A New Hope?

This is the end of my journey through philosophy, courtesy of Facebook. There are no more posts to transfer across. My plan is to make one last post on Facebook, which refers anyone interested to this blog.

Although the journey through Facebook is ended, the philosophical quest, itself, goes on. The point at which I stopped was as far as I have gone and, I believe, as far as anyone has gone. Richard is still to reply to that all defining post and it may be that that will be the next event. I will ask him. Beyond that I think I need to take stock of what has been said and what is missing. After all, I began in an orderly fashion but long since lost the well prepared script! In the year I was born, Gilbert Ryle wrote his seminal book "The Concept of Mind" and I am ever conscious that I have, until now, made no reference to him. He represents one end of the spectrum of argument, being a hard line materialist. Descartes represents the other end, as a dualist and many fall in between the two.

The academic in me wants to define each contributor carefully. If I do that then I will, in all probability, contribute nothing new to the debate, except a magnificent work of reference! So, without too much delay, I will press on to the edge of the goldfish bowl...

Peter Rayner

Tags: hope Facebook quest Gilbert Ryle The Concept of Mind materialist Descartes dualist goldfish bowl

An Afterlife? - Wave If You're There

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

An Afterlife? - Peter's 2nd Post - A Unique Point of View

I develop further the notion of experience in contrast to the processing ability of a computer. In particular I introduce the idea that each of us has a unique point of view and can never be another person having his experiences. The idea of a contentless, experiencing self as a foundation for developing a theory of an afterlife is raised.

My post was made on 11 May 2008 at 11:52 pm:

Hi Richard. Thanks for your reply. Straight away you go to the heart of the matter. You say that "the aim of a computer...". In what sense can computers be said to have aims of their own? Not at all. They exist only as creations of a human being. If we were to come across a computer in a jungle would we think that it had grown out of the ground? Of course not because we know that they are produced by humans, at least on this planet. As you say, they think but they do not experience thinking. So the issue is not about thinking but about experiencing, not the "cogito" but the "sum" of Descartes much troubled formula.

So we come, with ease, into the mainstream of philosophical thinking - the issue of experience. It seems to me that experience is in a different category from say, thinking or doing something. In a sense we can think the same thought as another person or, indeed, as a computer. This is because we construct language to define thinking in a way which is of use to more than one person. What would be the point of describing unique thoughts all the time. And yet there is something unique about each thought and it is not the "thought" part of it but the context. It is the point of view of the person having the thought which cannot ever be duplicated. I can only ever be "me" when it comes to experiencing something. My point of view is always unique even if I am describing something that many others have had experience of.

In order to consider the possibility of an Afterlife, which is the topic under discussion, after all, we need to establish a self which is not tied to the physical world and by positing a contentless, experiencing self we have, at least, opened up that possibility. There remain, however, many obstacles along the way.

Tags: afterlife experience process computer point of view thinking Descartes self

Peter Rayner