental actions as there are for physical ones (e.g. when the lights go out on the Eiffel Tower the moment that you flip the light switch in your hotel room, and related curiosities). Surely this kind of illusion is surely something the evil demon is capable of. But can he "turn on" the thoughts in our minds at the moment we flip the switch?
One way of saying no to this question would be to say that "thought" simply means "awareness" that, e.g., the lights go on. That kind of approach gets us back to position 1. A deceived thought is still a thought, and you're still having it.
The difference between the two positions might come down to criteria for what having a thought is. I could be deceived that I'm thinking x in the sense that the thought itself could be implanted, such that it's not "my thought" in the "right" way, although it seems to be. It did not arise organically, but somehow synthetically, say. Whereas those who find position 1 intuitive might want to say that anything you're aware of counts as your thought. Thus position 1 also trades on the rather Berkeleyean idea that the appearances are the only things we know for certain. If "I think" means "it seems...." perhaps it is safe.
My students' responses fall into 2 categories. 1: No, because if you're deceived into thinking you're thinking, you're nevertheless thinking; you're thinking you're thinking. 2: Yes, because the thought's being yours could be an illusion.
It took me awhile to see the argument for 2. I think it has several intuitions behind it.
- We can sometimes think we're doing things we're not really doing.
- This can apply to mental acts too. (e.g. "You haven't really proved that.") Perhaps the fact that we can be corrected regarding our thoughts makes it seem likely that we can feel like we're thinking when we're really not. This motivation is cut off if we stipulate that 'thinking' means being-aware of, having-the-sense-that, and other lesser mental states.
Still, it's an intriguing thought that there might be illusions of agency for mental actions as there are for physical ones (e.g. when the lights go out on the Eiffel Tower the moment that you flip the light switch in your hotel room, and related curiosities). Surely this kind of illusion is surely something the evil demon is capable of. But can he "turn on" the thoughts in our minds at the moment we flip the switch?
One way of saying no to this question would be to say that "thought" simply means "awareness" that, e.g., the lights go on. That kind of approach gets us back to position 1. A deceived thought is still a thought, and you're still having it.
The difference between the two positions might come down to criteria for what having a thought is. I could be deceived that I'm thinking x in the sense that the thought itself could be implanted, such that it's not "my thought" in the "right" way, although it seems to be. It did not arise organically, but somehow synthetically, say. Whereas those who find position 1 intuitive might want to say that anything you're aware of counts as your thought. Thus position 1 also trades on the rather Berkeleyean idea that the appearances are the only things we know for certain. If "I think" means "it seems...." perhaps it is safe.
