
The concept of a homunculus (Latin for "little man," sometimes spelled "homonculus") is often used to illustrate the functioning of a system. In the scientific sense of an unknowable prime actor, it can be viewed as an entity or agent. The term appears to have been first used by the alchemist Paracelsus. He once claimed that he had created a false human being that he referred to as the homunculus. The creature was to have stood no more than 12 inches tall, and does the work usually associated with a golem. However, after a short time, the homunculus would turn on its creator and run away. The recipe consisted of a bag of bones, sperm, skin fragments and hair from any animal you wanted it to be a hybrid of. This was to be laid in the ground surrounded by horse manure for forty days, at which point the embryo would form. Needless to say, this procedure does not actually produce a viable homunculus, nor do the variants cited by other alchemists. One such variant involved the use of the Mandrake (plant). Popular belief held that this plant grew where the semen sometimes ejaculated by hanged men during the last convulsive spasms before death fell to the ground, and its roots vaguley resemble a human form to varying degrees. The root was to be picked before dawn on a Friday morning by a black dog, then washed and "fed" with milk and honey and, in some prescriptions, blood, whereupon it would fully develop into a miniature human which would guard and protect its owner. Yet a third method, cited by Dr. David Christianus at the University of Giessen during the 18th century, was to take an egg laid by a black hen, poke a tiny hole through the shell, replace a bean-sized portion of the white with human sperm, seal the opening with virgin parchment, and bury the egg in dung on the first day of the March lunar cycle. A miniature humanoid would emerge from the egg after thirty days, which would help and protect its creator in return for a steady diet of lavender seeds and earthworm . The term homunculus was later used in the discussion of conception and birth. In 1694, Nicolaas Hartsoeker discovered "animalcules" in the sperm of humans and other animals. Some claimed that the sperm was in fact a "little man" (homunculus) that was placed inside a woman for growth into a child; these later became known as the ''spermists''. This is not as silly as it sounds today, and neatly explained many of the mysteries of conception (for instance, why it takes two). However it was later pointed out that if the sperm was a homunculus, identical in all but size to an adult, then the homunculus must have sperm of its own. This led to a reductio ad absurdum, with a chain of homunculi "all the way down". Today the term is used in a number of ways to describe systems that are thought of as being run by a "little man" inside. For instance, the homunculus continues to be considered as one of the major theories on the origin of consciousness, that there is a part (or process) in the brain whose purpose is to be "you". The homunculus is often invoked in cybernetics as well, for similar reasons. ==The sensory and motor homunculi== The homunculus is also commonly used to describe the distorted human figure drawn to reflect the relative sensory space our body parts occupy on the cerebral cortex. The lips, hands, feet and sex organs are considerably more sensitive than other parts of the body, so the homunculus has grossly large lips, hands and genitals. Well known in the field of neurology, this is also commonly called 'the little man inside the brain.' Dr Wilder Penfield used a similar image to depict the body according to the areas of the motor cortex controlling it in voluntary movement. Sometimes thought to be the brain's map of the body, the motor homunculus is really a map of the proportionate association of the cortex with body members. It also reflects kinesthetic proprioception, the body as felt in motion. It plays a central role in phantom limb phenomena and their opposite such as the disappearance of body members from conscious perception with certain types of brain damage. Like the sensory homunculus, the motor homunculus looks distorted. For example the thumb which is used in thousands of complex activities appears much larger than the thigh with its relatively simple movement. The motor homunculus develops over time and differs from one person to the next. The hand in the brain of an infant is different to the hand in the brain of a concert pianist. This kind of difference is open to introspection. You can probably flex and extend the end of your thumb at will. Most people can do this fairly easily, but relatively few can make analogous movements with any of their other fingers. The difference is due to differences in the functional organization of associated areas of the brain. ==The homunculus argument in philosophy of mind== A 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. In the psychology and philosophy of mind 'homunculus arguments' are extremely 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 them, projected on the screen. How is this done? A simple theory might propose that the light from the screen forms an image on the retinas 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 who gazes at the retinas. A more sophisticated argument might propose that the images on the retinas 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)). Very few people would propose that there actually is a little man in the brain looking at brain activity. However, this proposal has been used as a 'straw man' in theories of mind. Gilbert Ryle (1949) proposed that the human mind is known by its intelligent acts. He argued that if there is an inner being inside the brain that could steer its own thoughts then this would lead to an absurd repetitive cycle or 'regress': "According to the legend, whenever an agent does anything intelligently, his act is preceded and steered by another internal act of considering a regulative proposition appropriate to his practical problem." "Must we then say that for the ..[agent's].. reflections how to act to be intelligent he 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 is proposing that if inner reflection were a process then it would be an endless activity if it occurred wholly within the brain (see Ryle's Regress). However, if the homunculus argument is applied rigorously it should be phrased in such a way that the conclusion is always that if a homunculus is required then the theory is wrong. After all, homunculi do not exist. The homunculus argument applied to Ryle's theory would be phrased in terms of whether the mental attribute of 'reflecting upon things internally' can be explained by the theory that the mind is 'intelligent acts' without the appearance of a homunculus. The answer, provided by Ryle's own logic, is that internal reflection would require a homunculus to prevent it from becoming an infinite regress. Therefore with these assumptions the Homunculus Argument does not support the theory that mind is wholly due to intelligent acts. The example of Ryle's theory demonstrates another aspect of the Homunculus Argument in which it is possible to attribute to the mind various properties such as 'internal reflection' that are not universally accepted and use these contentiously to declare that a theory of mind is invalid. ==Pop culture== In the classic horror film ''Bride of Frankenstein'', Dr. Frankenstein's old teacher, Dr. Praetorius, shows him his own creations, a series of miniature humanoids kept in specimen jars, including a bishop, a king, a queen, a ballerina, a mermaid, and a devil. These are clearly intended to be forms of homunculi. In his source study of Mary Shelley's original novel upon which the film was based, Prof. Radu Florescu notes that her father, William Godwin was quite familiar with the lives and works of alchemists like Paracelsus and others, and their theories on the creation of the homunculus. Florescu also notes that Konrad Dippel, an alchemist whom he believes may have been the inspiration for Dr. Frankenstein, was a student of Dr. David Christianus. German horror writer Hanns Heinz Ewers used the mandrake method for creating a homunculus as the inspiration for his 1911 novel, ''Alraune'', in which a prostitute is impregnated with semen from a hanged murderer to create a woman devoid of morals or conscience. Several cinematic adaptations of ''Alraune'' have been made over the years, the most recent in 1952 with Erich von Stroheim. The 1995 film ''Species (movie)'' also appears to draw some inspiration from this variation on the homunculus legend. In the anime and manga series ''Fullmetal Alchemist'', the comedy movie ''The League of Gentlemen's Apocalypse'' and in the comic ''Hellboy'', the word homunculus describes any man-made human created via alchemy. In Fullmetal Alchemist, there are seven homunculus in total (each of which are named after one of the seven deadly sins) and play a significant part in the story's plot. Homunculi are the product of failed attempts to resurrect humans who have died. Not possessing souls, they kill without restraint. A homunculus named Roger figures greatly into some of the Hellboy stories. In the Japanese graphic novel ''Homunculus (manga)'' by ''Hideo Yamamoto'' refered to sensory homunculus from neurology in meaning for explain about their human experimental. In the video game Shadow of Memories, Homunculus is the name of an entity that obviously has a great understanding of space and time, and he seems to be helping the main character in the game to escape his death. He seems to be a real homunculus, as his roots seem to be in the age of the alchemists. Very little is known about his past. However, he dresses dark and so are his intentions seemingly. In the computer game Diablo 2 (specifically the expansion pack released by the name of Lord_of_Destruction_expansion_pack), a Homunculus is a unique shield used by the Necromancer class of characters. It resembles a shrunken head and bears the title "Hierophant Trophy", but no direct information concerning the relation of Homunculus the shield to the literal meaning of Homunculus is given. In the American film ''The Golden Voyage of Sinbad'' (1974), the homunculus is portrayed as a miniature winged gargoyle looking creature, who is the nemesis of Sinbad. In ''The Talons of Weng-Chiang'', a 1977 serial from the Britain television series ''Doctor Who'', the Peking Homunculus is the proper name given to an animated Ventriloquism dummy known as Mr. Sin. The dummy was really an android from the future, with the cerebral cortex of a pig. In many ''Role-playing games'', a Homunculus is an artificial creature that can be made by magical means to assist the creator. For example in Dungeons & Dragons a wizard can use a spell to make a homunculus. In the ''Magic: the Gathering'' card game, two creatures exist with "homunculus" in their name. Both are blue creatures, blue being the color of artificial creation and illusion, among other things. Also, in Vampire: The Masquerade a Gangrel possessing the ninth level of the Protean discipline may summon a foot-tall replica of himself known, of course, as a "homunculous." In the Enix RPG, Valkyrie Profile, the alchemist Lezard Valeth experiments with homonculi. Among them are his minion Bellion, and numerous female elven-like forms kept in large glass tubes. Homonculus is a song by the indie/experimental band ''Xiu Xiu''. It appears on their album ''Knife Play'' (2002). ==References== Florescu, Radu (1975) In Search of Frankenstein. Warner Books, New York. Gregory, R.L. (1990) Eye and Brain: The Psychology of Seeing, Oxford University Press Inc. New York. Gregory, T.L. (1987). The Oxford Companion to Mind. Oxford University Press. Ryle, G. (1949) The Concept of Mind. The University of Chicago Press, 1949. ==See Also== * philosophy of mind
It's not clear from the text whether in describing the homunculus as a "little man", "man" is being used generically (i.e. "human"), or to refer specifically to a male. Presumably the author intended the former, or else the homunculus theory of conception would not explain where women came from! Don't forget the old band, [http://www.homunculture.com Homunculus]. It's a shame they've broken up. Simply asserting that homunculi don't exist is highly misleading, especially when you consider the "sub-homunculi" as first postulated by Daniel Dennett in 1978. He elaborated on this in his 1991 work ''Consciousness Explained'' when he stated, "...theories that posit such homunculi ("little men" in the brain) ''are not always to be shunned'', but whenever homunculi are rung in to help, they had better be relatively stupid functionaries..." (emphasis added). Also, in an interview for the book ''States of Mind'' he wrote, :"The fundamental homunculus objection, which has been around for a long time, foresees an infinite regress. If the little man in your head looking at the little screen is using the full powers of human vision, then we have to look at the even smaller man in his head looking at a still smaller screen, and so on ''ad infinitum''. That's what's wrong with the little man in the head. However, if you make a simple step, if you break that little man down into a committee of specialists, each of which does less than the full job, has less than the full competence you are trying to explain, now you face the prospect of a finite regress that will bottom out in something purely mechanical. We start with specialist homunculi, no one of which has the full mentality we are trying to explain, and we gradually break these down into simpler functional units, which only by courtesy are called homunculi, and finally we get down to things that are so simple you could replace them with a machine i.e. with a neuron, or a flip-flop in a computer that only has to remember 0 or 1 as its only expertise." Thus, even if only "out of courtesy," such neuronal functionaries deserve to be mentioned under the heading of Homunculi (and they obviously exist). Also, the philospher John R. Searle has written an essay entitled, "Is the Brain a Digital Computer?", the fifth section of which is: "Second Difficulty: The Homunculus Fallacy is Endemic to Cognitivism", which IMO is also relevant and at odds with what Dennett has written. Dennett thinks we can abolish the Homunculus fallacy by breaking down the one "homunculus" into "sub-homunculi" (i.e., an army of stupid functionaries); Searle disagrees and finds that the matter is not so simple--that, in fact, the attempt to abolish homunculi necessarily fails, since to embrace cognitivist theories is to necessarily embrace a homunculus (in the full sense), even if one doesn't want to. Thus, when a wikipedia author writes, "After all, homunculi do not exist," this should be changed to: "After all, infinite regresses do not exist." Let me stress that ''it is the necessary entailment of an infinite regress which renders the Homunculus Argument a fallacy and NOT the fact that the argument invokes homunculi.'' (And another thing--the section entitled "The homunculus argument in the philosophy of mind" needs to be massively rewritten. It contains some of the poorest writing I've ever seen on Wikipedia (the Ryle quote is not even correct, it is wordy and rambling, some statements are false and some are downright misleading even when true, and it is almost unintelligible at some points, etc.). I'll be rewriting it shortly, just as I expanded the Ryle's Regress page, but I hereby am alerting all others that it is far from even adequate--and so I think you should help too.) --User:Uroshnor 08:13, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC) I realize it is a long quote, but it just occurred to me while rereading the Searle article how brilliantly Searle treats of the issues. As such, I've decided to reproduce it here for all concerned (after all, it is only four paragraphs): :"It took me a long time to figure out what these people were driving at, so in case someone else is similarly puzzled I will explain an example in detail: Suppose that we have a computer that multiplies six times eight to get forty-eight. Now we ask 'How does it do it?' Well, the answer might be that it adds six to itself seven times. But if you ask 'How does it add six to itself seven times?', the answer might be that, first, it converts all of the numerals into binary notation, and second, it applies a simple algorithm for operating on binary notation until finally we reach the bottom level at which the only instructions are of the form, 'Print a zero, erase a one.' So, for example, at the top level our intelligent homunculus says 'I know how to multiply six times eight to get forty-eight'. But at the next lower-level he is replaced by a stupider homunculus who says 'I do not actually know how to do multiplication, but I can do addition.' Below him are some stupider ones who say 'We do not actually know how to do addition or multiplication, but we know how to convert decimal to binary.' Below these are stupider ones who say 'We do not know anything about any of this stuff, but we know how to operate on binary symbols.' At the bottom level are a whole bunch of a homunculi who just say 'Zero one, zero one'. All of the higher levels reduce to this bottom level. Only the bottom level really exists; the top levels are all just as-if. :Various authors (e.g. Haugeland (1981), Block (1990)) describe this feature when they say that the system is a syntactical engine driving a semantic engine. But we still must face the question we had before: What facts intrinsic to the system make it syntactical? What facts about the bottom level or any other level make these operations into zeros and ones? ''Without a homunculus that stands outside the recursive decomposition, we do not even have a syntax to operate with'' (emphasis in original). The attempt to eliminate the homunculus fallacy through recursive decomposition fails, because the only way to get the syntax intrinsic to the physics is to put a homunculus in the physics. :There is a fascinating feature to all of this. Cognitivists cheerfully concede that the higher levels of computation, e.g. 'multiply 6 times 8' are observer relative; there is nothing really there that corresponds directly to multiplication; it is all in the eye of the homunculus/beholder. But they want to stop this concession at the the lower levels. The electronic circuit, they admit, does not really multiply 6X8 as such, but it really does manipulate 0's and 1's and these manipulations, so to speak, add up to multiplication. But to concede that the higher levels of computation are not intrinsic to the physics is already to concede that the lower levels are not intrinsic either. ''So the homunculus fallacy is still with us'' (emphasis added). :For real computers of the kind you buy in the store, there is no homunculus problem, each user is the homunculus in question. But if we are to suppose that the brain is a digital computer, we are still faced with the question 'And who is the user?' Typical homunculus questions in cognitive science are such as the following: 'How does the visual system compute shape from shading; how does it compute object distance from size of retinal image?' A parallel question would be, 'How do nails compute the distance they are to travel in the board from the impact of the hammer and the density of the wood?' And the answer is the same in both sorts of case: If we are talking about how the system works intrinsically neither nails nor visual systems compute anything. We as outside homunculi might describe them computationally, and it is often useful to do so. But you do not understand hammering by supposing that nails are somehow intrinsically implementing hammering algorithms and you do not understand vision by supposing the system is implementing, e.g, the shape from shading alogorithm." In light of Searle's critique of Dennett's argument (which I agree with), IMHO the proper means of avoiding the Homunculus Fallacy is to avoid Cognitivism (psychology) implicitly by embracing Behaviorism. The Homunculus Fallacy is endemic to cognitivism ''not'' Behaviorism. B.F. Skinner was correct when, in his 1974 work ''About Behaviorism'', he stated, "Behavior is the achievement of a person, and we seem to deprive the human organism of something which is his natural due when we point instead to the environmental sources of his behavior. We do not dehumanize him; we dehomunculize him" (i.e., we take the ‘inner man’ out, or show that by no means do we even need to take a homunculus into account in the first place). Behaviorists focus exclusively on the functional laws of behavior (with behavior as the dependent variable); their theories implicitly reject an inner determining agent and knowledge of any inner states (the latter of which we rarely, as scientists, have available to us anyway). ''This'' is how we abolish the Homunculus Fallacy, which is otherwise endemic. --User:Uroshnor 09:46, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC) And I am going to make sure that no one overlooks the disease connotations of the word 'endemic' by bringing it up now. --User:Uroshnor 09:56, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC) For the record, I am aware that this is hardly a forum for the expression of personal views, so it wasn't exactly relevant to inform everyone what I do and do not agree with. However, I believe a truly complete and proper encyclopedic entry for the Homunculus Argument (Fallacy) would hardly be complete or proper if it failed to include a detailed treatment of how Behaviorist theories dehomunculize human beings. As I noted on the Ryle's Regress page, in The Concept of Mind, Ryle was writing from a logical behaviorist standpoint. It is from this fertile ground that the Homunculus Fallacy springs. As such, I believe the page ''must'' emphasize its Behaviorial origin and kinship with other Behavioral critiques of Cognitivism (psychology). Otherwise it is not an encyclopedia entry at all; for instance in its current incarnation I would liken it to an apologia for the Mentalistic stance of most psychologists. --User:Uroshnor 08:37, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
See other meanings of words starting from letter:
Words begining with Homunculus:
Homunculus
Homunculus
Homunculus_(manga)
Homunculus_fallacy
Homunculus_Nebula
Homunculus
The concept of a homunculus (Latin for "little man," sometimes spelled "homonculus") is often used to illustrate the functioning of a system. In the scientific sense of an unknowable prime actor, it can be viewed as an entity or agent. The term appears to have been first used by the alchemist Paracelsus. He once claimed that he had created a false human being that he referred to as the homunculus. The creature was to have stood no more than 12 inches tall, and does the work usually associated with a golem. However, after a short time, the homunculus would turn on its creator and run away. The recipe consisted of a bag of bones, sperm, skin fragments and hair from any animal you wanted it to be a hybrid of. This was to be laid in the ground surrounded by horse manure for forty days, at which point the embryo would form. Needless to say, this procedure does not actually produce a viable homunculus, nor do the variants cited by other alchemists. One such variant involved the use of the Mandrake (plant). Popular belief held that this plant grew where the semen sometimes ejaculated by hanged men during the last convulsive spasms before death fell to the ground, and its roots vaguley resemble a human form to varying degrees. The root was to be picked before dawn on a Friday morning by a black dog, then washed and "fed" with milk and honey and, in some prescriptions, blood, whereupon it would fully develop into a miniature human which would guard and protect its owner. Yet a third method, cited by Dr. David Christianus at the University of Giessen during the 18th century, was to take an egg laid by a black hen, poke a tiny hole through the shell, replace a bean-sized portion of the white with human sperm, seal the opening with virgin parchment, and bury the egg in dung on the first day of the March lunar cycle. A miniature humanoid would emerge from the egg after thirty days, which would help and protect its creator in return for a steady diet of lavender seeds and earthworm . The term homunculus was later used in the discussion of conception and birth. In 1694, Nicolaas Hartsoeker discovered "animalcules" in the sperm of humans and other animals. Some claimed that the sperm was in fact a "little man" (homunculus) that was placed inside a woman for growth into a child; these later became known as the ''spermists''. This is not as silly as it sounds today, and neatly explained many of the mysteries of conception (for instance, why it takes two). However it was later pointed out that if the sperm was a homunculus, identical in all but size to an adult, then the homunculus must have sperm of its own. This led to a reductio ad absurdum, with a chain of homunculi "all the way down". Today the term is used in a number of ways to describe systems that are thought of as being run by a "little man" inside. For instance, the homunculus continues to be considered as one of the major theories on the origin of consciousness, that there is a part (or process) in the brain whose purpose is to be "you". The homunculus is often invoked in cybernetics as well, for similar reasons. ==The sensory and motor homunculi== The homunculus is also commonly used to describe the distorted human figure drawn to reflect the relative sensory space our body parts occupy on the cerebral cortex. The lips, hands, feet and sex organs are considerably more sensitive than other parts of the body, so the homunculus has grossly large lips, hands and genitals. Well known in the field of neurology, this is also commonly called 'the little man inside the brain.' Dr Wilder Penfield used a similar image to depict the body according to the areas of the motor cortex controlling it in voluntary movement. Sometimes thought to be the brain's map of the body, the motor homunculus is really a map of the proportionate association of the cortex with body members. It also reflects kinesthetic proprioception, the body as felt in motion. It plays a central role in phantom limb phenomena and their opposite such as the disappearance of body members from conscious perception with certain types of brain damage. Like the sensory homunculus, the motor homunculus looks distorted. For example the thumb which is used in thousands of complex activities appears much larger than the thigh with its relatively simple movement. The motor homunculus develops over time and differs from one person to the next. The hand in the brain of an infant is different to the hand in the brain of a concert pianist. This kind of difference is open to introspection. You can probably flex and extend the end of your thumb at will. Most people can do this fairly easily, but relatively few can make analogous movements with any of their other fingers. The difference is due to differences in the functional organization of associated areas of the brain. ==The homunculus argument in philosophy of mind== A 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. In the psychology and philosophy of mind 'homunculus arguments' are extremely 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 them, projected on the screen. How is this done? A simple theory might propose that the light from the screen forms an image on the retinas 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 who gazes at the retinas. A more sophisticated argument might propose that the images on the retinas 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)). Very few people would propose that there actually is a little man in the brain looking at brain activity. However, this proposal has been used as a 'straw man' in theories of mind. Gilbert Ryle (1949) proposed that the human mind is known by its intelligent acts. He argued that if there is an inner being inside the brain that could steer its own thoughts then this would lead to an absurd repetitive cycle or 'regress': "According to the legend, whenever an agent does anything intelligently, his act is preceded and steered by another internal act of considering a regulative proposition appropriate to his practical problem." "Must we then say that for the ..[agent's].. reflections how to act to be intelligent he 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 is proposing that if inner reflection were a process then it would be an endless activity if it occurred wholly within the brain (see Ryle's Regress). However, if the homunculus argument is applied rigorously it should be phrased in such a way that the conclusion is always that if a homunculus is required then the theory is wrong. After all, homunculi do not exist. The homunculus argument applied to Ryle's theory would be phrased in terms of whether the mental attribute of 'reflecting upon things internally' can be explained by the theory that the mind is 'intelligent acts' without the appearance of a homunculus. The answer, provided by Ryle's own logic, is that internal reflection would require a homunculus to prevent it from becoming an infinite regress. Therefore with these assumptions the Homunculus Argument does not support the theory that mind is wholly due to intelligent acts. The example of Ryle's theory demonstrates another aspect of the Homunculus Argument in which it is possible to attribute to the mind various properties such as 'internal reflection' that are not universally accepted and use these contentiously to declare that a theory of mind is invalid. ==Pop culture== In the classic horror film ''Bride of Frankenstein'', Dr. Frankenstein's old teacher, Dr. Praetorius, shows him his own creations, a series of miniature humanoids kept in specimen jars, including a bishop, a king, a queen, a ballerina, a mermaid, and a devil. These are clearly intended to be forms of homunculi. In his source study of Mary Shelley's original novel upon which the film was based, Prof. Radu Florescu notes that her father, William Godwin was quite familiar with the lives and works of alchemists like Paracelsus and others, and their theories on the creation of the homunculus. Florescu also notes that Konrad Dippel, an alchemist whom he believes may have been the inspiration for Dr. Frankenstein, was a student of Dr. David Christianus. German horror writer Hanns Heinz Ewers used the mandrake method for creating a homunculus as the inspiration for his 1911 novel, ''Alraune'', in which a prostitute is impregnated with semen from a hanged murderer to create a woman devoid of morals or conscience. Several cinematic adaptations of ''Alraune'' have been made over the years, the most recent in 1952 with Erich von Stroheim. The 1995 film ''Species (movie)'' also appears to draw some inspiration from this variation on the homunculus legend. In the anime and manga series ''Fullmetal Alchemist'', the comedy movie ''The League of Gentlemen's Apocalypse'' and in the comic ''Hellboy'', the word homunculus describes any man-made human created via alchemy. In Fullmetal Alchemist, there are seven homunculus in total (each of which are named after one of the seven deadly sins) and play a significant part in the story's plot. Homunculi are the product of failed attempts to resurrect humans who have died. Not possessing souls, they kill without restraint. A homunculus named Roger figures greatly into some of the Hellboy stories. In the Japanese graphic novel ''Homunculus (manga)'' by ''Hideo Yamamoto'' refered to sensory homunculus from neurology in meaning for explain about their human experimental. In the video game Shadow of Memories, Homunculus is the name of an entity that obviously has a great understanding of space and time, and he seems to be helping the main character in the game to escape his death. He seems to be a real homunculus, as his roots seem to be in the age of the alchemists. Very little is known about his past. However, he dresses dark and so are his intentions seemingly. In the computer game Diablo 2 (specifically the expansion pack released by the name of Lord_of_Destruction_expansion_pack), a Homunculus is a unique shield used by the Necromancer class of characters. It resembles a shrunken head and bears the title "Hierophant Trophy", but no direct information concerning the relation of Homunculus the shield to the literal meaning of Homunculus is given. In the American film ''The Golden Voyage of Sinbad'' (1974), the homunculus is portrayed as a miniature winged gargoyle looking creature, who is the nemesis of Sinbad. In ''The Talons of Weng-Chiang'', a 1977 serial from the Britain television series ''Doctor Who'', the Peking Homunculus is the proper name given to an animated Ventriloquism dummy known as Mr. Sin. The dummy was really an android from the future, with the cerebral cortex of a pig. In many ''Role-playing games'', a Homunculus is an artificial creature that can be made by magical means to assist the creator. For example in Dungeons & Dragons a wizard can use a spell to make a homunculus. In the ''Magic: the Gathering'' card game, two creatures exist with "homunculus" in their name. Both are blue creatures, blue being the color of artificial creation and illusion, among other things. Also, in Vampire: The Masquerade a Gangrel possessing the ninth level of the Protean discipline may summon a foot-tall replica of himself known, of course, as a "homunculous." In the Enix RPG, Valkyrie Profile, the alchemist Lezard Valeth experiments with homonculi. Among them are his minion Bellion, and numerous female elven-like forms kept in large glass tubes. Homonculus is a song by the indie/experimental band ''Xiu Xiu''. It appears on their album ''Knife Play'' (2002). ==References== Florescu, Radu (1975) In Search of Frankenstein. Warner Books, New York. Gregory, R.L. (1990) Eye and Brain: The Psychology of Seeing, Oxford University Press Inc. New York. Gregory, T.L. (1987). The Oxford Companion to Mind. Oxford University Press. Ryle, G. (1949) The Concept of Mind. The University of Chicago Press, 1949. ==See Also== * philosophy of mind
Homunculus
It's not clear from the text whether in describing the homunculus as a "little man", "man" is being used generically (i.e. "human"), or to refer specifically to a male. Presumably the author intended the former, or else the homunculus theory of conception would not explain where women came from! Don't forget the old band, [http://www.homunculture.com Homunculus]. It's a shame they've broken up. Simply asserting that homunculi don't exist is highly misleading, especially when you consider the "sub-homunculi" as first postulated by Daniel Dennett in 1978. He elaborated on this in his 1991 work ''Consciousness Explained'' when he stated, "...theories that posit such homunculi ("little men" in the brain) ''are not always to be shunned'', but whenever homunculi are rung in to help, they had better be relatively stupid functionaries..." (emphasis added). Also, in an interview for the book ''States of Mind'' he wrote, :"The fundamental homunculus objection, which has been around for a long time, foresees an infinite regress. If the little man in your head looking at the little screen is using the full powers of human vision, then we have to look at the even smaller man in his head looking at a still smaller screen, and so on ''ad infinitum''. That's what's wrong with the little man in the head. However, if you make a simple step, if you break that little man down into a committee of specialists, each of which does less than the full job, has less than the full competence you are trying to explain, now you face the prospect of a finite regress that will bottom out in something purely mechanical. We start with specialist homunculi, no one of which has the full mentality we are trying to explain, and we gradually break these down into simpler functional units, which only by courtesy are called homunculi, and finally we get down to things that are so simple you could replace them with a machine i.e. with a neuron, or a flip-flop in a computer that only has to remember 0 or 1 as its only expertise." Thus, even if only "out of courtesy," such neuronal functionaries deserve to be mentioned under the heading of Homunculi (and they obviously exist). Also, the philospher John R. Searle has written an essay entitled, "Is the Brain a Digital Computer?", the fifth section of which is: "Second Difficulty: The Homunculus Fallacy is Endemic to Cognitivism", which IMO is also relevant and at odds with what Dennett has written. Dennett thinks we can abolish the Homunculus fallacy by breaking down the one "homunculus" into "sub-homunculi" (i.e., an army of stupid functionaries); Searle disagrees and finds that the matter is not so simple--that, in fact, the attempt to abolish homunculi necessarily fails, since to embrace cognitivist theories is to necessarily embrace a homunculus (in the full sense), even if one doesn't want to. Thus, when a wikipedia author writes, "After all, homunculi do not exist," this should be changed to: "After all, infinite regresses do not exist." Let me stress that ''it is the necessary entailment of an infinite regress which renders the Homunculus Argument a fallacy and NOT the fact that the argument invokes homunculi.'' (And another thing--the section entitled "The homunculus argument in the philosophy of mind" needs to be massively rewritten. It contains some of the poorest writing I've ever seen on Wikipedia (the Ryle quote is not even correct, it is wordy and rambling, some statements are false and some are downright misleading even when true, and it is almost unintelligible at some points, etc.). I'll be rewriting it shortly, just as I expanded the Ryle's Regress page, but I hereby am alerting all others that it is far from even adequate--and so I think you should help too.) --User:Uroshnor 08:13, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC) I realize it is a long quote, but it just occurred to me while rereading the Searle article how brilliantly Searle treats of the issues. As such, I've decided to reproduce it here for all concerned (after all, it is only four paragraphs): :"It took me a long time to figure out what these people were driving at, so in case someone else is similarly puzzled I will explain an example in detail: Suppose that we have a computer that multiplies six times eight to get forty-eight. Now we ask 'How does it do it?' Well, the answer might be that it adds six to itself seven times. But if you ask 'How does it add six to itself seven times?', the answer might be that, first, it converts all of the numerals into binary notation, and second, it applies a simple algorithm for operating on binary notation until finally we reach the bottom level at which the only instructions are of the form, 'Print a zero, erase a one.' So, for example, at the top level our intelligent homunculus says 'I know how to multiply six times eight to get forty-eight'. But at the next lower-level he is replaced by a stupider homunculus who says 'I do not actually know how to do multiplication, but I can do addition.' Below him are some stupider ones who say 'We do not actually know how to do addition or multiplication, but we know how to convert decimal to binary.' Below these are stupider ones who say 'We do not know anything about any of this stuff, but we know how to operate on binary symbols.' At the bottom level are a whole bunch of a homunculi who just say 'Zero one, zero one'. All of the higher levels reduce to this bottom level. Only the bottom level really exists; the top levels are all just as-if. :Various authors (e.g. Haugeland (1981), Block (1990)) describe this feature when they say that the system is a syntactical engine driving a semantic engine. But we still must face the question we had before: What facts intrinsic to the system make it syntactical? What facts about the bottom level or any other level make these operations into zeros and ones? ''Without a homunculus that stands outside the recursive decomposition, we do not even have a syntax to operate with'' (emphasis in original). The attempt to eliminate the homunculus fallacy through recursive decomposition fails, because the only way to get the syntax intrinsic to the physics is to put a homunculus in the physics. :There is a fascinating feature to all of this. Cognitivists cheerfully concede that the higher levels of computation, e.g. 'multiply 6 times 8' are observer relative; there is nothing really there that corresponds directly to multiplication; it is all in the eye of the homunculus/beholder. But they want to stop this concession at the the lower levels. The electronic circuit, they admit, does not really multiply 6X8 as such, but it really does manipulate 0's and 1's and these manipulations, so to speak, add up to multiplication. But to concede that the higher levels of computation are not intrinsic to the physics is already to concede that the lower levels are not intrinsic either. ''So the homunculus fallacy is still with us'' (emphasis added). :For real computers of the kind you buy in the store, there is no homunculus problem, each user is the homunculus in question. But if we are to suppose that the brain is a digital computer, we are still faced with the question 'And who is the user?' Typical homunculus questions in cognitive science are such as the following: 'How does the visual system compute shape from shading; how does it compute object distance from size of retinal image?' A parallel question would be, 'How do nails compute the distance they are to travel in the board from the impact of the hammer and the density of the wood?' And the answer is the same in both sorts of case: If we are talking about how the system works intrinsically neither nails nor visual systems compute anything. We as outside homunculi might describe them computationally, and it is often useful to do so. But you do not understand hammering by supposing that nails are somehow intrinsically implementing hammering algorithms and you do not understand vision by supposing the system is implementing, e.g, the shape from shading alogorithm." In light of Searle's critique of Dennett's argument (which I agree with), IMHO the proper means of avoiding the Homunculus Fallacy is to avoid Cognitivism (psychology) implicitly by embracing Behaviorism. The Homunculus Fallacy is endemic to cognitivism ''not'' Behaviorism. B.F. Skinner was correct when, in his 1974 work ''About Behaviorism'', he stated, "Behavior is the achievement of a person, and we seem to deprive the human organism of something which is his natural due when we point instead to the environmental sources of his behavior. We do not dehumanize him; we dehomunculize him" (i.e., we take the ‘inner man’ out, or show that by no means do we even need to take a homunculus into account in the first place). Behaviorists focus exclusively on the functional laws of behavior (with behavior as the dependent variable); their theories implicitly reject an inner determining agent and knowledge of any inner states (the latter of which we rarely, as scientists, have available to us anyway). ''This'' is how we abolish the Homunculus Fallacy, which is otherwise endemic. --User:Uroshnor 09:46, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC) And I am going to make sure that no one overlooks the disease connotations of the word 'endemic' by bringing it up now. --User:Uroshnor 09:56, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC) For the record, I am aware that this is hardly a forum for the expression of personal views, so it wasn't exactly relevant to inform everyone what I do and do not agree with. However, I believe a truly complete and proper encyclopedic entry for the Homunculus Argument (Fallacy) would hardly be complete or proper if it failed to include a detailed treatment of how Behaviorist theories dehomunculize human beings. As I noted on the Ryle's Regress page, in The Concept of Mind, Ryle was writing from a logical behaviorist standpoint. It is from this fertile ground that the Homunculus Fallacy springs. As such, I believe the page ''must'' emphasize its Behaviorial origin and kinship with other Behavioral critiques of Cognitivism (psychology). Otherwise it is not an encyclopedia entry at all; for instance in its current incarnation I would liken it to an apologia for the Mentalistic stance of most psychologists. --User:Uroshnor 08:37, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
See other meanings of words starting from letter:
H
HA | HB | HC | HD | HE | HF | HG | HI | HJ | HK | HL | HM | HN | HO | HP | HR | HS | HT | HU | HW | HX | HY | HZ |Words begining with Homunculus:
Homunculus
Homunculus
Homunculus_(manga)
Homunculus_fallacy
Homunculus_Nebula
These materials are based on Wikipedia and licensed under the GNU FDL
YouTube.com videos better site than Turbo Tax 2007
