Is a Sentence Just Moving Particles?

Saint Augustine in His Cell by Sandro Botticelli

 

What is there to these letters now written upon this screen? They can certainly be described in terms of the characteristics of the particles that form them. They have a certain mathematical shape because of them and they take certain color due to the light that they reflect. If all we are going to do is to describe them by their physical traits based on the movement of particles, then that is where we must end. The letters now written would then be lines that happen to have certain physical properties. However, this does not get us anywhere close to what the letters really are.

The letters are not just lines. They are parts of words, clauses, sentences and even larger paragraphs all of which are organized in an order that cannot be expressed in the reductionist terms of moving particles. This order is not simply the motion of particles because such movement cannot have purpose and so we cannot speak of purpose in such terms.

Yet, the order that the letters form cannot be understood without purpose. Whether it be in the objects that the subject takes within each clause or even the purpose we presume that a similar entity like ourselves created by writing it. These cannot be understood in terms of moving particles and they point to substance in the world that cannot be reduced to moving particles: mind.

Every  time we read a piece of writing, whether it be an article, book or even a humble blog post, we accept that there is more to the world than can simply be expressed in terms of moving particles. We accept that there is more to the writing than the mathematical properties of the lines they form. We accept that the lines express a conscious purpose that can only be expressed in terms of a mental substance and the traits only such substances can take.

There is more to a sentence than just moving particles: there is the non-reductionist order created by a mind within it that it cannot be understood without.

Comments

[Benny]

The "purpose" or intent that I ascribe to your sentences is a result of the empirical observations I have had throughout my entire lifetime--observations that have (hopefully somewhat successfully) trained my mind to associate sounds and ink patterns (words) with sense data and abstract concepts derived from those sense data (meaning). I believe that I can understand your intentions behind this blog post because the physical evidence of your mental properties are similar to mine, and I have reason to believe that you are speaking my language more or less.

Where in my reasoning did I accept that your mental properties must be in a non-physical substance, or an irreducible one? Do you really think that the mind cannot be explained in terms of distinct parts working together (language, emotion, etc.)? Why must the mind be a non-physical substance, as opposed to a physical substance such as the central nervous system?

[Harrison Searles]

“The 'purpose' or intent that I ascribe to your sentences is a result of the empirical observations I have had throughout my entire lifetime--observations that have (hopefully somewhat successfully) trained my mind to associate sounds and ink patterns (words) with sense data and abstract concepts derived from those sense data (meaning).”

I do not think that when people read sentences what they are doing is simply associating empirical observations together. I think that the narrative you write is trying to make sense of human action without reference to the mind à la Behaviorism,, which I think is impossible. Instead, I would wager that most people are relying on the analogy between their mind and that or the author. They are relying that the structure of the author's mind is the same as theirs such that we can rely on our own mental experiences to understand their mental experiences.

This is especially true when we are talking between cultures. We rely on our own mental conceptions of “food”, “weapons”, and “tools” in order to make sense of empirical observations that we have never seen before. Friedrich Hayek speaks of this in his essay, “Facts of the Social Sciences":

"As long as I move among my own kind of people, it is probably the physical properties of a bank note or a revolver from which I conclude that they are money or a weapon to the person holding them. When I see a savage holding a cowrie shells or a long, thin tube, the physical properties of the thing will probably tell me nothing. But the observations which suggest to me that the cowrie shells are money to him and the blowpipe a weapon will throw much light on the object – much more than than these same observations could possibly give if I were not familiar with the conception of money or a weapon. In recognizing the things as such, I begin to understand the people's behavior. I am able to fit into a scheme of action which 'makes sense' just because I have come to regard it not as a thing with certain physical properties but as the kind of thing which fits into the pattern of my own purposive action."

If I were just associating physical things, then I doubt I would be able to discern the use of an alien culture's use of physical objects like cowrie shells or long thin tubes. However, with the mental categories that come from my own purposive action, I am able to guess that the former is used as money and the latter as a weapon.

“I believe that I can understand your intentions behind this blog post because the physical evidence of your mental properties are similar to mine, and I have reason to believe that you are speaking my language more or less.”

You can understand this blog post because we both act purposely and you can understand my own purpose by analogy with your own purposes. Talking about “physical properties of the mind” is simply avoiding the fact that human action is purposive and that it is that shared purposiveness that makes mutual understanding between human minds possible.

“Where in my reasoning did I accept that your mental properties must be in a non-physical substance, or an irreducible one?”
Of course there is non-physical substance in your above narrative of human action. However, that is not because there is no non-physical substance in the world, but because you avoid purpose at all costs, even to the extent embracing Behaviorism.

“Do you really think that the mind cannot be explained in terms of distinct parts working together (language, emotion, etc.)? Why must the mind be a non-physical substance, as opposed to a physical substance such as the central nervous system?”

I think that no such explanation is metaphysically possible. In order to explain the mind, we need purpose, but when we speak purely in terms of moving particles, speaking of purpose is impossible. Ergo, to even begin to make sense of the mind we need another substance other than moving particles, which has traditionally been called “mind”.