Another one of my diversions. This one concerns some brief postings by Kim. You can read the full text here. Kim speculates about the idea that the Spirit uses waves to communicate. I picked up on her concern that there would need to be "a translating medium" and replied to her because this seemed so reminiscent of Descartes. It provides a summary of what Descartes thought and also what the central issues are in the philosophy of mind.
Kim's posts were made on 18 Jul 2008 at 08:36 and 08:43am. My post was made on 18 Jul 2008 at 04:13 pm:
Hi Kim. I am not surprised that you are struggling with your ideas but at least you can console yourself with the knowledge that you are in the greatest of company. I would like to pass on a few observations of your post in the hope of advancing your ideas which I do find intriguing. You may or may not be aware that you have expressed ideas which are very similar to those of the great philosopher, Rene Descartes, who also struggled with the same material.
Descartes, like you, argued that there is an essential self which is not material and which inhabits our bodies. Matter does not have this self awareness but it does have attributes and so can do things. This is not the same as having life. He believed that the self has no attributes, no physical characteristics because its essential quality is its own existence. To be alive is to able to say "I am me" and we can never say "I am you" even if you and I share similar qualities. We can never be another person. In contrast physical matter is defined by its attributes and abilities. Essentially, he described a "ghost in the machine".
Also, like you, Descartes believed that there had to be some kind of interface which allowed the mind and body to relate to each other and rather oddly he believed that this was located in the pineal gland. Although that is obviously not the case, it is intriguing that you share his worry!
I suppose the central issue is whether selfhood is really a physical thing all along and consciousness and self identity is just a manifestation, an illusion, if you will, which can wholly be explained by physical processes or whether ultimately it is not possible to provide an adequate explanation of life by re-arranging matter to form being. The scientific approach provides a very powerful case for matter being the answer to everything. Set against that is the fact that things we associate with being, such as the ability to have free choice and intentions do not easily fit into an entirely physical universe. How can the strict rules of matter allow us to make decisions? Would that not cash out as no more than a string of inevitable occurences entirely governed by the detailed actions and reactions of material processes? Also, how can matter, alone, account for why as well as how the universe came to be?
Just a few observations which I offer in the hopes of clarifying your thinking and encouraging further ideas. Good luck!
Peter Rayner
Kim replied that our brains are, in some respects, like computers and went off to do some thinking. I referred her to our series of posts, now re-produced in this blog.
Kim's post was made on 18 Jul 2008 at 04:28 pm. My reply was made on 18 Jul 2008 at 04:33 pm:
Hi Kim. You might like to look back over my discussions with Richard in which we discuss intentionality and how computers think with particular reference to John Searle's chinese room illustration.
Peter Rayner
Tags: afterlife Spirit translating medium Descartes philosophy of mind existence matter attributes self ghost in the machine pineal gland computers thinking
Kim's posts were made on 18 Jul 2008 at 08:36 and 08:43am. My post was made on 18 Jul 2008 at 04:13 pm:
Hi Kim. I am not surprised that you are struggling with your ideas but at least you can console yourself with the knowledge that you are in the greatest of company. I would like to pass on a few observations of your post in the hope of advancing your ideas which I do find intriguing. You may or may not be aware that you have expressed ideas which are very similar to those of the great philosopher, Rene Descartes, who also struggled with the same material.
Descartes, like you, argued that there is an essential self which is not material and which inhabits our bodies. Matter does not have this self awareness but it does have attributes and so can do things. This is not the same as having life. He believed that the self has no attributes, no physical characteristics because its essential quality is its own existence. To be alive is to able to say "I am me" and we can never say "I am you" even if you and I share similar qualities. We can never be another person. In contrast physical matter is defined by its attributes and abilities. Essentially, he described a "ghost in the machine".
Also, like you, Descartes believed that there had to be some kind of interface which allowed the mind and body to relate to each other and rather oddly he believed that this was located in the pineal gland. Although that is obviously not the case, it is intriguing that you share his worry!
I suppose the central issue is whether selfhood is really a physical thing all along and consciousness and self identity is just a manifestation, an illusion, if you will, which can wholly be explained by physical processes or whether ultimately it is not possible to provide an adequate explanation of life by re-arranging matter to form being. The scientific approach provides a very powerful case for matter being the answer to everything. Set against that is the fact that things we associate with being, such as the ability to have free choice and intentions do not easily fit into an entirely physical universe. How can the strict rules of matter allow us to make decisions? Would that not cash out as no more than a string of inevitable occurences entirely governed by the detailed actions and reactions of material processes? Also, how can matter, alone, account for why as well as how the universe came to be?
Just a few observations which I offer in the hopes of clarifying your thinking and encouraging further ideas. Good luck!
Peter Rayner
Kim replied that our brains are, in some respects, like computers and went off to do some thinking. I referred her to our series of posts, now re-produced in this blog.
Kim's post was made on 18 Jul 2008 at 04:28 pm. My reply was made on 18 Jul 2008 at 04:33 pm:
Hi Kim. You might like to look back over my discussions with Richard in which we discuss intentionality and how computers think with particular reference to John Searle's chinese room illustration.
Peter Rayner
Tags: afterlife Spirit translating medium Descartes philosophy of mind existence matter attributes self ghost in the machine pineal gland computers thinking
