Humunculus - Homunculus Argument

Homunculus Argument

The homunculus argument accounts for a phenomenon in terms of the very phenomenon that it is supposed to explain (Richard Gregory, 1987). Homunculus arguments are always fallacious, as they are circular. In the psychology and philosophy of mind 'homunculus arguments' are useful for detecting where theories of mind fail or are incomplete.

Homunculus arguments are common in the theory of vision. Imagine a person watching a movie. They see the images as something separate from themselves, projected on the screen. How is this done? A simple theory might propose that the light from the screen forms an image on the retinae in the eyes and something in the brain looks at these as if they are the screen. The homunculus argument shows this is not a full explanation because all that has been done is to place an entire person, or homunculus, behind the eye that gazes at the retinae. A more sophisticated argument might propose that the images on the retinae are transferred to the visual cortex where it is scanned. Again this cannot be a full explanation because all that has been done is to place a little person in the brain behind the cortex. In the theory of vision the homunculus argument invalidates theories that do not explain 'projection', the experience that the viewing point is separate from the things that are seen (adapted from Gregory, 1987; 1990).

"According to the legend, whenever an agent does anything intelligently, their act is preceded and steered by another internal act of considering a regulative proposition appropriate to their practical problem. . . . Must we then say that for the agent's . . . reflections how to act to be intelligent they must first reflect how best to reflect how to act? The endlessness of this implied regress shows that the application of the appropriateness does not entail the occurrence of a process of considering this criterion." Ryle 1949.

Ryle's theory is that intelligent acts cannot be a property of an inner being or mind, if such a thing were to exist.

The homunculus argument and the regress argument are often considered to be the same, but this is not quite the case. The homunculus argument says that if there is a need for a 'little man' to complete a theory then the theory is false or incomplete. The regress argument says that an intelligent agent would need to think before it could have a thought.