Philosophy (Part 2)

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Giant_Squid
Agathon, wouldn't the most obvious proof for Cartesian mental entities be that people are conscious? There's nothing in regular science that can even conceivably begin to explain that, so far as I know - science has four forces that act upon stuff and make it move, which can explain a surprising amount of stuff, but it seems to just be obviously impossible for it to result in a conscious being (note I do not say a thinking being - I'm sure a decent computer could eventually simulate thought). Consciousness isn't just something that can be explained away by emergent properties, and I'm curious how anything except dualism can do it.

[I skimmed this thread, so if I missed an answer to this question already if you could point it out to me in a nonrude manner I would be eternally grateful]

Of course I won't be rude - you haven't been rude to me. I don't think that consciousness requires the postulation of Cartesian mental entities. Let's be clear: I don't think that minds are separate substances or anything like that, but what we were talking about were the so called mental representations that some thinkers postulate in order to explain how knowledge and error are possible. We are supposed to be aware of these by some magical inward vision. I can't see any good reason for believing in such things. I've asked Frogger to provide one, but he doesn't seem to want to.

If you want an answer to the question of whether dualism is right or not you would be best served by looking at an introductory text in phil mind. It would take too long to explain all of the reasons why dualism is wrong and I'm sure a professional textbook could do it better than me.

People do posit such entities in cognitive science and I have less of a problem with that (because they are not being used as foundational entities but explanatory entities) even though I'm kind of an opponent of cog sci. But I do have a problem with so called sense data or mental representations because I have yet to be shown that such things exist and postulating them creates more problems than it solves.

Goodnight anyway.

[KrazyHorse]

1) Which mental entities? I am conscious; I think therefore I know I exist. Period. Proof completed. I have memories. I can access them. These memories therefore exist.

2) Ag, reasonableness would also lead you to accepting that there are physical laws and that they are simple and universal. If there aren't then we can't determine them. I operate as though I "know" certain things...like that my computer exists. But you can't prove to me that they do.

3) I'd already provided these answers for you. You keep avoiding them, and coming up with crap like a "linguistic analysis" to demonstrate that we must believe what we see until we're proven wrong. This attitude is utterly self-defeating. A good scientist won't believe anything he sees until he eliminates even the possibilities that seem ludicrous. And even then he retains doubt. Because nothing is certain, and to operate as if it were is the true error.

[Imran Siddiqui]

1) Which mental entities? I am conscious I think therefore I know I exist. Period. Proof completed. I have memories. I can access them. These memories therefore exist.

How is this any proof at all? How can you say that your aren't simply a mind in a tank, or if this isn't simply some dream?

'I think therefore I am' is very, very simplistic and solves nothing.

[KrazyHorse]

How is this any proof at all? How can you say that your aren't simply a mind in a tank, or if this isn't simply some dream?

Who said I thought I wasn't?

It solves nothing? No sh*t. If you'd been following me, I've been saying that for ages.

[Imran Siddiqui]

... but other philosophical queries have solved very much, especially in the realms of politics.

[DAVOUT]

I still wonder whether this discussion is about uselessness of philosophy in university, which is a matter of tax policy, management, opportunity, whatever, or about uselessness of philosophy at all. In the later case, I am astonished that uselessness can be used as a criteria regarding knowledge.

[Ramo]

Would someone mind telling me what "Cartesian mental entities" are?

Well, to judge by the above quote, at least you recognize that there exists a good philosophy.

Sure. I believe good philosophies to be ones that are logically valid.

This may be ambiguous, but still correct statement.

Yes it is, under the generally accepted rules of most human languages. But it isn't a good statement in philosophical terms IMO.

And human language is unfortunately how we deal with cognitive process. Not everything can be mathematized.

Philosophical assertions can be logically consistent. There's no reason why they shouldn't be.

Even more than Aristotle and the Stoics, Hegel believed that the study of logic is an investigation into the fundamental structure of reality itself. According to Hegel, all logic (and, hence, all of reality) is dialectical in character. As Kant had noted in the Antinomies, serious thought about one general description of the world commonly leads us into a contemplation of its opposite. But Hegel did not suppose this to be the end of the matter; he made the further supposition that the two concepts so held in opposition can always be united by a shift to some higher level of thought. Thus, the human mind invariably moves from thesis to antithesis to synthesis, employing each synthesis as the thesis for a new opposition to be transcended by yet a higher level, continuing in a perpetual waltz of intellectual achievement.

From what I know of Hegel's philosophy (and this exerpt), I don't know see how he's saying that a system where contradiction is logically valid is useful. I always found Hegel's dialecticalism pretty silly anyways (no wonder Marx liked him ).

[tinyp3nis]

Originally posted by Peter Triggs
Asher, tinyp3nis

What was covered in these philosophy of logic courses that you found so boring?

To be totally honest, my courses weren't called philosophy of logic, or maybe the other one was I don't remember too well. But I'll answer anyway, maybe you understand better what I meant.
For me, it wasn't just the courses (I don't even know how much different our courses were, Asher's most likely more logic oriented) but the other students. When teacher asks easy questions, and the answers are obvious and the other students just don't get it.... Well it got boring. I did however like some of the stuff in the books, there were infact something new I didn't know allready. So eventually I just gave up on trying to keep listening to most selfevident stuff and started to ignore the sounds around me and read the book/did homework, whatever.
On the other hand, some of the stuff itself was boring, the type of stuff like "who said what when for the first time history and still was an idiot because he did not have the chance to grow up in a modern world and now we have to read about him" and blaablaa.
Oh yeah and like I said, of course the biggest dumbass sat next to me.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Frogger
1) Which mental entities? I am conscious; I think therefore I know I exist. Period. Proof completed. I have memories. I can access them. These memories therefore exist.

2) Ag, reasonableness would also lead you to accepting that there are physical laws and that they are simple and universal. If there aren't then we can't determine them. I operate as though I "know" certain things...like that my computer exists. But you can't prove to me that they do.

3) I'd already provided these answers for you. You keep avoiding them, and coming up with crap like a "linguistic analysis" to demonstrate that we must believe what we see until we're proven wrong. This attitude is utterly self-defeating. A good scientist won't believe anything he sees until he eliminates even the possibilities that seem ludicrous. And even then he retains doubt. Because nothing is certain, and to operate as if it were is the true error.

I accept that thinking proves you exist. I also accept the fact you have memories. This is irrelevant to my question which is, is your primary source of evidence some kind of mental representation of reality like a sense datum or a mental picture or is it that thinking is a kind of internal vision? (neither of these are entailed by the fact that one is concious) These these are misconceived attempts to respond to various problems about knowledge, but they don't do the job they are supposed to (i.e. act as a foundation for our knowledge of the external world).

You've misunderstood the point about linguistic analysis. The term is used to label the school of thought founded by the later work of Wittgenstein. His main thesis is that philosophical problems arise through misunderstanding of the way our language works (and these can bleed into other areas like the foundations of scientific belief). If we want to know what the terms mean we have to look at the way they are used, for their meaning just is the use they are put to. To say that when I say something appears so to me entails that I have something in my mind called an appearance, ignores the way the words are ordinarily used, which is really our sole ground for answering such questions. There is a lot more to say on this interesting topic but that's enough for now.

The other source of the need to posit mental representations or mental states that are representational is to account for how our cognitive apparatus works. But we already have a discipline that does this - cognitive science. In this latter case representational states are not some foundation of knowledge, but hypothetical entities invoked to explain how the mind works. And they aren't a "mirror held up to the world" but they are part of the world, just as we are.

Anyway, I can't find any other reason for having them and I've never seen one and I know about many of the other dumb problems they cause so I assert they don't exist or at least that they shouldn't be part of a respectable theory.

As for scepticism. I think the truth is the opposite of what you say. We naturally believe in our senses and things we hear unless we have reason to doubt them (and there are good reasons for doubting them up to a point). But if we doubt these reasons themselves we end up in a sort of mental funk where we never believe anything. And if we assume from the get go that the default position is scepticism, then we will never get anywhere. That's why Descartes goes to such great lengths to give us cause for doubt.

If you wanted my attitude in a nutshell - it is that early on in the piece people (especially philosophers) make bad decisions on how to solve problems that are presented to them (often through misunderstandings of the way a given piece of language works). This leads them into saying dumb things like "there is no reality, there is only sense data". A more sensible view is to say, "Well is it possible that we went wrong somewhere earlier on in our account? Perhaps we should dump this theory and start again."

And no I do not think that the mind in a tank problem should bother us at all. That's because I'm not a foundationalist.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by tinyp3nis

On the other hand, some of the stuff itself was boring, the type of stuff like "who said what when for the first time history and still was an idiot because he did not have the chance to grow up in a modern world and now we have to read about him" and blaablaa.

This is the history of ideas. I think it is worth studying for the same reason other history is worth studying. Watching how ideas come into being, develop and pass away can make us think about our own ideas. Sometimes old ideas make partial comebacks due to new discoveries.

Anyway, everyone should read Aristotle just so they can see how dumb they really are. Sure he's wrong about a lot (we might be wrong about a lot too), but he's the closest there has been to a universal genius. I always have the terrible fear that if by some magical means like a time machine I were to meet Aristotle, he would argue me into accepting his views.

[Asher]

I always have the terrible fear that if by some magical means like a time machine I were to meet Aristotle, he would argue me into accepting his views.

That's a perfect example of why so many people question the usefulness of modern philosophers: They don't care about what's right, they care about who argues best. To them it's the same thing. To everyone else it's a joke.

[Japher]

If you wanted my attitude in a nutshell - it is that early on in the piece people (especially philosophers) make bad decisions on how to solve problems that are presented to them (often through misunderstandings of the way a given piece of language works). This leads them into saying dumb things like "there is no reality, there is only sense data". A more sensible view is to say, "Well is it possible that we went wrong somewhere earlier on in our account? Perhaps we should dump this theory and start again."

AH, but dumbing a down a theory is not always the proper solution. In many cases it is not what is observed that skews from the data, but the fact that they are measuring the wrong thing, and nothing is wrong with the theory.

is your primary source of evidence some kind of mental representation of reality like a sense datum or a mental picture or is it that thinking is a kind of internal vision?

Cartesian Philosophy is today bunk. Proof of existance is in the pudding, yet what kind of existance? Ya know what, I don't really care, and to me, it doesn't really exist. Would I care, I would approach the problem the same way I know that I exist. Not by thinking, but by doing, a cause and effect experiment.

Does something that thinks, but cannot act on something or react to it, really exist?

Yet, we are certain that everything that reacts and/or acts to a certain outside existance also exists.

This kind of thinking is what makes people athesist.

It is not about believing, it is about being. If many people believe in something, does this necessarily make it true? Santa Clause?

If seeing is believing, interacting is about being.

So,

1) Why should I believe that there are Cartesian mental entities?

You shouldn't, you should know, but can you?

Why should I be a sceptic?

You shouldn't, it's just silly

3) Can you provide compelling reasons why the foregoing two questions cannot be answered but we should believe anyway.

No, I can't. If I stop thinking will I cease to exist?

Row, row, row your boat... It's all worthless rubish.

[Ben Kenobi]

Frogger:
So fun watching pro-aborts rip themselves apart.

DuncanK touched on so many points that I can use, that he can't.

Just like nobody can force the woman in my yet-to-be-discounted analogy to get cosmetic surgery.

So abortion = cosmetic surgery?

Why do we pay for abortion here in Canada if your analogy holds?

Why is adoption such a terrible option for a women who does not want to keep her child?

[Odin]

Consciousness, I think, is simply the abillity of an organism to direct where a nerve inpulse goes using the memory part of the lymbic system of the brain, unlike a reflex or an instinctual response. Consciousness is just an evolutionary adaptation to have a more fexible behavior. I don't know what causes it, probably it involves nerve inpulses from the sense organs interacting with stored memories. Most organisms with a cerebral cortex (the upper layer of tissue that is wrinkled in most primates) are "conscious."

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Asher



That's a perfect example of why so many people question the usefulness of modern philosophers: They don't care about what's right, they care about who argues best. To them it's the same thing. To everyone else it's a joke.

Not to everyone, as this thread amply demonstrates.

Anyway, if someone has a better argument than you it's a good reason to accept what they say. Aristotle was a genius and a phenomenal arguer, we need more people like him.