A User's Guide to Reason/Physics, Biology, Psychology, and Ethics

Physics is the science of matter. Biology is the science of life. Psychology is the science of the mind. Ethics is the science of good and evil.

What is matter?

"I say that whatever possesses any power whatsoever, whether to act upon any naturally similar thing, or to be affected—even to the slightest degree by the action of the weakest agent, and even if this happens only once—all this, I say, truly exists. And, consequently, I posit by the very definition that defines beings that they are nothing but potentiality." (Plato, The Sophist or On Being, 247e)

A material being must be detectable. If no detector is capable of detecting it, then it is not material.

The detection of material beings depends on their interactions.

If A acts upon B, A acts and B is affected.

A detected being acts upon the detector. Therefore, a being that does not act upon any material being cannot be material. The laws of physics further dictate that a being that acts must also be acted upon. Therefore, to be material, a being must interact with other material beings. Is this a sufficient condition?

Descartes supposed that a soul is an immaterial substance that interacts with the body. But physics has never found such an immaterial substance or its laws of interaction with matter. As far as we know, matter interacts only with matter. We can therefore adopt the following principle:

A being is material if and only if it interacts with other material beings.

The nature of matter is to interact with matter. The properties of a piece of matter (elementary particle, atom, molecule, solid, liquid, or gaseous material...) are always determined by its ways of interacting with other pieces of matter. Matter always does this: interact with matter, and nothing else. There is nothing more to know about matter than its interactions. When we understand how material beings interact, we know everything there is to know about them.

We are sensitive to a being when it acts upon our senses. Our sensory organs are specialized to receive the action of external objects. They are not sufficient to know all material beings and all their interactions, but they still provide a great deal of information. Observational and measuring instruments, and all the detection systems we can construct, are like sensory prostheses. They extend the field of perception. They enable us to know material beings to which the senses are not directly sensitive. They reveal to us other forms of action and sensitivity.

Matter can always be detected because its nature is to interact. As soon as it acts upon another piece of matter, that piece becomes a detector. Our senses, supplemented by all conceivable detection systems, thus enable us, in principle, to know all material beings and all their properties. Nothing can remain hidden. Everything can be perceived, because the nature of matter is to be perceptible.

When we perceive an object with our senses, we believe we know it that way. For example, if we see that the wall is white, we naturally believe that it is truly white. But isn't that a mistake? All we know is that our eyes give us a sensation of white. The white seems to be on the wall, but it is primarily in our eyes. It could even be that the wall doesn't exist, that we only have the illusion of a white wall. Should we conclude from this that we never truly know the external world, that we can only know our sensations and ourselves, that perception is always introspective?

The wall is truly white because it is capable of affecting all beings sensitive to white light, and in particular because it is capable of eliciting the sensation of white in our eyes. More generally, all the properties and relations that determine the existence of a material being are detectable by other material beings. Therefore, we need not fear that perception will maliciously deprive us of what it seems to give us: true representations of the perceived beings.

But this argument in favor of the truth of perceptions seems to prove far too much, since it suggests that all perceptions should be true. If the detected property is always the property of being detectable in this way, it follows that all detection is true, since what is detected is necessarily detectable in this way. How then can false perceptions exist?

The possibility of falsehood arises from the existence of a standard of truth. If a measuring instrument has not been properly calibrated, it gives a false result. The result is false only in relation to the standard of measurement. The same applies to perception. Perceptions can only be false if there is a standard that determines what should be perceived. In the absence of a standard, they are always true because they always reveal the effect of the object on our senses. Even a false perception reveals a truth about the object because it is true that it can be perceived in that way.

The being of matter is to have an effect on matter. This is how it appears. Matter appears as it is because its being is to appear.

What is life?

"If the feet and hands had a will of their own, they would never be in their proper order except by submitting this particular will to the primary will that governs the entire body. Otherwise, they are in disorder and misery; but by desiring only the good of the body, they do their own good." (Blaise Pascal, Christian Morality 23, Laf. 374, Sel. 406)

"An organized product of nature is one in which everything is both end and, conversely, also means." (Kant, Critique of Judgment, §66, 1790)

A hand separated from the body is not a hand, but merely a piece of a corpse.

The unity of a living body is much more than its mechanical strength:

All parts of a living body provide services to other parts and receive services in return. This is the essence of life.

The unity of a living body is not only that of its organs, but also that of its molecules:

A living body is essentially an autocatalytic network. (Kauffman)

A system of molecules is an autocatalytic network if and only if the synthesis of each molecule is catalyzed by other molecules in the system.

To catalyze means to accelerate without being consumed. If a reaction is very slow, it can be considered impossible, and to catalyze means to bring into existence.

DNA is a catalyst for the synthesis of DNA and RNA. RNA is a catalyst for the synthesis of RNA, DNA, and proteins. Proteins are catalysts for the synthesis of DNA, RNA, proteins, and all other molecules produced in a living organism.

An autocatalytic network can feed itself by building large molecules from the small molecules it absorbs. It can then grow and reproduce.

What is the mind?

A mind is a being that perceives, imagines, is moved, decides, and acts.

Willpower is the capacity to decide and to stick to one's decisions. Speech is an action. Thought is the imagining of speech. Attention is a form of perception, whether directed by the will or not.

Imagination is like a perception of the absent, the past, the future, or the purely imaginary. Perception is like an imagining of the present, directed by sensations.

To imagine is always to imagine that we are someone else, in another place, at another time, or in another world. We understand other minds by putting ourselves in their place, by imagining that we are them. We play as if we were thinking what they think, wanting what they want, feeling what they feel, perceiving what they perceive, doing what they do, imagining what they imagine. "Nothing human is alien to me." (Terence, Heautontimoroumenos, v. 77)

A mind is self-aware. It is conscious that it perceives, imagines, is moved, decides, and acts, as if it were perceiving itself.

Consciousness is always self-awareness. One cannot be conscious of what one sees without being conscious that one sees it. However one might be conscious, one cannot be conscious without being conscious of being conscious. One might fear that this would lead to an infinite regress: one cannot be conscious without being conscious of being conscious of being conscious, and so on ad infinitum. But being conscious and being conscious of being conscious are inseparable. They are not two moments of consciousness, but one. Being conscious without being conscious of being conscious seems inconceivable, and it is not our way of being conscious. Similarly, being conscious of being conscious of being conscious is not a new moment of consciousness added to the previous one. It is still simply being conscious. Self-consciousness, therefore, is not subject to an infinite regress.

A mind knows the truth about itself because it is self-aware. A mind cannot exist without revealing its existence to itself.

To act upon the world and upon itself, a mind must adapt to external and internal reality, therefore perceive them. To perceive the external world and act upon it, a mind must interact with it. A mind must therefore have a body. The nervous system, including the brain, is a network of neurons that connects the sensory organs to the effector organs, especially the muscles. It enables us to perceive and act upon external and internal reality.

We do not know how consciousness arises from the life of the body. What makes the difference between a network of neurons with consciousness and a network of neurons without consciousness? (Chalmers, The Conscious Mind, 1995)

All parts of the brain devoted to perception, imagination, and emotion can contribute to decision-making. All parts of the brain devoted to action, perception, imagination, and emotion must obey the decisions that have been made, even emotion, because we are capable of controlling it. But there is no leader who would make decisions like a dictator. The decision is the result of a collective deliberation in which all forms of perception, imagination, and emotion can participate. The brain of a conscious being is like a centralized administration without a central administrator (Shallice, Baars, Changeux, Dehaene...). Decisions imposed on the community are made by the community without a leader.

I cannot think that I think without thinking that I am, because I am that which thinks. I think, therefore I am. But this argument of Descartes is not truly conclusive. It would be better to say I think, therefore I am not, because there are only thoughts and there is nothing that thinks.

A mind is nothing more than a flow of perceptions, dreams, thoughts, memories, emotions, decisions, and actions. The being of a mind is to be this flow, or this collection. The distinction between persons is similar to the distinction between rivers. They are separate, yet they are all made of the same water, and they are nothing more than that water.

By teaching that the self does not exist, the Buddha simultaneously teaches how to be liberated from hatred. We experience hatred when we believe we have a self that is under attack. But if there is no self, there is no one under attack, and hatred disappears.

What is speech?

Speech is a sequence of words that has meaning.

How can a sequence of words have meaning?

We always perceive beings by perceiving their properties and relations, therefore by perceiving concepts.

Imagination is a simulation of perception. It attributes concepts to absent beings, as if they were present and perceived.

With speech, we can say what we perceive and imagine what we say. We can say what we perceive because we can name concepts. We can imagine what we say because we can simulate the perception of the concepts we name. The name of a concept is like a note on a musical score. Simulating the perception of that concept is like hearing that note. Words are like the scores of our dreams.

What is Good?

It is always foolish to do evil or not to do good when it is necessary. Intelligence is always about adapting to reality, both external and internal, to do good, as much as one can and as is appropriate.

The fundamental goods

The fundamental good is having a sound mind in a sound body. The fundamental goods are physical health, good perception, good imagination, good emotions, good decisions, and good actions.

This list of the six fundamental goods is similar to the list of the eight fundamental goods given by the Buddha: the Eightfold Path.

All fundamental goods are interdependent, as if they were all on the same wheel:

• To act well is always to act for the good. To decide well is always to decide to act well.
• Imagining well is always about imagining in order to make good decisions, act well, perceive well, and be moved well.
• Perceiving well is always about perceiving in order to make good decisions, act well, imagine well, and be moved well.
• To be moved well is always to be moved in order to adapt to reality; it is not about always feeling good. Even suffering can be a positive emotion if it helps us adapt to reality. To be moved well is always about being moved in order to make sound decisions and to act well.

The fundamental evils are poor physical health, bad perception, bad imagination, bad emotion, bad decision-making, and bad action.

Derived goods are means of attaining the fundamental goods. Derived evils are causes of fundamental evils.

It is unity that creates good

One being does good to another if it helps it to come into being, if it helps it to persevere in its being, or if it helps it to be what it should be.

One being can do good to another indirectly. If A does good to B, who does good to C, then A does good to C.

Doing good to a being is not always doing good, because one does harm by helping evil to come into being or by helping it persevere in its being. Doing good to a being only means giving it strength. It is not always good.

Doing good to a good is always doing good. One helps a good to come into being when one helps a being to be good, therefore doing good is always doing good to a good.

To be a good, one must do good. A being that never does good is not a good. We recognize a good by observing that it is a source of good, that it benefits other goods.

Beings are united when they do good to one another. In a united community, each member is a good for all the others, therefore a common good. A healthy living body is a united community because each of its parts helps the others to persevere in their being. A healthy mind is a united community because all its fundamental goods benefit one another. A body and its mind, both healthy, are united.

The beings of a united community are all goods by being goods for one another. We observe that they are all goods by observing that they are all united. It is unity that creates good. The unity of beings makes them goods. A good is always a good by being united with other goods, by being a good for all the members of the community to which it belongs. A good is always a common good for a community. To be a good is to have one's place among other goods. We recognize a good by observing its integration among other goods. An evil is always an evil by being opposed to one or more goods.

The concept of good can be defined from the concepts of force and unity. A force is not necessarily good. It can be evil, or neither good nor evil. But if forces are all united, they are good to one another, and that is how they are all good. To be good is to be a force united with other forces.

A good for one being is not always a good for another, because communities of goods can be in conflict. The tiger's teeth are a good for the tiger but not for its prey.

Living for the good of all minds

A mind must desire one's own good, but that is not enough. Not desiring the good of other minds is an evil, because it is a misuse of one's will. Thus, we recognize the fundamental principle of ethics:

The good of a mind is to live for the good of all minds.

This principle does not require completely renouncing one's own self-interest. Doing good for oneself is good. But a mind that does not use its power for the good of others is a weak mind, an unfulfilled mind. A hand separated from the body is not a hand, but merely a piece of a corpse (Aristotle, Pascal). Selfishness is a stunting of the mind.

When one truly knows how to be of service, one does one's own good as well as that of others, and one reveals oneself to be truly competent, truly strong, truly powerful, truly good.

When one wills and does good, one benefits oneself. When one wills and does evil, one harms oneself. This is why the criminal will is a punishment. In Dostoevsky's novel, Crime and Punishment, Raskolnikov becomes obsessed with his will to kill and experiences it as torture. He finally kills in order to be freed from his will to kill. Afterward, he is relieved. He mounts the scaffold feeling at peace. His true punishment lies not after, but before the crime.

Living for the good of others requires considering them as an end in themselves, never merely as a means. This leads us to one of the formulations of Kant's categorical imperative:

Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never merely as a means to an end, but always at the same time as an end. (Kant, Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, 1785)

That the good of a mind is to live for the good of all minds has an immediate consequence: to desire the good of a mind, one must desire that this mind desire the good, since one's good is to live for the good, and therefore to desire it. For example, parents desire the good of their children by wanting them to become honest citizens. But how do we do this? And are we even capable of doing it? Isn't this asking the impossible?

The unity of all goods and all minds

A good is universal if and only if it is a good for all minds.

The good of a mind is to live for the good of all minds. A good for one mind must therefore be a good for all minds, or at least not be an evil.

The good of one mind is always a good for all others, because every mind is a common good for all minds. For minds, therefore, only universal goods are truly goods. Even a selfish good can be a good for all minds, if it does no harm to anyone, because the good of one mind is always a good for all minds.

Individual interests often conflict. The individual interests of one person may conflict with the individual interests of another, and they may also conflict with each other. The enlightened self-interest of an individual must have overcome the conflicts between their individual interests. The general interest must have overcome the conflicts between individuals. The enlightened self-interest of an individual is never in conflict with the general interest, because unity with other minds takes precedence. The general interest is never in conflict with the enlightened self-interest of an individual, because it must be a good for all minds. The enlightened self-interest of an individual is always a good of the general interest, because the good of one mind is a good for all minds. The individual interests of individuals may conflict, but never their enlightened self-interests. In practice, finding the enlightened self-interest of individuals and the general interest is not always easy, because conflicts must be overcome.

By being goods for all minds, goods are goods for one another. A good is therefore always united with all other goods. The unity of goods is universal.

Evils are sometimes united by doing good to each other, organized crime for example, but they are not good for that reason, because a good must be universal to be truly a good. A unity of evils is never as great as the universal unity of all goods. There is no great unity of all evils, because very often they are opposed to one another. Similarly, there is a universal unity of all truths, but there is no great unity of all lies.

The universal good is the existence of a community that welcomes all minds, so that they may help one another to bring into being this community of welcome and mutual aid among all minds.

The universal good is like a circle, yet it is not a vicious one. Good exists for the sake of good. Wisdom exists for the sake of wisdom. It is a virtuous circle. It is the wheel of all goods.

The following chapter shows that the unity of all knowledge is a manifestation of the universal unity of all goods and all minds.

Rules for the direction of the mind

To be good is to be as one ought to be. To say what ought to be is to define an ideal. A good is always the realization of an ideal, because it is as the ideal says it ought to be.

An ideal is defined by ends and rules. The ideal is realized when the ends are achieved and the rules are respected. A rule can be considered an end, the end being to obey the rule. It is an end that is never fully attained, except upon death, because one can always disobey as long as one is alive.

An ideal is an end that is reached when the ideal is realized.

An ideal is not always good. It is bad if it proposes bad ends, or if it cannot be achieved and thus condemns us to frustration.

Why give ourselves rules? By adopting the rule of taking all our steps in the same direction, we go much further than by walking like a drunkard who changes direction with every step. The same is true for all good ideals. They make us more competent, more powerful, more capable of achieving distant goals.

Laws are sometimes restrictions on freedoms because they impose prohibitions. But good laws, on the contrary, have a liberating effect. By forbidding wrong paths, good laws reveal the right paths. They are like a guide that shows us the way. We are guided by ideas when we obey their laws. A good ideal empowers the mind because it enables us to reach ends we could not otherwise achieve, and which we wouldn't even think of.

The truths about an ideal are like the truths about a game. The rules of the game are true by definition of the game. In the same way, the laws of the ideal are true by definition of the ideal. But these truths by definition do not prove that an ideal is a good ideal.

An ideal is a driving force if it awakens the desire for its realization. The ideal precedes the reality it inspires. The word that defines the ideal precedes the being of which it is the truth.

The right word shows the end and the path to reach it. I hear the voice and I see the way. In french, voice, see and way are almost the same word : voix, vois et voie. J'entends la voix et je vois la voie.

An ideal is like an instrument for observing good and evil, because it prescribes good and forbids evil.

The following chapter shows that the ideal of knowledge is an instrument for observing all knowledge and that it provides the means to acquire it.