Tuesday, May 2, 2017

Rapid cell replacement: A failed argument against materialism

I thought I had a nice argument against materialism, but it didn’t work out. Still, it’s fun to think about the argument and why it doesn’t work.

Start with this plausible thesis, which seems at least naturally necessary:

  1. If any cell in a human body blinks out of existence and a new cell, exactly like the one before, blinks into existence sufficiently quickly in the same orientation, then the result would not interrupt the human’s life or any train of consciousness.

Now imagine that very, very quickly one-by-one every cell in my body blinks out of existence and is replaced by a new cell formed by a coincidental quantum fluctuation. Moreover, suppose each replacement happens sufficiently quickly in the sense of (1), and indeed so quickly that all of the replacements are done in less than the blink of an eye. Applying claim (1) billions of times, I conclude that neither my existence nor my train of consciousness would be interrupted by this process.

But if materialism is true, the resulting entity would have insufficient causal connection to me to be me. Thus, if materialism is true, I would have to cease to exist as a result of these rapid replacements. But it seems this would violate (1) at some point. (Moreover, the resulting being would not be the product of natural selection, so on evolutionary functionalist theories, the being would not have mental states. Furthermore, in any case, its brain states would not have the kinds of connections with the external world that give rise to content according to the best materialist theories, so its thoughts would be largely contentless.)

But the argument I just gave doesn’t work. First, (1) is false in the case of a human zygote, since the destruction of one’s only cell would kill one. What made (1) plausible was the thought that we had many cells, and the replacement of any one of them with a randomly produced cell would make no difference. So, (1) needs to be modified to remain plausible:

  1. If any cell in a human body consisting of many cells blinks out of existence and a new cell, exactly like the one before, blinks into existence sufficiently quickly in the same orientation, then the result would not interrupt the human’s life or any train of consciousness.

But now it no longer follows that a quick cell-by-cell replacement would have to keep me alive. For here is a possible hypothesis: For a replacement cell to come to be a part of the body, it has to come to be sufficiently causally intertwined with the rest of the body. This takes some time. It could well be that if the cells are replaced one by one in less than the blink of an eye, the new cells don’t have time to become intertwined with the rest of the body. Thus, the body comes to have fewer and fewer cells as the gradual replacement process continues. If the replacement process were to stop, pretty quickly the replacement cells would come to be causally intertwined with the veteran cells, and would come to be a part of the body. But it doesn’t stop. As a result, eventually the process leads to a state where I don’t have “many” cells in my body, and hence (2) becomes inapplicable.

What if, on the other hand, the replacement is done more slowly, so that there is time for cells to causally intertwine and become a part of the body? Then there need be no problem for materialism, because now the resulting entity does have a sufficient causal connection to me to be me.

There is, of course, a vagueness problem for the materialist: When do I cease to exist in the process? But that's another argument. I think typical materialists who think that they exist cannot escape vague existence.

2 comments:

Heath White said...

Pretty much this same argument is in Plantinga, "Materialism and Christian Belief" and maybe some other places (I seem to remember it in _Nature of Necessity_).

Alexander R Pruss said...

I am not sure. At least, I think in Plantinga's version (in "Materialism and Christian Belief"), the failure of the argument is easier to see. Plantinga says the replacement can happen "[i]n a period of time as brief as you please." But that is implausible to the materialist. The materialist should not accept that a replacement brain half becomes a part of you as quickly as one pleases. Presumably the replacement brain half gets incorporated into your body first at the joint and then the demarcation of the incorporation moves towards the other side of the hemisphere no faster than at the speed of light. So it takes a certain minimum time, at least a quarter of a nanosecond, for the whole half to be incorporated. Moreover, it is quite plausible that it takes a bit longer--for incorporation plausibly there needs to be significant causal back-and-forth, and in the brain that happens at rather less than the speed of light.

So I think the materialist can reasonably say that when you replace a whole brain half, there is a gap in your conscious train of thought until that half is incorporated into you.
And if the other half is replaced before the first one is sufficiently incorporated, then you don't survive.

On the other hand, it is not as plausible that a single cell replacement produces a gap in your conscious train of thought.


Of course, all this still leaves a challenge to the materialist to account for what constitutes incorporation--just how much causal back-and-forth is needed before a replacement part becomes a part of the whole? Some (but not all) dualists can meet this challenge nicely by saying that a part of the body comes to be incorporated not in virtue of causal back-and-forth between that part and the rest of the body, but in virtue of the right kind of metaphysical relation between that part and the soul (the informed-by relation, in the case of the hylomorphic dualist).