Manzotti’s Mind-Object Identity ("Spread Mind")

Philosopher and robotics scientist Riccardo Manzotti’s Mind-Object Identity theory is the physicalist thesis that one's phenomenal experience of an object is numerically identical to the external object itself—reconceived as a bundle of relative and actual physical properties that exist relative to the perceiver's experiencing body—rather than to any brain-based neural processes. Thus, Manzotti’s radical realism claims that phenomenal consciousness is not a neural representation, emergent brain property, inner mental item, or subject-facing appearance, but, by being identical with the physical object itself, the body and brain are causal-enabling conditions for experience, whereas the experienced object is the experience itself (Manzotti, 2016, 2017a, 2019).

The theory’s central proposition is disarmingly simple: when a subject experiences an object O, the subject’s experience of O is O itself (Manzotti, 2019). In other words, experience is not about the object, directed toward it, or representationally generating it. Experience is the object, where the object is the object as causally and physically available relative to a given body.

The proposal inherits the explanatory form of classical mind-brain identity theory (Smart, 1959; Armstrong, 1968), but relocates its target. Manzotti readily accepts the physicalist worldview but argues that it selects the wrong physical candidate. Neural activity is causally indispensable, but it does not possess the properties of experience: the apple experienced as red, round, shiny, and edible is not matched by any red, round, shiny neural activity. The apple itself, by contrast, has the relevant properties. Hence, the theory preserves identity while rejecting brain-based causation: consciousness is physical, but it’s not in the head.

Manzotti decomposes the mind-brain identity tradition into two logically independent claims: that consciousness is physical (PHYSICAL) and that the relevant physical phenomenon lies inside the body/brain(BRAINBOUND) (Manzotti, 2016). Only the first is required by physicalism, he says; the local supervenience of qualia on brain states routinely treated as obligatory (Kim, 1995) is, Manzotti argues, an unforced and misleading assumption. Mind-brain identity failed not because consciousness is non-physical (Chalmers, 1996)—but for the blunt empirical reason that neural tissue exhibits none of the properties experience exhibits: nothing in the brain is red, round, or shiny.

Retaining PHYSICAL and discarding BRAINBOUND yields a third candidate for the identity, "hidden in plain sight": the external object (OBJECTBOUND). The identity is asymmetric—it runs from experience to the world, not from the world to the mind—so the view is emphatically not panpsychism, idealism, or neutral monism, and it requires no emergence. It is the developed, explicitly identity-theoretic formulation of Manzotti's earlier Spread Mind (Manzotti, 2011, 2017b; Noe, 2009).

The relative object

The theory's critical move is ontological, not psychological: a revision of what an object is. Against the commonsense object whose properties are intrinsic, absolute, and observer-independent, Manzotti generalizes object-object relativity from the model case of Galilean velocity, where a property is well defined yet exists only relative to another physical system, never absolutely. Properties are also actual in the sense of the Eleatic principle—to exist is to exert an effect—so a property is "pulled into existence" only when some further object supplies the causal occasion. Manzotti distinguishes object-relativity from subject-relativity: that a canvas is white relative to a standard trichromat and cyan to a red-saturated observer no more makes color mental than relative velocity makes motion mental.

The Body: Enabler, Not Constituent

Manzotti’s theory gives the body a strong causal role but denies that the body is the constitutive substrate of consciousness. The body is a condition of existence for the experienced object, much as a dam may be a condition of existence for a lake without being identical with the lake (Manzotti, 2016). Sensorimotor capacities, neural structures, developmental history, and bodily position help determine which object comes to exist relative to that body, but they are not themselves the conscious experience.

The body is therefore as "just another object," functioning as the causal reference frame relative to which one's world of objects takes place, much as a conventional frame is tacitly presupposed whenever we report a velocity. Its role is causal and enabling, not constitutive—captured by that dam-and-lake analogy: the dam (body and brain) brings the lake (object = experience) into existence without being identical with it (Manzotti, 2016, 2019).

Dissolving the mark of the mental

Because the object now bears exactly the properties experience displays, the features traditionally invoked to distinguish mental states from physical states become superfluous. Intentionality is treated as a postulate never actually encountered in experience: when one sees an apple, one is presented with the apple, not with an “aboutness”-relation to it. Under identity, there is nothing for experience to be about, since experience simply is the thing—"identity is the new intentionality" (Manzotti, 2019). Phenomenal character receives parallel treatment: the felt redness held to be absent from the physical world (Nagel, 1974) is, on Manzotti’s reading, an artifact of having searched the wrong object. There is only one red—the apple's, relative to a visual system—not a physical red engendering a phenomenal one. The hard problem is thereby not answered on its own terms but relocated: the explanatory gap looked unbridgeable only because the candidate physical substrate, neural activity, was ill-chosen (Manzotti, 2011).

Hallucinations, dreams, and the spread present

The decisive test for any extreme realism is the argument from illusion—cases where S experiences O, yet O is seemingly absent (hallucinations, dreams, illusions, mental imagery, and memory). Manzotti grants the first premise (experience) and denies the second (absence). His defense requires two steps. First, a recombination thesis: dreams and hallucinations never introduce genuinely novel elements, but reshuffle previously encountered external properties (the congenitally blind do not dream in color); “our dreams and hallucinations are chimeric in the sense that they are composite amalgams of existing external physical properties and events” (Manzotti, 2019).

Second, a relativized present: since perception is never instantaneous, the object causally present to the brain is always to some degree past and distant—a star "is" (presently) millions or billions of years after the astronomer’s perception of that star (light needing millions or billions of years to make the trip), yet that star lies within the experiencer's present. Stretching "there" spatially licenses stretching "now" temporally, so a hallucination becomes simply displaced perception, an object dispersed across unusual causal pathways (Manzotti, 2011, 2019). Illusions are handled by distinguishing a proxy property from the alleged property it tracks: the experience is veridical; only the belief about which property is perceived errs.

Distinctiveness and the Hard Problem

What sets Manzotti’s Mind-Object Identity theory apart is the strength of its external identity. Externalist and embodied programs—the extended mind (Clark and Chalmers, 1998), sensorimotor and enactive accounts (Noë, 2009), and content externalism (Dretske, 1995)—hold that experience is constituted by or depends on body-world coupling; Manzotti makes the stronger, astonishing claim that experience is identical with the external object, an externalism so radical that the conscious experience departs the head entirely (Manzotti, 2011). Then, where is it? It occupies a kind of logical space, which is distinct both from internalist brain substrate theories such as integrated information (Tononi et al., 2016) and from panpsychism (Strawson, 2017), neither confining conscious experiences to brains nor adding phenomenal properties to matter.

Mind-Object Identity seeks to dissolve, not solve in standard terms, the hard problem of consciousness (Chalmers, 1996). The hard problem arises, according to Manzotti, because experience is assumed to be inside the head, while its properties are in the world. If experience is instead identical with the body-relative object, the explanatory gap is said to result from looking in the wrong place (Manzotti, 2011, 2019). Likewise, intentionality becomes unnecessary: experience need not be “about” the banana if experience is the banana. The vehicle/content distinction is similarly weakened, because the experienced object is not represented by a separate vehicle; it is the physical entity with which experience is identical.

Criticisms abound. How to explain the genuinely object-less or radically novel hallucination, the challenge of placing one's present experience light-years from one's body, and the relocation of agency from proximal neural events to distal objects—each of which Manzotti handles by denying the assumption that generates it. The framework has since been extended beyond perception to selfhood, language, and thought, recast as further species of displaced, recombined perception (Manzotti and Parks, 2018).

References

Armstrong, D. M. (1968). A Materialist Theory of the Mind. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Chalmers, D. J. (1996). The Conscious Mind: In Search of a Fundamental Theory. New York: Oxford University Press.

Clark, A., & Chalmers, D. J. (1998). The extended mind. Analysis, 58(1), 7–19.

Dretske, F. (1995). Naturalizing the Mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Jackson, F. (1986). What Mary didn't know. Journal of Philosophy, 83(5), 291–295.

Kim, J. (1995). Dretske's qualia externalism. Philosophical Issues, 7, 159–165.

Kripke, S. A. (1972). Naming and Necessity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Levine, J. (1983). Materialism and qualia: The explanatory gap. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 64(4), 354–361.

Manzotti, R. (2011). The spread mind: Is consciousness situated? Teorema, 30(2), 55–78.

Manzotti, R. (2016). Experiences are objects: Towards a mind-object identity theory. Rivista Internazionale di Filosofia e Psicologia, 7(1), 16–36.

Manzotti, R. (2017a). Consciousness and Object: A Mind-Object Identity Physicalist Theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Manzotti, R. (2017b). The Spread Mind: Why Consciousness and the World Are One. New York: OR Books.

Manzotti, R. (2019). Mind-object identity: A solution to the hard problem. Frontiers in Psychology, 10:63.

Manzotti, R., & Parks, T. (2018). The Challenge of Consciousness [dialogue series]. New York: The New York Review of Books.

Nagel, T. (1974). What is it like to be a bat? Philosophical Review, 83(4), 435–450.

Noë, A. (2009). Out of Our Heads: Why You Are Not Your Brain. New York: Hill and Wang.

Smart, J. J. C. (1959). Sensations and brain processes. Philosophical Review, 68(2), 141–156.

Strawson, G. (2017). Physicalist panpsychism. In S. Schneider & M. Velmans (Eds.), The Blackwell Companion to Consciousness (2nd ed., pp. 374–390). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.

Tononi, G., Boly, M., Massimini, M., & Koch, C. (2016). Integrated information theory: From consciousness to its physical substrate. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 17(7), 450–461.