|
TheChillMovement
Musician, Philosopher, Artist


Registered: 11/10/11
Posts: 154
Loc: ation unconfirmed
Last seen: 12 years, 2 months
|
Dualism
#15373268 - 11/15/11 07:54 AM (12 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
I have been researching Rene Descartes and his theory on dualism. Basically, from what I obtained from my research, it is the theory that nothing exists.
What are your thoughts on Rene Descartes and Dualism?
-------------------- I am a musician, a philosopher, an artist, a thinker. I am one with you, as you are with me. I am a peacemaker, a preacher, and a teacher. Say no to violence, and do not harm your brothers and sisters. Peace and love to you all, wherever you are! Music: Soundcloud: http://www.Soundcloud.com/the-chill-movement Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/user/TheChillMovement?feature=mhee Blogs: Tumblr: http://www.thechillmovement.tumblr.com Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/chill_movement ;

|
r72rock
Maybe so. Maybe not.




Registered: 01/06/09
Posts: 1,327
Loc: Chicago
|
|
Dualism has a bad rep today due to neuroscience. A majority of neuroscientist today reject dualism. As I heard it put by Susan Blackmoore, Dualism is doomed to fail just because of the idea, how are you supposed to link non-physical with physical? To link them, you'd need a physical non-physical component, and that just doesn't work in theory because a physical non-physical component is physical. It's also claimed that non-physical is untestable, and therefore, cannot be studied by science.
However, a lot of today's people and neuroscientist who claim to be monist still talk about the mind like they are dualist. It seems like there is an underlying assumption that we have the illusion of the Cartesian Theater. This is Dan Dennett's big claim, and his who spiel of trying to change the mindset of a neuroscientist to be an actual monist.
With that being said, and to actually answer your question, I really like dualism. I don't necessarily take Descartes view on it that there is a "soul" that's viewing, but I do think there is a more irreducible quality to consciousness. While I'm not saying there are no correlates to consciousness, it seems to be a bigger problem to tackle than looking at how the brain operates (The easy problem). I feel that a lot of Neuroscientist today, such as Dennett, are tip toeing around the problem of consciousness and just looking at the "easy" problem of consciousness. (Of course, Dennett would claim that there is no "hard" problem. )
I hope I don't sound like I'm coming off like an ass, I just love this topic and it's constantly on my mind. If you were interested in dualism and not necessarily Descartes, this is a paper by David Chalmers who's noted as a "modern" day dualist. http://consc.net/papers/facing.html
-------------------- Current favorite candy: Peanut Butter Kisses
|
TheChillMovement
Musician, Philosopher, Artist


Registered: 11/10/11
Posts: 154
Loc: ation unconfirmed
Last seen: 12 years, 2 months
|
Re: Dualism [Re: r72rock]
#15374005 - 11/15/11 11:41 AM (12 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
You definitely do not sound like an ass. One of the main points of philosophy is debating and offering your own logical input, which you have done! I will be sure to read that article when I have more time later today over a cup of tea
Now, I agree that many advances in neuroscience have conflicted with dualism.
However, to me at least, it seems hard for my mind to wrap itself around objects itself. Our minds seem to pick up the properties of objects. For example, picture a red apple. You picture a red object that is in the shape of an apple. Now, picture the apple without it's properties. If the object were "real", then it should be easy? But my mind cannot process an apple without it's apple-like properties. To me, that seems like there is definitely part of the picture that we are not seeing. Is there some sort of counterargument against this? Is reality honestly nothing more than what our little brain can sense? Or is there a whole other realm that our senses cannot pick up?
-------------------- I am a musician, a philosopher, an artist, a thinker. I am one with you, as you are with me. I am a peacemaker, a preacher, and a teacher. Say no to violence, and do not harm your brothers and sisters. Peace and love to you all, wherever you are! Music: Soundcloud: http://www.Soundcloud.com/the-chill-movement Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/user/TheChillMovement?feature=mhee Blogs: Tumblr: http://www.thechillmovement.tumblr.com Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/chill_movement ;

|
NetDiver
Wandering Mindfuck


Registered: 08/24/09
Posts: 6,024
Loc: Everywhere and Nowhere
Last seen: 1 year, 7 months
|
|
Quote:
TheChillMovement said: I have been researching Rene Descartes and his theory on dualism. Basically, from what I obtained from my research, it is the theory that nothing exists.
What are your thoughts on Rene Descartes and Dualism?
Well... you'd sorta be wrong about that. Dualism is the theory that two irreducibly distinct substances exist: mental and physical.
Descartes began his philosophy by radically doubting everything. He came to the conclusion that the only thing he could establish beyond a shadow of a doubt is "I think, therefore I am," or that thought exists. However, he used this to support a totally BS argument for God called the "ontological argument," and then used God to construct the rest of his philosophy (such as, "we can believe the external world exists because God would never deceive us.")
I do not like dualism at all. I find it to be plagued with problems, such as how something immaterial could interact with something material. r72rock is right that a lot of supposedly physicalist neuroscientists still talk like dualists when they discuss the "mind" or "personality." This form of dualism is also unfounded, as I can't make sense of the idea that something totally physical (i.e. the brain) produces something "immaterial" like the mind.
I think the question can be better resolved by asking questions like "what do I mean when I say something is 'physical'? What do I mean when I say it is mental?" When viewed from this perspective, the dividing up of the world into two different kinds of substances seems silly.
|
r72rock
Maybe so. Maybe not.




Registered: 01/06/09
Posts: 1,327
Loc: Chicago
|
|
Quote:
TheChillMovement said: You definitely do not sound like an ass. One of the main points of philosophy is debating and offering your own logical input, which you have done! I will be sure to read that article when I have more time later today over a cup of tea
I'm glad I didn't sound like an ass. I actually typed that up this morning while drinking tea. 
It's a well known paper written by Chalmers in '95 called, "Facing up to the Problem of Consciousness."
Quote:
TheChillMovement said: However, to me at least, it seems hard for my mind to wrap itself around objects itself. Our minds seem to pick up the properties of objects. For example, picture a red apple. You picture a red object that is in the shape of an apple. Now, picture the apple without it's properties. If the object were "real", then it should be easy? But my mind cannot process an apple without it's apple-like properties. To me, that seems like there is definitely part of the picture that we are not seeing. Is there some sort of counterargument against this? Is reality honestly nothing more than what our little brain can sense? Or is there a whole other realm that our senses cannot pick up?
That's very close to a very popular argument known as Mary's Room. Taken from the Wikipedia:
Quote:
Mary is a brilliant scientist who is, for whatever reason, forced to investigate the world from a black and white room via a black and white television monitor. She specializes in the neurophysiology of vision and acquires, let us suppose, all the physical information there is to obtain about what goes on when we see ripe tomatoes, or the sky, and use terms like ‘red’, ‘blue’, and so on. She discovers, for example, just which wavelength combinations from the sky stimulate the retina, and exactly how this produces via the central nervous system the contraction of the vocal cords and expulsion of air from the lungs that results in the uttering of the sentence ‘The sky is blue’. [...] What will happen when Mary is released from her black and white room or is given a color television monitor? Will she learn anything or not?
The typical "dualist" response is: Yes, she learns what Red is.
Another take on it is Nagel's "What is it Like to be a Bat?" A bat is something that we all know very well. We know a lot about a bat's physiology, how they communicate, ect. . .
Essentially, we can know everything there is know about being a bat and how bats are objectively, but we will never know what it feels like to be a bat.
-------------------- Current favorite candy: Peanut Butter Kisses
|
r72rock
Maybe so. Maybe not.




Registered: 01/06/09
Posts: 1,327
Loc: Chicago
|
|
Quote:
Samurai Drifter said: However, he used this to support a totally BS argument for God called the "ontological argument," and then used God to construct the rest of his philosophy (such as, "we can believe the external world exists because God would never deceive us.")
Ugh, yeah. The "Ontological Proof of God" wasn't even originally his. He basically stole it from Anselm and called it his own. It's not like it really matters though, because it's a pretty bad proof. Also, for the great skeptic that he's always claimed to be, it's a pretty terrible assumption to make that God would never deceive us.
-------------------- Current favorite candy: Peanut Butter Kisses
|
GoreTuzk
Stranger
Registered: 11/19/11
Posts: 168
Last seen: 6 years, 3 months
|
Re: Dualism [Re: r72rock]
#15394696 - 11/19/11 06:58 PM (12 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
This lecture by Peter Russell presents an interesting other perspective at approaching duality and the hard problem of consciousness.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=-d4ugppcRUE
|
|