tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-67903110376634295542024-03-13T13:16:02.253+01:00Mind and philosophyRegularly updated blog about the philosophy of mind. Different theories of mind explained.Mind And Philosophyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14462172256350231136noreply@blogger.comBlogger23125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6790311037663429554.post-80432583596125632002013-09-23T14:26:00.003+02:002014-09-03T17:06:39.894+02:00Why is Plato's Cave so important?<div style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg47iP5Elp0xjtV3YOMD4xLN2i6s_o7Omf0rgEMq8IsrDdhbhmSUCbwE2aqbap-euiPct8OjARv3iykTZm_XtHArBQ1RsZduMZYg4f1METFgLVaP4JnUBWVDY_WypzDYZ7auh9WUiXgzxc8/s1600/Allegory+of+the+Cave+cartoon.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg47iP5Elp0xjtV3YOMD4xLN2i6s_o7Omf0rgEMq8IsrDdhbhmSUCbwE2aqbap-euiPct8OjARv3iykTZm_XtHArBQ1RsZduMZYg4f1METFgLVaP4JnUBWVDY_WypzDYZ7auh9WUiXgzxc8/s400/Allegory+of+the+Cave+cartoon.jpg" height="148" width="400" /></a>Why is Plato’s <b>Allegory of the Cave</b> so important and so widely discussed? The reason is simple – in The Parable of the Cave Plato answers the essential question in philosophy – ‘<b>What is the aim of philosophy?</b>’. Why do we study philosophy? Are philosophers learning about the world just for themselves or are they primarily focused on others? And why are philosophers so often unsuccessful? The Analogy of the Cave from <i>The Republic</i> was designed by Plato as a dialogue between <b>Glaucon </b>(his brother) and <b>Socrates. </b>Not only does it answer the mentioned questions but it also raises new ones. This is why it has become the most famous philosophical allegory ever written.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Before I mention the exact problems raised in Plato’s Cave let me just give you a short summary of the allegory. Imagine a few people imprisoned in a cave since their childhood. They cannot move – both their legs and necks are held in place by chains so they constantly gaze at the wall in front of them. Behind the prisoners there is a huge fire and between the fire and the imprisoned - a raised walkway where strangers walk carrying objects on their heads: wooden figures of men and animals. Since all this is happening behind the prisoners the only thing they can see are <b>shadows</b> casted on the wall. They also hear echoes of the sounds produced by people walking.</div>
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgtscr_QDlNy8xDNbEa6GCuwWOX0eCVG1OLG4AjhfhM9feXF8TOrAoWWHdpYXWJYXLxpC4_IRwjMu8NXBRyPSSx9sV0272W9aePaD878au-f5IWj59y7yiU3NvWPcdTu7TMdvoPkMX9lKHv/s1600/Plato's+Cave+Allegory+Diagram.gif" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgtscr_QDlNy8xDNbEa6GCuwWOX0eCVG1OLG4AjhfhM9feXF8TOrAoWWHdpYXWJYXLxpC4_IRwjMu8NXBRyPSSx9sV0272W9aePaD878au-f5IWj59y7yiU3NvWPcdTu7TMdvoPkMX9lKHv/s320/Plato's+Cave+Allegory+Diagram.gif" height="176" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Plato's cave</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The prisoners would take the shadows to be <b>real things</b> and the echoes to be <b>real sounds</b>. They would not even think they might be just <b>reflections </b>of the reality as they have never seen anything but the shadows on the wall. Their social status would probably depend upon the ability of predicting which shadow would come next, that is upon the understanding of what they take as the <b>reality</b>.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
One day a prisoner is freed and permitted to stand up for the first time in his life. If he saw the figures that casted the shadows he would not be able to recognise them. At this stage, the shadows on the wall would still seem <b>more real</b> than what he has just begun to see. If he looked at the fire he would be struck blind and try to look again at the shadows, <i>his</i> reality. And imagine that someone dragged him by force out of the cave. The man would be angry! The light would be so strong that he would not be able to see a thing. However, after some time his eyes would get used to the new conditions and he would see all different kinds of plants, animals, and finally even the Sun which he would most likely take as <i>the steward of all things in the visible place, and in a certain way the cause of all those thing he and his companions had been seeing</i>.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="float: right;">
<div style="margin-left: 45px;">
<script type="text/javascript"><!--
google_ad_client = "ca-pub-8805053284597012";
/* mindandphilosophy_sidebar-right-1_AdSense7_250x250_as */
google_ad_slot = "3768595345";
google_ad_width = 250;
google_ad_height = 250;
//-->
</script>
<script src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js" type="text/javascript">
</script>
</div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
What would you do if <i>you</i> were that man? Wouldn't you like to help your old companions and <b>enlighten </b>them? Imagine what would happen if you came back to the cave. Your eyes would have already been accustomed to light and you would no longer be good in the which-shadow-comes-next game. Your companions would deduct that your vision has been <b>impaired </b>and the last thing they would want to try would be going to the vision-distorting place. Or – let’s call a spade a spade – they would all treat you as an idiot.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Unless one of them were a <b>philosopher</b>. A true philosopher pursues the truth and rather than remaining in a comfort zone he is not afraid of challenging different ideas and conceptions. After all, he has nothing to lose. If he manages to prove a challenging idea wrong, his original idea becomes stronger. And if the challenging idea happens to be true, he is still better off because his perception of reality is closer to the truth. Here is a very short list of philosophical questions connected with Plato’s Cave. Feel free to think them over. If your friends are interested in philosophy, or if you are a member of a philosophy club, these questions are great way to start an interesting discussion.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div style="float: left;">
<div style="margin-right: 45px;">
<script type="text/javascript"><!--
google_ad_client = "ca-pub-8805053284597012";
/* mindandphilosophy_footer-2-1_AdSense4_250x250_as */
google_ad_slot = "9139179743";
google_ad_width = 250;
google_ad_height = 250;
//-->
</script>
<script src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js" type="text/javascript">
</script>
</div>
</div>
<ul>
<li style="text-align: justify;">Are we living in a cave? Is there a greater reality which we are not aware of?</li>
<li style="text-align: justify;">How would we treat a man claiming he has visited another reality? Would we mock him, be afraid of him or agree to go with him?</li>
<li style="text-align: justify;">Is reality built of an infinite number of caves?</li>
<li style="text-align: justify;">How is <a href="http://mindandphilosophy.blogspot.com/2012/07/solipsism-do-others-exist-in-your-mind.html" target="_blank">solipsism</a> similar to Plato’s cave?</li>
<li style="text-align: justify;">What the freed man could have done differently to convince his fellows to go outside the cave?</li>
<li style="text-align: justify;">Is it sometimes better/safer to stay in the cave?</li>
<li style="text-align: justify;">If we travelled by a time machine to Plato’s time would we be perceived as people from out of the cave? What if Plato travelled to the 21st century?</li>
<li style="text-align: justify;">Can we really know the reality?</li>
</ul>
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
These are just a few questions connected with The Allegory of the Cave. Feel free to express your opinions about Plato’s parable, your objections and questions. And if you enjoy the blog, do not forget to like our <a href="https://www.facebook.com/MindAndPhilosophy" target="_blank">Mind and Philosophy page</a> on Facebook to keep in touch!
<br />
<div class="clear">
</div>
</div>
<div class="widget Poll" id="Poll1">
<h2 class="title">
Is it always better to know the truth?</h2>
<div class="widget-content" id="widget-content">
<iframe allowtransparency="true" frameborder="0" height="140" name="poll-widget4275459917070017327" src="http://www.google.com/reviews/polls/display/4275459917070017327/blogger_template/run_app?txtclr=%23000000&lnkclr=%238a2e2e&chrtclr=%238a2e2e&font=normal+normal+15px+Arial,+Tahoma,+Helvetica,+FreeSans,+sans-serif&hideq=true&purl=http://mindandphilosophy.blogspot.com/" style="border: none; width: 100%;"></iframe>
<br />
<div class="clear">
</div>
<span class="widget-item-control">
<span class="item-control blog-admin">
<a class="quickedit" href="https://www.blogger.com/rearrange?blogID=6790311037663429554&widgetType=Poll&widgetId=Poll1&action=editWidget&sectionId=sidebar-right-1" onclick="return _WidgetManager._PopupConfig(document.getElementById("Poll1"));" target="configPoll1" title="Edit">
<img alt="" src="http://img1.blogblog.com/img/icon18_wrench_allbkg.png" height="18" width="18" />
</a>
</span>
</span>
<br />
<div class="clear">
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
Mind And Philosophyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14462172256350231136noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6790311037663429554.post-24413928433543397512013-09-10T19:02:00.000+02:002013-09-10T19:02:11.836+02:00Valid arguments vs. sound arguments<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjgkt4X07U9AWzaH-Bs2V19z8ZAw_YW8WF2r-piuRM29IhbTjumvIob4qXnWKBhyXRkjzUP8G_n0X97GI4PDuOivOPcPY9tb-mlJdW_UXOSpY4p_ckvqWAaiq_Nq9ypfvf3t5miij5wb9Qo/s1600/Valid+invalid+sound+unsound.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjgkt4X07U9AWzaH-Bs2V19z8ZAw_YW8WF2r-piuRM29IhbTjumvIob4qXnWKBhyXRkjzUP8G_n0X97GI4PDuOivOPcPY9tb-mlJdW_UXOSpY4p_ckvqWAaiq_Nq9ypfvf3t5miij5wb9Qo/s320/Valid+invalid+sound+unsound.png" width="279" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Validity</b> and <b>soundness</b> are one of the most important terms in <b>logic</b>. How to distinguish between deductively valid and invalid arguments as well as between sound and unsound arguments? The definition is very much straightforward and it is all that is needed to grasp the idea. However, this post will also give you a brief description of a few examples which will provide you with a more practical approach to the problem. And at the end of the post I will reveal to you a little secret which will turn this logical issue into a piece of cake!</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Valid argument</b> means an argument whose conclusion cannot be false if its premises are true. Consider the following example:</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<a name='more'></a><br />
<i style="text-align: justify;">Immanuel Kant was born in 1724 in Königsberg.</i><br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<i>In 1724 Königsberg was in Prussia.</i></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<i>Therefore, Immanuel Kant was born in Prussia.</i></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The conclusion follows from the two premises so the argument is <b>deductively valid</b>. Provided the two premises are true (and by the way – they are), the conclusion cannot possibly be false. Now consider the following argument:</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<i>Plato was born in Greece.</i></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<i>Everybody who is born in Greece have two heads.</i></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<i>Therefore, Plato had two heads.</i></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Does the conclusion follow from the premises? It certainly does. Is it possible for the conclusion to be false when the premises are true? It is not. Therefore, the argument is valid. However, something seems to be wrong with the above argument – obviously, its second premise is not true! This argument is <b>unsound</b>. The argument is sound only if all its premises are true and the argument is valid. Therefore, the argument about Plato is a deductively valid and unsound argument (the argument about Kant is both valid and sound). Now let’s deal with the last example:</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<i>Products containing sugar are sweet.</i></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<i>Bananas are sweet.</i></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<i>Therefore, it shouldn’t rain tomorrow.</i></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
You didn’t expect that conclusion, did you? Both premises are true but the conclusion does not follow from the argument’s premises. Undoubtedly, this argument is both <b>invalid </b>and <b>unsound </b>(although the premises are true, the conclusion is false).</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="float: left;">
<div style="margin-right: 45px;">
<script type="text/javascript"><!--
google_ad_client = "ca-pub-8805053284597012";
/* mindandphilosophy_sidebar-right-1_AdSense7_250x250_as */
google_ad_slot = "3768595345";
google_ad_width = 250;
google_ad_height = 250;
//-->
</script>
<script src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js" type="text/javascript">
</script>
</div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Just in case you want to be sure that you are able to correctly classify arguments, here is the promised <b>surprise </b>– a little diagram which will make the whole process much easier. And remember – there are no false or true arguments – arguments are either valid/invalid or sound/unsound. The argument may have true/false premises and conclusion but in logic terms true and false do not apply to arguments! Never!</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
If you do not want to miss upcoming Mind and Philosophy posts, do not forget to like our <a href="https://www.facebook.com/MindAndPhilosophy" target="_blank">Mind and Philosophy Facebook page</a>!</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgCYyrA-ffc8Z5qWCtbIvQ8dwIOGcEC5ywNkTySbs0Bp3pLknKHVfxSnIn5CuvXZd-Lgs6pYfcz17JGwt_5WOy_7wg5pTHby8IfPqYOcVbwsICwu9Dpm-exLw_fuMBKJggJ1VEgGpKBTSii/s1600/Validity+soundness+trick+diagram.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgCYyrA-ffc8Z5qWCtbIvQ8dwIOGcEC5ywNkTySbs0Bp3pLknKHVfxSnIn5CuvXZd-Lgs6pYfcz17JGwt_5WOy_7wg5pTHby8IfPqYOcVbwsICwu9Dpm-exLw_fuMBKJggJ1VEgGpKBTSii/s400/Validity+soundness+trick+diagram.png" width="398" /></a></div>
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
Mind And Philosophyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14462172256350231136noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6790311037663429554.post-87606620516348063412013-09-04T10:38:00.002+02:002013-09-04T10:38:56.680+02:00Psychophysical parallelism explained<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg7SVOC64Qdzr9rikRkKitABYCUkLtKuCDe0csUU8Fd5eyunpj7F5M0JhfAMv0IioVhceJQky4FOBUILxZP8tvrCANw6k-cYApYqvtRwiwVEAG9V4zL3BQoHAk5Zz2hZ-VDKXPxPhwIgnc8/s1600/Gustav+Theodor+Fechner+psychophysical+parallelism.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg7SVOC64Qdzr9rikRkKitABYCUkLtKuCDe0csUU8Fd5eyunpj7F5M0JhfAMv0IioVhceJQky4FOBUILxZP8tvrCANw6k-cYApYqvtRwiwVEAG9V4zL3BQoHAk5Zz2hZ-VDKXPxPhwIgnc8/s320/Gustav+Theodor+Fechner+psychophysical+parallelism.jpg" width="279" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><b>Gustav Theodor Fechner<br /><i>(1801-1887)</i></b></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Theory of <b>psychophysical parallelism</b> states that mental and physical experiences occur simultaneously and are not necessarily bound by any causal interaction. The theory was established in the early 19th century by a German philosopher <b>Gustav Theodor Fechner</b> (who is also famous for Weber-Fechner law). While psychophysical parallelism definition might seem a bit unclear, the theory is very interesting and is one of few philosophical theories which have been accepted by numerous <b>scientists</b>. To better understand Fechner’s approach to mind-body problem a little historical background would be helpful.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
In the middle of the 19th century, with a more and more rapid progression of scientific thought, many philosophers became interested in explaining the nature of mind and body interaction. This lead to a famous <b>materialism dispute</b> as the opponents of metaphysical philosophy gained many supporters (Vogt, Büchner, Moleschott). Materialistic approach to mind-body dichotomy was at that time seen as very radical, and some of its points still cause much controversy in the 21st century:</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<a name='more'></a><br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEimSZsMnBgIveXKx9tbwjn2PejNqE2y4H6fJ_Yt5Vcqt4DRtpTzenrPG47QAveadh-bnKpr4v7XQb2LM6akvI4hRxyJt5RiPYsehjtgf-u-VG0n2bC7dtOa6PI2cJXMlP2u-UyZpOEE3Lau/s1600/Gottfried+Wilhelm+von+Leibniz+psychophysical+parallelism.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEimSZsMnBgIveXKx9tbwjn2PejNqE2y4H6fJ_Yt5Vcqt4DRtpTzenrPG47QAveadh-bnKpr4v7XQb2LM6akvI4hRxyJt5RiPYsehjtgf-u-VG0n2bC7dtOa6PI2cJXMlP2u-UyZpOEE3Lau/s320/Gottfried+Wilhelm+von+Leibniz+psychophysical+parallelism.png" width="245" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><b>Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibniz<br /><i>(1646-1716)</i></b></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<i>Thoughts issue from the brain just as gall is produced by the liver or urine by the kidneys.</i></div>
<div style="text-align: right;">
Carl Vogt</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Are our thoughts just like other bodily fluids which are generated in a similar way as numbers in computer programmes? Are we just very <a href="http://mindandphilosophy.blogspot.com/2013/08/turing-test-important-questions.html" target="_blank">sophisticated <b>machines</b></a>? Gustav Fechner claimed to be able to give the solution to materialism debate. His theory, known as psychophysical parallelism, was first mentioned in 1820s but it was not until 1860 that his approach became widely known, thanks to his mature work <i>Elements of Psychophysics</i>.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
There are many <b>misconceptions </b>about the meaning of psychophysical parallelism – many people seem to confuse it with occasionalism, preestablished harmony and Cartesian doctrine of two noninteracting <a href="http://mindandphilosophy.blogspot.com/2012/07/physical-monism-vs-substance-dualism.html" target="_blank">substances</a>. You may read on other websites that psychophysical parallelism is a theory established by <b>Leibniz</b>. It is true that psychophysical parallelism is partially congruent with Leibniz’s theory of noncausal conformity of the soul and the organic body. However, a very important difference is that Fechner rejected any <b>theological </b>grounds for his theory and therefore – even though psychophysical parallelism is a <a href="http://mindandphilosophy.blogspot.com/2012/07/descartes-dualism-and-monism.html" target="_blank">dualistic </a>conception – by no means should it be confused with statements made either by Descartes or Leibniz. Fechner’s theory states that while mental and physical states are not causally dependent they are functionally dependent.</div>
<div style="float: right;">
<div style="margin-left: 45px;">
<script type="text/javascript"><!--
google_ad_client = "ca-pub-8805053284597012";
/* mindandphilosophy_sidebar-right-1_AdSense7_250x250_as */
google_ad_slot = "3768595345";
google_ad_width = 250;
google_ad_height = 250;
//-->
</script>
<script src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js" type="text/javascript">
</script>
</div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
What does it mean? It means that to every mental event there is a corresponding brain event. It does not claim causal <b>interaction</b>, it does not deny it. It refrains from <b>explaining </b>the nature of mind and body. It is a very open and <b>metaphysics-free</b> theory. By many it is treated as a good and neutral foundation for more detailed explanations of the nature of mind and body problem albeit the theory itself does not answer many questions.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Do you agree with Theodor Fechner’s theory of psychophysical parallelism? Share your thoughts and if you enjoyed the post, please don’t forget to like our <a href="https://www.facebook.com/MindAndPhilosophy" target="_blank">Mind and Philosophy Facebook page</a>!</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
Mind And Philosophyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14462172256350231136noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6790311037663429554.post-71650691422220644382013-08-30T22:33:00.000+02:002013-08-30T22:53:04.216+02:00Déjà vu – meaning<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgfUDjv1YD8fYJRis48jEp8s66wsRaUb_2U4k9uO0mWOI44cKquYodA4jXfXpC4SqlPCfBPqOP0NsifOQCnP6x_mb1beRFgAwnKAi_CVk12VvYzuhIPUVHB6hvcUhY3ThAw7DDZj6R9EnyL/s1600/Deja+vu+cartoon+philosophy.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgfUDjv1YD8fYJRis48jEp8s66wsRaUb_2U4k9uO0mWOI44cKquYodA4jXfXpC4SqlPCfBPqOP0NsifOQCnP6x_mb1beRFgAwnKAi_CVk12VvYzuhIPUVHB6hvcUhY3ThAw7DDZj6R9EnyL/s320/Deja+vu+cartoon+philosophy.png" width="273" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="text-align: justify;">What is the meaning of <b>déjà vu</b>? Is déjà vu <b>real</b> and is there any scientific explanation of déjà vu phenomenon? Some people argue that the feeling of déjà vu has a spiritual meaning, others call it just a <a href="http://mindandphilosophy.blogspot.com/2013/05/meaning-of-dreams-in-philosophy-is.html" target="_blank">dream</a>. The best way to <b>define</b> déjà vu is to translate it from French to English – déjà vu means literally <i>already seen</i>. To put it simply, déjà vu is a strong sensation that you have already experienced what you are experiencing right <b>now</b>. I know what you’re going to ask – yes, déjà vu has a scientific explanation.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Before I proceed with a <b>scientific </b>and <b>philosophical </b>approach I just want to clear some things up. Déjà vu has recently become so popular that it is now considered by many as an urban legend or, not surprisingly, as something supernatural. There are many common misconceptions circulating on internet and I certainly do not want to mention all of these absurd theories which treat déjà vu as an evidence for past life, precognition abilities or contact with aliens and so on and so forth. While déjà vu is real, it has not much to do with all these science fiction conceptions.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<a name='more'></a><br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhfHn_Giabr6dzx5QUfR3tc186OUwVwffvbuzwAYZcNVLDTeKqSvb9lFW9_c7ZQEbgxCizQzyBurI43YqUSk9735jVG2-z6Y2c8Glvb5K-iyBf2-uymGQZk-XGYUKmX_PZtg0gVEPmmwMiP/s1600/Edward+Bradford+Titchener+Deja+vu.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhfHn_Giabr6dzx5QUfR3tc186OUwVwffvbuzwAYZcNVLDTeKqSvb9lFW9_c7ZQEbgxCizQzyBurI43YqUSk9735jVG2-z6Y2c8Glvb5K-iyBf2-uymGQZk-XGYUKmX_PZtg0gVEPmmwMiP/s320/Edward+Bradford+Titchener+Deja+vu.jpg" width="230" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><b>Edward Bradford Titchener<br /><i>(1867-1927)</i></b></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
So let’s just leave popular culture aside and concentrate on what we can learn from science about déjà vu and whether it has any significance for the <b>philosophy of mind</b>. The first scientific description of déjà vu I have found on internet is by a British psychologist <b>Edward B. Titchener</b> (1928) who argued that déjà vu occurs as a result of a brief glimpse of an object or situation before the brain has managed to construct fully conscious perception of the experience. This is the <b>memory-based</b> explanation but there is also another way of explaining déjà vu – <b>pharmacological</b>. Higher level of a neurotransmitter dopamine has been observed to be linked with a higher frequency of déjà vu. It may be the reason why déjà vu occurs with the highest frequency among people aged 15-25 – during this time human body produce the most dopamine. Since you are reading this post, you have probably experienced déjà vu yourself (so have I!). No worries – it is perfectly normal – unless it occurs with a very high frequency.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="float: left;">
<div style="margin-right: 45px;">
<script type="text/javascript"><!--
google_ad_client = "ca-pub-8805053284597012";
/* mindandphilosophy_sidebar-right-1_AdSense7_250x250_as */
google_ad_slot = "3768595345";
google_ad_width = 250;
google_ad_height = 250;
//-->
</script>
<script src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js" type="text/javascript">
</script>
</div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
But let’s come back to philosophy. Déjà vu gives us an interesting insight to the famous <b>mind-body problem</b> and tells us something more about <a href="http://mindandphilosophy.blogspot.com/2012/09/meaning-of-unconscious-mind.html" target="_blank">consciousness</a>. Based on the memory-based explanation, you might argue that it is not your mind that is responsible for the feeling of consciousness as it is possible to perceive reality without being fully conscious at the same time (E. B. Titchener) and therefore consciousness may be just created by your physical body. <b>Monists </b>may use it as an argument in favour of the lack of soul (or mind existing outside the body) but <b>dualists </b>may point out that people are sometimes conscious even when their brain has ceased to work. There are some medical accounts of such phenomena – just think about <a href="http://mindandphilosophy.blogspot.com/2012/07/physical-monism-vs-substance-dualism.html" target="_blank">Pam Reynolds</a>. Whatever your personal <a href="http://mindandphilosophy.blogspot.com/2012/07/descartes-dualism-and-monism.html" target="_blank">philosophical sympathies</a> are, just bear in mind that while there are some scientific explanations of déjà vu the exact mechanisms still remain unknown and complexity of a human brain/mind still is a great mystery.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
What is your opinion about <b>déjà vu</b>? How does it relate to mind-body dichotomy? If you do not want to miss the new posts about philosophy of mind, don’t forget to like our <a href="https://www.facebook.com/MindAndPhilosophy" target="_blank">Mind and Philosophy Facebook page</a>!</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="widget Poll" id="Poll1">
<h2 class="title">
Have you ever experienced déjà vu?</h2>
<div class="widget-content" id="widget-content">
<iframe allowtransparency="true" frameborder="0" height="160" name="poll-widget4832745860466891555" src="http://www.google.com/reviews/polls/display/-4069420862857310538/blogger_template/run_app?txtclr=%23000000&lnkclr=%238a2e2e&chrtclr=%238a2e2e&font=normal+normal+15px+Arial,+Tahoma,+Helvetica,+FreeSans,+sans-serif&hideq=true&purl=http://mindandphilosophy.blogspot.com/" style="border: none; width: 100%;"></iframe>
<br />
<div class="clear">
</div>
<span class="widget-item-control">
<span class="item-control blog-admin">
<a class="quickedit" href="http://www.blogger.com/rearrange?blogID=6790311037663429554&widgetType=Poll&widgetId=Poll1&action=editWidget&sectionId=sidebar-right-1" onclick="return _WidgetManager._PopupConfig(document.getElementById("Poll1"));" target="configPoll1" title="Edit">
<img alt="" height="18" src="http://img1.blogblog.com/img/icon18_wrench_allbkg.png" width="18" />
</a>
</span>
</span>
</div>
</div>
Mind And Philosophyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14462172256350231136noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6790311037663429554.post-17132788242440532812013-08-28T02:00:00.001+02:002013-08-28T12:04:54.004+02:00Turing test - important questions<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh7qGscCp3aFeVgB5EtpiofqufPm6IYNSgVFh6WRQcrP_2pW0zRbH3UGwPjXxUlI5CmXLcwdyzvSBZ98B7tyWJ3brTIaizNXMgh2VkTdDiukrZ2xEyH8W2oE_Mdhpq1OpDIX6LxrbIeB95s/s1600/Turing+test+cartoon+philosophy.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="237" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh7qGscCp3aFeVgB5EtpiofqufPm6IYNSgVFh6WRQcrP_2pW0zRbH3UGwPjXxUlI5CmXLcwdyzvSBZ98B7tyWJ3brTIaizNXMgh2VkTdDiukrZ2xEyH8W2oE_Mdhpq1OpDIX6LxrbIeB95s/s320/Turing+test+cartoon+philosophy.png" width="320" /></a></div>
<b>Turing test</b> brings up many questions crucial to philosophy of mind. It was designed by a British logician <b>Alan Turing</b> and remains a challenge both to <b>artificial intelligence</b> creators and philosophers. Turing test, despite rumours, still has not been passed although more than half a century has passed since Alan Turing’s death. But what is in fact Turing test? The original aim of Turing test was to see if a machine could <b>think</b>. A machine in order to pass Turing test, would have to be able to engage in a conversation with a man and respond to his questions in a way which would resemble human responses so much that the man would not be able to reliably distinguish between a machine and a real human being.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Turing’s idea, while fascinating, is also a very <b>controversial </b>one. What does it mean to think? Is our brain just a very sophisticated machine which – with a sufficient scientific progress – could be recreated with wires instead of neurons? Many <a href="http://mindandphilosophy.blogspot.com/2012/07/descartes-dualism-and-monism.html" target="_blank">monists</a> would argue so. Alan Turing replaced the original question “Can machines think?” with “Are there imaginable digital computers which would do well in the <b>imitation game</b>?”. Then we encounter another problem – could we, hypothetically, be not able to tell the difference between living organisms and machines?</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<a name='more'></a><br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgsuUOY_gmqPRYPQXMOunIY_741D2_c7N-0X3KDi5XLA8nToHBl1MheS_hfKFxVv14CTGAz5oK6ZQDDZCocCQiBhjQOL-7vZmtkRtgGhf_4asD8AzhyKwQ59UXhpqG4ySARUbVR2MiGLhTv/s1600/Alan+Turing+philosophy+of+mind.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgsuUOY_gmqPRYPQXMOunIY_741D2_c7N-0X3KDi5XLA8nToHBl1MheS_hfKFxVv14CTGAz5oK6ZQDDZCocCQiBhjQOL-7vZmtkRtgGhf_4asD8AzhyKwQ59UXhpqG4ySARUbVR2MiGLhTv/s320/Alan+Turing+philosophy+of+mind.jpg" width="253" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><b>Alan Mathison Turing<br /><i>(1912-1954)</i></b></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
If Turing test were passed, this possibility would become a frightening reality. Obviously, nobody would confuse a computer with a man but if the machine which had successfully passed Turing test were redesigned as an android with all <i>Homo sapiens</i> physical traits, most of us would feel at the very least uncomfortable. Philosophers have been interested in artificial intelligence issue for <b>centuries</b>. According to René Descartes, no machine would ever be able to behave as a human:</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<i>But it [machine] never happens that it arranges its speech in various ways, in order to reply appropriately to everything that may be said in its presence, as even the lowest type of man can do.</i></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Nowadays, as robots are not only able to engage in quite logical conversations and understand spoken word, many question Descartes’s point of view.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="float: right;">
<div style="margin-left: 45px;">
<script type="text/javascript"><!--
google_ad_client = "ca-pub-8805053284597012";
/* mindandphilosophy_sidebar-right-1_AdSense7_250x250_as */
google_ad_slot = "3768595345";
google_ad_width = 250;
google_ad_height = 250;
//-->
</script>
<script src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js" type="text/javascript">
</script>
</div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
To dualists the problem of thinking machines is even more complex and is strongly related to the <b>mind-body problem</b>. Does thinking belong to a <b>soul </b>or to a <b>body</b>? How can one distinguish between imitated thinking and real, superior thinking which is characteristic for human beings? Undoubtedly, resemblance does not imply identity (consider <a href="http://mindandphilosophy.blogspot.com/2013/08/5-invalid-arguments-that-god-does-not.html" target="_blank">false analogy fallacy</a>). If two entities think, it does not mean that both are alive, especially if what we mean by thinking is the ability to analytically process gathered data. In this case, the simplest calculator is able to think! I believe that the issue is so controversial since many people tend to confuse thinking with feeling. Our thinking is influenced by our feelings (and our feelings may be influenced by our thinking as well). If you are sad, you think differently and react differently than when you are happy or angry. A machine will never be able to really feel – it may perfectly <b>mimic </b>human feelings by producing adequate words and behavioural patterns but it all would be just a part of programme implemented and designed by a <b>living </b>human being – a creator of the artificial intelligence – the man. Even if there will be one day a machine which will pass Turing test, it will be passed not because of this machine’s ability to feel anything whatsoever but rather because of the programmer’s ability to effectively teach the machine to mimic human reactions and feelings.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Do you remember <a href="http://mindandphilosophy.blogspot.com/2012/08/philosophical-zombies-and-mutants.html" target="_blank">philosophical zombies and mutants</a>? This is a similar problem. You cannot access someone or something else’s mind to state how the entity thinks/feels or whether he thinks/feels at all – therefore one needs another way of approaching the world. What do you think of thinking machines? Is it possible to create such a sophisticated machine that would fool you into believing you talk to another person?</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="widget Poll" id="Poll1">
<h2 class="title">
Will a machine one day pass Turing test?</h2>
<div class="widget-content" id="widget-content">
<iframe allowtransparency="true" frameborder="0" height="160" name="poll-widget4832745860466891555" src="http://www.google.com/reviews/polls/display/4832745860466891555/blogger_template/run_app?txtclr=%23000000&lnkclr=%238a2e2e&chrtclr=%238a2e2e&font=normal+normal+15px+Arial,+Tahoma,+Helvetica,+FreeSans,+sans-serif&hideq=true&purl=http://mindandphilosophy.blogspot.com/" style="border: none; width: 100%;"></iframe>
<br />
<div class="clear">
</div>
<span class="widget-item-control">
<span class="item-control blog-admin">
<a class="quickedit" href="http://www.blogger.com/rearrange?blogID=6790311037663429554&widgetType=Poll&widgetId=Poll1&action=editWidget&sectionId=sidebar-right-1" onclick="return _WidgetManager._PopupConfig(document.getElementById("Poll1"));" target="configPoll1" title="Edit">
<img alt="" height="18" src="http://img1.blogblog.com/img/icon18_wrench_allbkg.png" width="18" />
</a>
</span>
</span>
</div>
</div>
Mind And Philosophyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14462172256350231136noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6790311037663429554.post-5690735519191783092013-08-23T11:44:00.000+02:002013-09-11T00:25:43.664+02:005 invalid arguments that God does not exist<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEge9n0aZ9P_GBuWrW343kLY-scRC3DnfiDET3vLxn8hNLQTV8rYVnuFn5INtALzGDU8W2jNkD_yz3tUmHPQNeOU7v0xiWJI6ZBLAvjwaQ3Q9aVxdyjo1ZYOLcmg8NPlPQB8-nkeS28SwU8M/s1600/God+arguments+philosophy.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEge9n0aZ9P_GBuWrW343kLY-scRC3DnfiDET3vLxn8hNLQTV8rYVnuFn5INtALzGDU8W2jNkD_yz3tUmHPQNeOU7v0xiWJI6ZBLAvjwaQ3Q9aVxdyjo1ZYOLcmg8NPlPQB8-nkeS28SwU8M/s320/God+arguments+philosophy.jpg" width="320" /></a>We have already dealt with some <b>logical fallacies</b> and you know how to <a href="http://mindandphilosophy.blogspot.com/2013/05/logical-fallacies-classification-formal.html" target="_blank">classify them</a>. Logical fallacies are often used in advertisement and politics but are even more explicit when it comes to religious debates. <a href="http://mindandphilosophy.blogspot.com/2012/08/god-and-philosophy-does-god-exist.html" target="_blank">“Does God exist?”</a> is one of the oldest philosophical questions, and to many the most important one. You have probably heard at least one argument starting with: “If God exists, then why…” or “If God is A, then why does B happen?”. It should be made clear that a huge number of these arguments are invalid and should be classified as logical fallacies. Nevertheless those who are not familiar with rules of constructing <b>valid arguments</b> (<a href="http://mindandphilosophy.blogspot.com/2013/09/valid-arguments-vs-sound-arguments.html" target="_blank">what is validity?</a>) may not notice that many arguments against God’s existence are flawed and may even find them quite convincing. If you want to know what the most popular invalid arguments and their flaws are, here is the list of 5 false arguments stating that God does not exist with a brief explanation of their flaws. Some of these arguments refer strictly to the Christian God and are therefore explained in terms of Christianity.<br />
<a name='more'></a></div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>1. If God were good, children would not be starving.</b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
According to Christianity and Judaism people did not starve back in the Garden of Eden and hunger is a result of Adam’s and Eve’s <b>sin</b>. Could God miraculously create food for starving children? He could (omnipotence dogma). However, according to Bible, God granted people with free will and responsibility. Is God really responsible for children starving? If you have a computer to read this blog, you are among the richest <b>1%</b> of our globe. Why do people blame God for injustice rather than themselves? We do have enough financial resources to terminate famine among children. If you killed your neighbour, who would you blame? Yourself or God? From a less theological and more philosophical point of view, this is an example of<b> </b><i style="font-weight: bold;">Post hoc ergo propter hoc </i>fallacy. (A occurred, then B occurred. Therefore, A caused B).</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>2. If God existed, He would fill this room with balloons if you asked Him to do so.</b><br />
<b><br /></b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
This argument’s aim is to question God’s omnipotence while not taking into account God’s <b>sovereignty</b>. While God is omnipotent, He is also sovereign and may or may not fulfil wishes of His creation.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<br />
<div style="float: left;">
<div style="margin-right: 45px;">
<script type="text/javascript"><!--
google_ad_client = "ca-pub-8805053284597012";
/* mindandphilosophy_sidebar-right-1_AdSense7_250x250_as */
google_ad_slot = "3768595345";
google_ad_width = 250;
google_ad_height = 250;
//-->
</script>
<script src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js" type="text/javascript">
</script>
</div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>3. If God existed, you would not sin.</b><br />
<b><br /></b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
This is just an example of <i><b>Ad personam</b></i> fallacy (<i>Ad hominem)</i>. It attacks a person rather than his or her point of view. In short – a case of informal fallacy (irrelevance).</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>4. If God existed, there would be some well documented miracles.</b><br />
<b><br /></b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
It may be difficult to precisely define a miracle. What is a miracle to some, is just a coincidence to others. If a person suffers from a headache and after a prayer feels no more pain, can we claim to witness a miracle? Most believers would call it a miracle, scientists may treat is as a coincidence or an example of suggestion which can be also induced via hypnosis. What if a person suffers from cancer and after a prayer, doctors find him/her to have no cancer cells in the body? Believers will call it a miracle, doctors may be sceptical and explain it in terms of a wrong diagnosis. What if a person is dead and after a prayer he comes back to life? That’s a more complex issue, especially if a person was dead for a few days, and probably most people would perceive it as a miracle as it cannot possibly be explained by science. I will not go into details of miracles in this post, but all of the above mentioned phenomena are true and documented cases.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br />
<b>5. Bible (or Old Testament) resembles legends, so it should be treated as one.</b><br />
<br />
This is another informal fallacy – false analogy (also known as weak analogy). A is like B. B has property C. Therefore, A has property C, where A=Bible, B=legend, C=unreliable.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
As most “5 things lists”, this list is obviously incomplete and includes only some of the most popular flawed arguments stating that God does not exist. Once you have learnt how to recognise logical fallacies by yourself you will be able to detect flawed arguments without help of any lists whatsoever. Please note that this post does <b>not </b>argue either for or against God’s existence – it only explains why these specific arguments against God’s existence are flawed. Feel free to leave a comment and like <a href="https://www.facebook.com/MindAndPhilosophy" target="_blank">our Facebook page</a>!</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br />
<div class="sidebar section" id="sidebar-right-1">
<div class="widget Poll" id="Poll1">
<h2 class="title">
Have you encountered some of these arguments before?</h2>
<div class="widget-content" id="widget-content">
<iframe allowtransparency="true" frameborder="0" height="140" name="poll-widget3196175226655213852" src="http://www.google.com/reviews/polls/display/3196175226655213852/blogger_template/run_app?txtclr=%23000000&lnkclr=%238a2e2e&chrtclr=%238a2e2e&font=normal+normal+15px+Arial,+Tahoma,+Helvetica,+FreeSans,+sans-serif&hideq=true&purl=http://mindandphilosophy.blogspot.com/" style="border: none; width: 100%;"></iframe>
<br />
<div class="clear">
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
Mind And Philosophyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14462172256350231136noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6790311037663429554.post-61135395168387014582013-05-27T15:13:00.000+02:002013-05-27T15:16:50.532+02:00Philosophy: Brain in a vat argument – truth revealed<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhire26xIVSdSCtkwoRlprLSxhgWlqhbMHZOSUIpTRPVc_wS-_WVz10ALB2sKXzgYKc6i-Q0WMbkPEBJmmHBvG3sNX7_Z8uxO2rmT5YKg9vgELMxurGRWfTDzDzLdWDeW7YpnsJ92LxOnwk/s1600/Brain+in+a+vat+jar.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhire26xIVSdSCtkwoRlprLSxhgWlqhbMHZOSUIpTRPVc_wS-_WVz10ALB2sKXzgYKc6i-Q0WMbkPEBJmmHBvG3sNX7_Z8uxO2rmT5YKg9vgELMxurGRWfTDzDzLdWDeW7YpnsJ92LxOnwk/s1600/Brain+in+a+vat+jar.jpg" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Brains in a vat… That sounds terrifying, doesn’t it? <b>Brain in a vat argument</b> is one of the newest thought experiments in philosophy of mind (discussed by <b>John Pollock</b>). Many people raise objection to the brain in a vat theory but are there in fact any arguments <b>against</b> brain in a vat? Can you argue against it? Brains in a vat are used to support sceptical perception of the world and <a href="http://mindandphilosophy.blogspot.com/2012/07/solipsism-do-others-exist-in-your-mind.html" target="_blank">solipsism theory</a>. You should know that this argument is not a real <i>novum</i>. A brain in a vat problem bears a striking resemblance to older theories such as the <a href="http://mindandphilosophy.blogspot.com/2013/05/meaning-of-dreams-in-philosophy-is.html" target="_blank">dream argument</a> by Zhuangzi.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
But what is brain in a vat? Imagine an evil scientist whose advanced knowledge enables him to <b>remove your brain </b>and put it in a vat with all nutrients which are necessary to maintain the organ alive. Before your brain was removed it had been receiving electrical signals via <b>neurons </b>in your body. Now it is placed in a vat in the evil scientist’s laboratory and receives signals by electrical stimulation coming from a laboratory <b>computer</b>…</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<a name='more'></a><br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgR1NuyQIkmR0ChAodjhWF2TPl7fIpYMfxazjHwd6kaiycESwjAhTDnJUA2V2tuKTIXIQtb0h8W8iC6DF4SyyF-HH6HPpYfUcFoFLnDtQoK1rf5pvPhj-i29PEBWSO2_VgqQqGimYUAzmCd/s1600/Brain+in+a+vat.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgR1NuyQIkmR0ChAodjhWF2TPl7fIpYMfxazjHwd6kaiycESwjAhTDnJUA2V2tuKTIXIQtb0h8W8iC6DF4SyyF-HH6HPpYfUcFoFLnDtQoK1rf5pvPhj-i29PEBWSO2_VgqQqGimYUAzmCd/s320/Brain+in+a+vat.jpg" width="239" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Brain in a vat was the inspiration<br />
for science fiction and horror movies<br />
<i>(The Brain That Wouldn't Die, 1959)</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The scientist is able to stimulate your brain in <b>whatever </b>way he wants to – he is able to create an impression that you are reading Mind and Philosophy blog as if it were the neurons carrying this information to your brain. He may create an impression that you eat your lunch, read a book etc. There is no way you could realise that you are a brain in a vat since your world perception is limited to your brain. If it is damaged or under narcotic influence, you may experience hallucinations or have a distorted vision of your environment.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>René Descartes</b> provides an argument which is often used to refute the theory of the brain in a vat. <i>Cogito ergo sum</i> – I think, therefore I am. However, this argument has often been criticised for its hidden premise: “All that thinks exists”. Neither did Descartes justify the premise, nor did he mention it. It should be stressed that it is <b>impossible </b>to justify or (dis)prove this premise. If you (as a brain in a vat) thinks – does it mean that <b>you </b>exist?</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="float:right">
<script type="text/javascript"><!--
google_ad_client = "ca-pub-8805053284597012";
/* mindandphilosophy_sidebar-right-1_AdSense7_250x250_as */
google_ad_slot = "3768595345";
google_ad_width = 250;
google_ad_height = 250;
//-->
</script>
<script type="text/javascript"
src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js">
</script>
</div>
How much of your body can you lose to still be yourself? Are you the same person when you need to have your leg amputated? Most will agree that you are. If you have all four limbs amputated, are you still the same human being? Undoubtedly you are. What would you have to lose to stop being who you are? Does the fact that the brain is kept alive in the laboratory means that it has any <b>consciousness</b> or is it justified to refer to it as to the same person from which it was removed? What about organ donors? If you need a transplantation and, say a liver, is introduced to your body no doctor will tell you that another person is living in you. Why? A liver is not conscious, it is not a person. Why do so many philosophers attribute consciousness or self to this one particular organ – brain?</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
This brings up the unsolved <b>mind and body</b> problem which lies at the heart of philosophy of mind. What is the relationship between mind and body? Are they interdependent? There is a hidden <a href="http://mindandphilosophy.blogspot.com/2012/07/descartes-dualism-and-monism.html" target="_blank">monistic assumption</a> in the brain in a vat argument. It assumes that consciousness is <b>material </b>and may be explained in terms of neurochemical transmission. If one assumes <b>dualistic </b>perspective and states that not everything is material, then the brain in a vat argument proves nothing as it limits consciousness merely to one, and from medical perspective the most important, organ. Can consciousness exist outside the body? What are your opinions?</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>Mind And Philosophyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14462172256350231136noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6790311037663429554.post-32043466729384784862013-05-21T14:08:00.000+02:002013-05-21T14:25:13.529+02:00Logical fallacies classification - formal and informal fallacies<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhhjGoF2wGw0Ve8JLt4Ccbcw87ctsV8duGkz4SUiF_z-KSTnDFjxPl1Y75BKKHIaPY5hgMpzLlUwb1Ts3HAw0vsvLjFrt4sCLDulg0Lfn7XmMR8ck9yo4emCIRe8A4en1_8YThkDyrHHDBO/s1600/Logical+fallacies+formal+informal+diagram.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="188" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhhjGoF2wGw0Ve8JLt4Ccbcw87ctsV8duGkz4SUiF_z-KSTnDFjxPl1Y75BKKHIaPY5hgMpzLlUwb1Ts3HAw0vsvLjFrt4sCLDulg0Lfn7XmMR8ck9yo4emCIRe8A4en1_8YThkDyrHHDBO/s320/Logical+fallacies+formal+informal+diagram.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Logical fallacies</b> are classified in many different ways since there is still no agreement between thinkers for that matter. What are logical fallacies? The best definition of a fallacy in logic is an argument with <b>poor reasoning</b> (critical thinking rules can easily unmask flawed conclusions). The most basic classification divides logical fallacies into two main groups – <b>formal fallacies</b> and <b>informal fallacies</b>.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Formal fallacy</b> simply describes an error in a logical form of an argument. One of the most common formal fallacies is known as proof by example. It occurs when the speaker (or writer) uses an example to make overgeneralisations (this fallacy is often used in propaganda). Consider the following example:</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<a name='more'></a><br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<i>Jews I know are rich therefore all Jews earn above average.</i></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="float:right";>
<script type="text/javascript"><!--
google_ad_client = "ca-pub-8805053284597012";
/* mindandphilosophy_sidebar-right-1_AdSense7_250x250_as */
google_ad_slot = "3768595345";
google_ad_width = 250;
google_ad_height = 250;
//-->
</script>
<script type="text/javascript"
src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js">
</script>
</div>
This statement is a clear oversimplification – even if it happens to be true the argument still is an example of formal fallacy. You should always remember that fallacies do not address the conclusion itself but judge the <b>whole argument</b> regardless of what the conclusion is. Note that some arguments which are not fallacious contain a <b>false </b>conclusion! It is illustrated by the example:</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<i>No man can live more than 100 years. Therefore Jiroemon Kimura is less than 100 years old. </i></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Conclusion is logical but since the premises of the argument are false they lead (logically) to the false conclusion (Mr. Kimura is in fact 116 years old).</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Informal fallacy</b> definition is that while it is logically valid, its technical structure (such as use of words) is misleading or unclear which makes the argument fallacious. The common example of informal fallacy is <b>equivocation </b>which occurs when the same word used in the argument carries two separate meanings (<a href="http://mindandphilosophy.blogspot.com/2012/10/logical-fallacies-examples-appeal-to.html" target="_blank">appeal to novelty</a> is also an informal fallacy). Consider the following argument:</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<i>You can use sharp things to cut paper. Christopher has a sharp mind – therefore you can cut paper with Christopher’s mind.</i></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiZV-IiZr5QW4wIxE3j0AoFS0BXrBNEhlsEZLkmD54TQPnXkNEQEjMUdtrmb3fJBMsIqVZwVKe9j88do_0-hBfybzkNCBV5XZKsBbRaWvtAqaihX9FbdugdWobiJLZX5zRvV8dXmW4PKoZQ/s1600/Equivocation+philosophy+cartoon.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="181" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiZV-IiZr5QW4wIxE3j0AoFS0BXrBNEhlsEZLkmD54TQPnXkNEQEjMUdtrmb3fJBMsIqVZwVKe9j88do_0-hBfybzkNCBV5XZKsBbRaWvtAqaihX9FbdugdWobiJLZX5zRvV8dXmW4PKoZQ/s200/Equivocation+philosophy+cartoon.jpg" width="200" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The absurdity of this argument is more than obvious but the argument is valid as the conclusion follows from the premises. What is more, both premises are true. However, the argument is fallacious due to equivocation – an example of informal fallacy. Notice that the same reasoning applied in this argument may does not make it fallacious:</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<i>You may get fat if you eat many sweets. Christopher eats many sweets therefore he may get fat.</i></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
This argument is very reasonable and not fallacious despite the fact it uses the same <b>reasoning pattern</b> as the previous argument. Therefore you cannot distinguish between fallacious and non fallacious arguments by considering a reasoning pattern only.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
This classification of fallacies is of course very basic. In fact, within the two main groups – formal and informal fallacies there are many other subgroups. I will introduce them in the next posts so you can have a clear view on the whole “tree” of fallacies. If you enjoyed the post don’t hesitate to like <a href="https://www.facebook.com/MindAndPhilosophy" target="_blank">Mind and Philosophy Facebook page</a>!</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>Mind And Philosophyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14462172256350231136noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6790311037663429554.post-25672950523579998592013-05-18T20:58:00.000+02:002013-06-26T19:06:26.577+02:00Meaning of dreams in philosophy - is reality a dream?<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjthAQujlG8KX1ubJp69jIJ23Pe9wVjXqMUyxsT4MZFR4Bgb6IBwbK5ochniQ2J6DYUvK__PPzWIp9K99zaeeA0kjQQtzbBxMXrtPpHnJBtvV8hDME7o1ISdugKPBhB7GTAgjAxkLrPUDSi/s1600/Zhuangzi+butterfly+cartoon.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="190" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjthAQujlG8KX1ubJp69jIJ23Pe9wVjXqMUyxsT4MZFR4Bgb6IBwbK5ochniQ2J6DYUvK__PPzWIp9K99zaeeA0kjQQtzbBxMXrtPpHnJBtvV8hDME7o1ISdugKPBhB7GTAgjAxkLrPUDSi/s320/Zhuangzi+butterfly+cartoon.jpg" width="320" /></a>For many centuries the phenomenon of dreams has been used as an evidence for great limitations of the human mind. <b>Dream argument</b> is one of the oldest arguments concerning philosophy of mind; numerous thinkers such as Plato, Aristotle, Zhuangzi and Descartes noticed that it might be difficult to distinguish between “real reality” and “dream reality”. Is reality a dream? If not, how can you know it is not?</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I like the story written by <b>Zhuangzi</b>, a Chinese philosopher. Zhuangzi dreamt he was a butterfly. He was conscious only of this wonderful feeling while he was fluttering hither and thither. I am sure you too can think of a dream when you felt very good and at the time of dreaming were absolutely sure it was not a dream at all. When Zhuangzi awaked, he started to analyse what he had just experienced. “Am I a man dreaming that I am a butterfly or am I a butterfly dreaming that I am a man?”. Zhuangzi was unable to answer the question. Are we unable too?</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<a name='more'></a><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhn_kxpgMiC894mad6X7hukZyX9wi7M6DkRdVBkPHN3uhnphr-i4E3szlfCv2YIc_5yuzN_v5kSn9bJZbpq_lmht0Jg_Xkh-yhxjS31VQMUKl-4rdSprSc0CO6xA1RuXsx2Fp_gieIQzd49/s1600/Zhuangzi.gif" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhn_kxpgMiC894mad6X7hukZyX9wi7M6DkRdVBkPHN3uhnphr-i4E3szlfCv2YIc_5yuzN_v5kSn9bJZbpq_lmht0Jg_Xkh-yhxjS31VQMUKl-4rdSprSc0CO6xA1RuXsx2Fp_gieIQzd49/s320/Zhuangzi.gif" width="247" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Zhuangzi<br />
<i>(ca. 369 BC - ca. 286 BC)</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Zhuangzi used a philosophical method, applied centuries later by <a href="http://mindandphilosophy.blogspot.com/2012/07/descartes-dualism-and-monism.html" target="_blank">Descartes</a>, which is known as <b>scepticism</b>. It is a method of obtaining knowledge through continuous doubt, testing and questioning the nature of even the most “obvious” aspects of human life (such as “Have I ever been born?”, “Do people really die?” etc.). There are several approaches which might be undertaken to solve the problem. When you wake up, you know (or think you know) that what you have just experienced was a dream. Why? There is a <b>clear difference</b> in the level of conscience between dreaming and wakefulness. I will not go into scientific details concerning brain activity this time but let’s try to analyse the differences between “real reality” and “dream reality” from a philosophical point of view.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Was Zhuangzi aware of him ever being a <b>human</b>? No. Was Zhuangzi aware of him ever being a <b>butterfly</b>? Yes. Probably the butterfly dream was not the last dream of Zhuangzi. Suppose that in the next dream he was a rabbit. Then he probably was not aware of him ever being either a man or a butterfly. It clearly shows us that the mind in a not dreaming state shows awareness of the dreaming past but during dreaming state it cannot even recall the previous (not dreaming) state. Human mind does not cease to prove to be more acute and more aware while not sleeping.</div>
<div style="float: right;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="float: right;">
<script type="text/javascript"><!--
google_ad_client = "ca-pub-8805053284597012";
/* mindandphilosophy_sidebar-right-1_AdSense7_250x250_as */
google_ad_slot = "3768595345";
google_ad_width = 250;
google_ad_height = 250;
//</script>
</div>
-->
<script src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js" type="text/javascript">
</script>
</div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
However, not all dreams are unconscious. Maybe you sometimes experience a dream during which you are perfectly aware that you are only dreaming – such dreams are called <b>lucid dreams</b>. Already Aristotle noticed the difference between <b>conscious </b>and <b>unconscious </b>dreaming and I am pretty sure that he was not the first person to do so. Do lucid dreams support the hypothesis that reality is a dream or that it is impossible to distinguish dreams from the reality?</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Not really. During lucid dreams you are aware of being a human, yet you do <b>not </b>experience the similar feeling while being awake. Zhuangzi’s dream was not lucid but while he was awake he certainly was not aware of him being in fact a butterfly; he merely expressed his incertitude. Lucid dreams actually reveal superiority of wakefulness to dreaming state.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
And the last argument in this post, just in case you still are not sure whether tomorrow morning you’ll have to pollinate some daisies – your mind cannot create a mind which surpasses mental capacities of your brain. Due to physiological limitations, butterflies are unable of mental processes as complex and abstract as those of humans. Therefore they are unable to recreate in their dreams complexity of the human brain. (If you want to know more about conscience and reality of outer world read <a href="http://mindandphilosophy.blogspot.com/2012/07/solipsism-do-others-exist-in-your-mind.html" target="_blank">the post about solipsism</a>.)</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Sleep well and when you do become a butterfly, don’t waste your chance to flutter hither and thither!</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
Mind And Philosophyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14462172256350231136noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6790311037663429554.post-61326351778573958132012-10-28T22:28:00.000+01:002013-09-11T00:28:28.183+02:00Logical fallacies examples – appeal to novelty and age<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi807B0Y5z7F4THi5BPKYOJKC8a4ZkwA0fhxuJSTXjkc2QEtAyEk7Q5UcNlORLitf_Ih5E32YwjezmAlnnMLctqGaetaYLpImc5nd9p335plgmelLfhrjVlgi1BkoU8u7SzWaHFBoXDd1Mm/s1600/Logical+fallacy+cartoon+philosophy.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi807B0Y5z7F4THi5BPKYOJKC8a4ZkwA0fhxuJSTXjkc2QEtAyEk7Q5UcNlORLitf_Ih5E32YwjezmAlnnMLctqGaetaYLpImc5nd9p335plgmelLfhrjVlgi1BkoU8u7SzWaHFBoXDd1Mm/s320/Logical+fallacy+cartoon+philosophy.jpg" width="220" /></a>As always let's begin with a simple definition. A <b>logical fallacy</b> is an error in reasoning which usually relies on a wrong assumption made in the argument. Appeal to emotion is one of the most popular types of logical fallacies – examples of these fallacies may be very often found in the advertisement. Today I would like to describe you two very popular fallacies relying on appeal to emotion – <i>argumentum ad novitatem</i> and <i>argumentum ad antiquitatem</i>. You will be surprised how often we are unaware of these reasoning tricks. You may ask – why should I care about the fallacies at all? Well, developing your critical thinking skills is <b>necessary </b>not only if you want to succeed in philosophy but practically in (well, almost) every profession. It's very likely that while arguing you have used these fallacies yourself without even noticing them.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<a name='more'></a><div style="text-align: justify;">
A typical argument consists of at least one reason and exactly one conclusion. Reasons should clearly lead us to the conclusion. If they do, the argument is valid (for more information on validity click <a href="http://mindandphilosophy.blogspot.com/2013/09/valid-arguments-vs-sound-arguments.html" target="_blank">here</a>). Sometimes an argument contains both reasons and a conclusion but it is not valid because of a more or less obvious flaw in it. Consider the following argument:</div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<i>This is the newest medicament which is produced according to the most recent discoveries in medical chemistry. This is something completely new! Forget about your granny's herbal teas and buy our pills today!</i></div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
You have probably encountered this sort of argument. Have you noticed the <b>fallacy </b>in this argument? If not, then read it again and take your time. This argument is called <i>argumentum ad novitatem</i> and its fallacy relies on the wrong assumption that if something is new it's automatically better or right. The fact that the pills are new and are produced using the most recent discoveries by no means guarantee that they are better than the previous medicament. It may be as effective as other pills or maybe even worse. Even if the medicament <b>is</b> better the argument is still invalid because the conclusion does not follow from the reasons. This argument could be easily challenged by varrous statements (assuming they are true) such as:</div>
<br />
<ul>
<li><i>Herbal teas do not contain synthetic substances therefore are safer for health</i></li>
<li><i>Herbal teas have been proved to treat illness quicker than pills because they're a liquid</i></li>
</ul>
<br />
Consider another argument:<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<i>For two centuries already, all members of our family have been treated with a herbal tea invented by our great-aunt Rosemary. Don't you buy these new pills!</i></div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
You have probably noticed that this argument is invalid too. It's called <i>argumentum ad antiquitatem</i> which is in fact the opposite of <i>argumentum ad novitatem</i>. It relies on the assumption that if something is old or used for a long time, it's automatically better or correct. Again, even if it is true that Rosemary's herbal tea <b>is </b>more effective than the new pills, the argument remains invalid. Now you should be able to come up with your own ideas of statements which would challenge this argument.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="float: left;">
<script type="text/javascript"><!--
google_ad_client = "ca-pub-8805053284597012";
/* mindandphilosophy_crosscol_AdSense7_120x240_as */
google_ad_slot = "2291862147";
google_ad_width = 120;
google_ad_height = 240;
//-->
</script>
<script src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js" type="text/javascript">
</script>
</div>
As you're reading this blog you may find these fallacies quite obvious but in a real life most of us are susceptible to this kind of 'reasoning'. Don't you think that critical thinking should be a compulsory subject in all schools? This would limit ads' influence on new generations and would encourage firms to launch more informative advertisements instead of emotional ones. If you have profited from the post do not hesitate to like <a href="http://www.facebook.com/MindAndPhilosophy" target="_blank">Mind and Philosophy blog on Facebook</a>!</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
Mind And Philosophyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14462172256350231136noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6790311037663429554.post-35932768643803721612012-09-28T14:36:00.000+02:002013-05-21T00:10:26.867+02:00Meaning of unconscious mind<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjoKGv-yiblHE713UJV8fFMqakuzr3UuJjxtbJKfU-ZnmLHG8uiiP8u92O2f1gLecOM2t-h53-AdQkmtgPKP61cmsXaLeKhtmY0aAGar-00IBeI-a9Y9lBIuLY21G9gnRarv2FmznxaVCqM/s1600/Consciousness+mind+philosophy.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjoKGv-yiblHE713UJV8fFMqakuzr3UuJjxtbJKfU-ZnmLHG8uiiP8u92O2f1gLecOM2t-h53-AdQkmtgPKP61cmsXaLeKhtmY0aAGar-00IBeI-a9Y9lBIuLY21G9gnRarv2FmznxaVCqM/s320/Consciousness+mind+philosophy.png" width="220" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Consciousness by Robert Fludd, 1619</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Problem of <b>conscious </b>and <b>unconscious mind</b> isn't new in philosophy – actually it was already known to antique philosophers (the unconsciousness concept was also used in the <a href="http://mindandphilosophy.blogspot.com/2012/08/philosophical-zombies-and-mutants.html">zombie thought experiment</a>). The unconscious is closely related to the subconscious, the concept which is less controversial and was the main interest of Freud (it’s <b>not </b>true that Freud discovered subconscious/unconscious mind – the term unconscious mind had been already coined by Friedrich von Schelling). The unconscious mind is defined as automatic mental processes which are not available to introspection. I believe that consciousness and unconsciousness are crucial in understanding human’s nature and therefore should not be neglected by modern philosophy.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<a name='more'></a><br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgPfL8RlhRs7zKnyOx19dGLc61AxkXmlNqwzKX4Or3IvlttquCCrgEYf6CJo_-g6EZNVcWf_Afg1SAB5fxZNk30FXImZvALBDJUMu6znB9-gDP9K5tzVAPrEFEx0VUKMoZNcU_H2cwZdNAM/s1600/Friedrich+von+Schelling+unconscious+mind.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgPfL8RlhRs7zKnyOx19dGLc61AxkXmlNqwzKX4Or3IvlttquCCrgEYf6CJo_-g6EZNVcWf_Afg1SAB5fxZNk30FXImZvALBDJUMu6znB9-gDP9K5tzVAPrEFEx0VUKMoZNcU_H2cwZdNAM/s320/Friedrich+von+Schelling+unconscious+mind.jpg" width="267" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Friedrich von Schelling<br />
<i>(1775-1854)</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
You’re wondering what are the examples of unconscious mind (besides <a href="http://mindandphilosophy.blogspot.com/2012/08/philosophical-zombies-and-mutants.html">philosophical zombies</a>)? Some say that <b>reflexes</b>, <b>phobias </b>or <b>complexes</b> belong to the unconscious. According to Sigmund Freud they also include <a href="http://mindandphilosophy.blogspot.com/2013/05/meaning-of-dreams-in-philosophy-is.html" target="_blank">dreams</a> and even slips of tongue (watch your tongue from now on!). What is really interesting is that – at least according to psychoanalytic theory – dreams are not <i>sensu stricto</i> the unconscious. They are only signs or symptoms of its existence; that is why many psychoanalysts try to understand the symbolic meaning of the dreams in order to get the access to human’s unconsciousness. Another part of the unconscious is <b>subliminal messages</b>. This is quite a controversial issue since there is no agreement whether subliminal stimuli can actually alter the human’s behaviour or not, and if they can, it’s difficult to measure to what extent. What is meant by subliminal messages? These are sensory stimuli which can’t be consciously perceived. Imagine that you’re watching a presentation with a set of beautiful landscape pictures but from time to time a picture of a fearful face flashes; a picture is shown for a really short period of time, so short that you (read your consciousness) are not even able to notice it. Nevertheless a fearful face is seen by your subconscious mind and despite the fact you’re not being aware of the fact, your <b>brain </b>experiences anxiety.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The concept of unconsciousness was often rejected and criticised by many philosophers who claimed that it is invalid. I really like Erich Fromm’s opinion: <i>The term ‘the unconscious’ is actually a mystification […]. There is no such thing as the unconscious; there are only experiences of which we are aware, and others of which we are not aware, that is, of which we are unconscious. If I hate a man because I am afraid of him, and if I am aware of my hate but not of my fear, we may say that my hate is conscious and that my fear is unconscious; still my fear does not lie in that mysterious place: 'the' unconscious.</i></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
This reminds me of a quite well known anecdote (I’m sure it has plenty of varieties, maybe you know one of them as well) about the discussion between a teacher and a student who has not really understood the concept of the cold and argued that in fact there is no such thing. He said to the teacher that it’s not possible to experience smaller or greater cold – you can experience smaller or bigger heat, you can also experience no heat (absolute zero) but you can't experience the cold itself. It turns out that the cold is in fact the lack of heat. Don’t you think that the same reasoning may be applied to the unconscious mind? Because to my mind we are still unconscious of the unconscious’s nature.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
Mind And Philosophyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14462172256350231136noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6790311037663429554.post-25457006639660230122012-08-21T23:03:00.000+02:002013-08-28T11:59:11.370+02:00Philosophical zombies and mutants: thought experiment<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEikvkIH1R9U5mYO9jbI0qGBueq9sMwYXy4MpZqjrp-cJQ7bE6lcN34AzstoOU5RHRjtSlx8XbK7plsWmwvR2mewG-asGci7hq1TwB1JcsgdJ52zHG02TxhjfEBjD0akn3Iuj_rxA9eWCaah/s1600/Philosophy+zombies+mutants+cartoon+property+dualism.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="222" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEikvkIH1R9U5mYO9jbI0qGBueq9sMwYXy4MpZqjrp-cJQ7bE6lcN34AzstoOU5RHRjtSlx8XbK7plsWmwvR2mewG-asGci7hq1TwB1JcsgdJ52zHG02TxhjfEBjD0akn3Iuj_rxA9eWCaah/s400/Philosophy+zombies+mutants+cartoon+property+dualism.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><b><span lang="EN-GB">Zombies</span></b><span lang="EN-GB"> in philosophy exist for quite a long time; you can
find zombies in numerous thought experiments which are designed to prove physicalism and similar theories, such as <a href="http://mindandphilosophy.blogspot.com/2012/07/epiphenomenalism_23.html">epiphenomenalism</a>, wrong (perhaps one of the most famous developments of this argument is the one
of David Chalmers [born 1966], an Australian philosopher). What is actually a
philosophical zombie? There are a few types of philosophical zombies but all of
them have something in common – you cannot <b>distinguish</b>
between zombies and human beings because they behave in the same way as normal
people and look the same too (do not confuse philosophical zombies with people
living despite the decomposition – I’ve never liked that ridiculous idea at all). You’re
probably wondering what actually makes people <b>different</b> from philosophical zombies.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span lang="EN-GB"></span></span></div>
<a name='more'></a><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Well, zombies
in philosophy lack </span><b style="font-family: inherit;">sentience</b><span style="font-family: inherit;">, </span><b style="font-family: inherit;">soul</b><span style="font-family: inherit;">, or </span><b>consciousness</b><span style="font-family: inherit;"><b> </b>(and hence <a href="http://mindandphilosophy.blogspot.com/2012/07/defining-free-will-schopenhauer-and.html">free will</a>)</span><span style="font-family: inherit;">. Think about one of your friends. How can you know if he/she
is a human being and not a zombie? You may reply that the easiest way to check
it is to simply ask him if he is a zombie or not; but the point is that he’d
probably reply that he </span><b style="font-family: inherit;">is</b><span style="font-family: inherit;"> a human – by
observing others he’s learnt how to behave and how to adjust to social norms.
He may even hug you merely because of his knowledge of others’ expectances – if
someone is sad and you are in a close relationship with him you may, or rather <b>should</b>, give him a hug. Despite the fact that zombie world
is perfectly logical most of us don’t really believe it exists. However,
zombies may be a threat for physicalists since if they could exist it would
mean that a human being has more than simply a zombie body, thus there must
exist another "substance".<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Let’s leave
zombies aside and concentrate on <b>philosophical
mutants</b>. Think again about your friend. Is his/her sensing the same as
yours? Some people would reply that it’s not and give as an example different
flavours. Some people like chocolate, and some people don’t. But that doesn’t necessarily
mean that the sensing is different. Your friend may simply feel the same
chocolate flavour and doesn’t like it. Different taste preferences don’t prove
any difference in sensation. Think about colours. How does blue look like? Of
course you can’t describe it with words other than: “oh, exactly like that!”
pointing your finger to the sky or another blue object. Therefore there is a
possibility that your friend sees blue the same way you see red. For him his blue
equals your red and vice versa. And there is literally <b>no way</b> you could check it – if you showed a blue object to him, he
would say it’s blue. But you wouldn’t be able to tell whether he sees <b>your</b> blue. And maybe that is the reason
why some of us like certain colours and others don’t? Maybe there are some
colours which are ugly but it depends on a person how he <b>names</b> it?<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family: inherit;">It seems
that we actually know <b>nothing</b> for
sure about other people’s minds (or other <a href="http://mindandphilosophy.blogspot.com/2013/08/turing-test-important-questions.html" target="_blank">machines' minds</a>!). We do not know <b>how</b> they sense (they might be mutants!), and we do not know <b>if</b> they sense (beware of zombies!). The
more you learn about philosophy the more you are aware of how little you know.
I’m wondering what would happen if one possessed <b>all</b> philosophical knowledge – would he then know everything or
rather nothing?</span><span style="font-family: Book Antiqua, serif;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></span></div>
Mind And Philosophyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14462172256350231136noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6790311037663429554.post-50746118865885420582012-08-08T18:05:00.001+02:002012-08-08T18:05:16.011+02:00God and philosophy: does God exist?<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiPr8uOl47Jh7A1huSKTiwwD9sg8-aM-e_ibE7I-TH9hOgC29Vg6bPTalHxioHXxLxvKIDC9gAzg3VUu4BLDWVCtZSfdHUoFbSq5S0K1lcF2MXZi_robRqZhxOwTWgcFtSgBVPpvAWo9FdT/s1600/Saint+Anselm+ontological+argument.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiPr8uOl47Jh7A1huSKTiwwD9sg8-aM-e_ibE7I-TH9hOgC29Vg6bPTalHxioHXxLxvKIDC9gAzg3VUu4BLDWVCtZSfdHUoFbSq5S0K1lcF2MXZi_robRqZhxOwTWgcFtSgBVPpvAWo9FdT/s1600/Saint+Anselm+ontological+argument.jpg" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Saint Anselm of Canterbury<br /><i>(c. 1033-1109)</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><b><span lang="EN-GB">Theists</span></b><span lang="EN-GB"> seek the <b>proof</b>
that God exists while <b>atheists</b> seek
the proof that God doesn’t exist. You’re probably wondering if there is any <b>evidence</b> that God exists (or that he
does not)? <b>Philosophy of religion </b>is
perhaps one of the oldest yet still interesting and controversial branches of
philosophy. Philosophers struggle to find new arguments and proofs for or
against God’s existence – therefore the question arises: who is right?
Philosophy of religion gives many solutions including the classical <b>ontological argument</b> and more powerful <b>cosmological argument</b>. I’ll briefly
explain them and show you their flaws – and as you probably suppose I’ll share
with you my point of view and the argument I find to be the most convincing.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span lang="EN-GB"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Saint <b>Anselm
of Canterbury</b> (c. 1033-1109) is usually regarded as the author of the
ontological argument for the existence of God. He defines God as “being than
which no greater can be conceived”. Take your time to think it over – such
statement is really tricky and as you’re about to see it leaves us only with
one possible conclusion.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family: inherit;"></span></span></div>
<a name='more'></a><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Whether you
believe that a being than which no greater can be conceived exists or not you probably
understand the concept. And since you understand it (the idea), it exists in
your <b>mind</b>. However, a being which
exists not only in your mind but also in the outer world (let’s leave <a href="http://mindandphilosophy.blogspot.com/2012/07/solipsism-do-others-exist-in-your-mind.html">solipsism</a> aside and suppose there is an outer world) is <b>greater</b> than a being which exists
merely in your mind. That would mean that if God existed in your mind only, you
could conceive of a greater being – that would exist in the outer world as
well. And since, according to St Anselm’s definition of God we can’t conceive
of a greater being than God, God does exist. I don’t know what you think of
this argumentation but it might seem to be a bit suspicious and personally
nobody would ever convince me that God exists with this sort of argument mainly
because it does not really refer to the reality – it simply concentrates on
your mind and is in fact a philosophical trick. <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family: inherit;">So what’s
the cosmological argument all about? Cosmological argument, which is also known
as argument from <b>first cause</b> (<i>primum movens</i>) is connected with
<a href="http://mindandphilosophy.blogspot.com/2012/07/determinism-and-free-will.html">determinism</a>, and uses the following argumentation: every infinite
being has its <b>cause</b>, and causal
chain cannot be <b>infinite</b> therefore <i>primum movens</i> must exist. I don’t know
if you find genealogy to be interesting but most people (without any research)
are able to give names of their great-grandparents. You know that you came to
life probably because your parents fell in love, you know that your more
distant ancestors came to life in the same way (though their marriages might be
arranged). Suppose you have all the needed documents to trace back your roots –
regardless of what your beliefs about the beginning of humankind are you will either
end up with grandpa Adam or grandma Lucy. At some point you will get stuck and
there will be no earthly cause of Adam (and no earthly cause of Big Bang
either). Something (or rather somebody) must have created the first cause
otherwise the infinite chain of events couldn’t have even started. And God
seems to be the one who could be the source of <i>primum movens</i>.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family: inherit;">I believe
that philosophical arguments which are designed to prove or disprove God’s
existence are not much of use really. St Anselm defined God as being than which
no greater can be conceived. However, what is very often left unnoticed is that
such definition suggests that God <b>may</b>
be conceived by a human being – and with all due respect to St Anselm I think
that people’s minds lack God’s <b>perfection</b>
and while being God’s creations surely they cannot <b>exceed</b> God’s mental skills and <b>fully</b>
imagine his nature; and since human minds were created by God they are not as
complex as the mind of their creator. Consider the following example. A housefly
is not <b>able</b> to prove that human brains
are built of neurons. It’s not only for the lack of accessibility to the data
(a housefly cannot fully examine a human body) but also for limitations of
mental and language skills. Minds of houseflies’ are highly limited (in comparison
to ours) and therefore are not able to fully conceive the idea of a human brain
and neurons. And if we define God as a being infinitely wise then the
difference between mind of a housefly and mind of a human being is <b>infinitely</b> <b>smaller</b> than the difference between mind of a human being and God.
And this would mean that if God exists no human philosopher is able to prove
that God exists and such inability to prove God’s existence would in fact prove
that he does exist. It means that the only person who is able to prove that God
exists is God himself because he is the only one who can fully understand God’s
nature. Note that inability to prove that God exists is not the same as ability
to prove that God does not exist.</span><span style="font-family: Book Antiqua, serif;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>Mind And Philosophyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14462172256350231136noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6790311037663429554.post-89524900822467521352012-07-26T19:55:00.000+02:002012-07-27T15:24:56.442+02:00Innatism: good and evil, language, and maths<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Quite
recently I’ve written a post on <a href="http://mindandphilosophy.blogspot.com/2012/07/tabula-rasa-blank-slate-meaning.html">tabula rasa</a>. You may probably wonder
if there is a theory of mind which would be opposite to tabula rasa theory. The
answer is: of course there is – this view is called <b>innatism</b> and claims that not all knowledge comes from experience
(John Locke, however, argued that it does). Since, according to innatism
theory, mind is <b>not</b> a blank slate there
is <b>some</b> knowledge that you are born
with. Despite the fact that innatism is not a very popular theory there are
various branches of this view; the main difference is usually: <b>what knowledge is innate</b>.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></span></div>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEibbE6HQc-GKiAc1W2z-gHQVOErSHa8jHm1FFo3hnIJEF40Udy7Z58iDkVCe75qkmX3pQYbCQhyphenhyphenb5YDab03mUmh693W0-Xwnp03Mw0OwQX3bAafjuhOC0-SqJ_BkOxVuE9BiGvAlLpOjkmm/s1600/Noam+Chomsky.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEibbE6HQc-GKiAc1W2z-gHQVOErSHa8jHm1FFo3hnIJEF40Udy7Z58iDkVCe75qkmX3pQYbCQhyphenhyphenb5YDab03mUmh693W0-Xwnp03Mw0OwQX3bAafjuhOC0-SqJ_BkOxVuE9BiGvAlLpOjkmm/s200/Noam+Chomsky.jpg" width="160" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Noam Chomsky<br />
<i>(1928)</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><b><span lang="EN-GB">Notions of good and evil</span></b><span lang="EN-GB"> is usually considered by
innatists to be the part of innate knowledge. Numerous philosophers claimed
that you are able to distinguish between good and evil regardless of your
background. <b>Descartes</b> stated that
some ideas are placed in people’s minds by God (including notions of good and
evil). Nevertheless various terrorists are convinced that what they do is
actually good (or they think it’s not good but serves a greater good). Think
about the recent case of Anders Breivik who killed 69 unarmed adolescents at Utøya
island, Norway. He has never had any regrets (or at least didn’t express them
publically) of what he did – do you think it is caused by the fact that he is <b>not</b> able to distinguish between good
and evil or by his mental illness? Or is a mental illness the <b>result</b> of his not being able to say what is
right and what is not?<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<a name='more'></a><br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiJJkZTB33nP1ZJEra0dQfNJhS9_Nl698pZhiTkeYIJUsrxm8m46dgtdFWVQXaKsoOQTt7Dhx4tkRImvc21Vzr1CxWk5iBfhqS34K0ugdUB3pG-3Or_RUZ1ViCvUiwkRRlh0ovW9uM7aXet/s1600/Kaspar+Hauser.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiJJkZTB33nP1ZJEra0dQfNJhS9_Nl698pZhiTkeYIJUsrxm8m46dgtdFWVQXaKsoOQTt7Dhx4tkRImvc21Vzr1CxWk5iBfhqS34K0ugdUB3pG-3Or_RUZ1ViCvUiwkRRlh0ovW9uM7aXet/s320/Kaspar+Hauser.jpg" width="189" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Kaspar Hauser<br />
<i>1812?-1833</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Another part
of knowledge which is – as claim some innatists – innate is the <b>language skills</b>. The most famous
language innatist is probably <b>Noam Chomsky</b>,
American philosopher and linguist of Jewish-Russian descent. He claims that
every child possesses so called <b>LAD</b>
(which stands for Language Acquisition Device) which enables children to learn
any human language. It may be true – have you heard of Kaspar Hauser? He was
one of the most famous feral children who appeared in the streets of Nuremberg,
Germany in 1828 and could not speak German at all (apart from a few sentences
and prayers which he had probably learnt by heart). Since Kaspar was still in
his teens when he was found (and apparently had some contact with the language)
he still possessed LAD and managed to learn the language although he seemed to
be intellectually impaired and didn’t want to eat anything else than bread and
drank only water. He succeeded to learn the language probably because he did
know some German (though his vocabulary was very limited). However, there are
some feral children who didn’t manage to learn the language so well, such as
Oxana Malaya, Ukrainian girl brought up by dogs and found at the age of eight.
She had lots of difficulties with learning a human language which supports the
theory of Noam Chomsky that children are <b>born</b>
with LAD but lose it with time (that’s why adults find it more difficult to learn
languages than children). It proves that Locke’s theory that <b>all</b> knowledge comes from experience is
false.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family: inherit;">When did you
know that 2+2=4? Probably you always knew it. You knew this truth even <b>before</b> you were able to name the
numbers. Some innatists believe that <b>mathematical and logical truths</b> are innate
as well. As a child you probably couldn’t solve the equation 5786*345 but this
equation is still <b>based</b> on other
simple rules which are innate (such as two apples per row gives four apples in
total). Do you think that some knowledge is innate? Why? Please share your
opinions and don’t forget to like our <a href="http://www.facebook.com/MindAndPhilosophy">page on Facebook</a>!</span><span style="font-family: 'Book Antiqua', serif;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>Mind And Philosophyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14462172256350231136noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6790311037663429554.post-2047432874429517832012-07-23T18:35:00.000+02:002012-07-23T19:33:47.342+02:00Epiphenomenalism<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjmI487GPpvl1sU9IS_2W7BuD_aoQv7-QA0PaPljOSK3wUnXlV2_J-wQn9zZGtaed3mBWhh-arOwlSN-PG1juvJD6p565eH3O3DxfF40oumDzdTqHKkjcyK8c1Rf7NbAsO4ckvKJHbMhvqf/s1600/Ivan+Pavlov.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjmI487GPpvl1sU9IS_2W7BuD_aoQv7-QA0PaPljOSK3wUnXlV2_J-wQn9zZGtaed3mBWhh-arOwlSN-PG1juvJD6p565eH3O3DxfF40oumDzdTqHKkjcyK8c1Rf7NbAsO4ckvKJHbMhvqf/s320/Ivan+Pavlov.jpg" width="227" /></span></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Ivan Pavlov<br /><i>(1849-1936)</i></span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family: inherit;">While many
philosophers regard human being as a complex creature with an unexplored mental
inside, others believe, however, that all your mental states are merely <b>physical processes</b> which take place inside
your brain. This theory is known as <b>epiphenomenalism</b>.
According to the epiphenomenalism definition these are not your thoughts which
make you feel angry and turn red. These are only <b>symptoms</b> of the same <b>external</b>
situation. Therefore thoughts are no more than a simple illusion caused by
external conditions. Also there is no such thing as <a href="http://mindandphilosophy.blogspot.com/2012/07/defining-free-will-schopenhauer-and.html">free will</a>.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family: inherit;">You’ve probably
heard many times of <b>Ivan Pavlov</b>, Russian physiologist. He’s famous for his
research on conditioning and reflex actions. He proved that animal’s behaviour
may be altered by rewarding an animal for “good” actions and punishing for
those which are considered to be “wrong”. Imagine that you’ve got a dog and you
punish it for biting furniture and reward for obeying you; soon he will obey you
even if there is no reward afterwards. This shows how much the <b>behaviour</b> has to do with <b>upbringing</b>. In philosophy of psychology
there’s even a theory called <b>behaviourism</b>
(which shares many similarities with epiphenomenalism) that all what people
(and animals) do are in fact behaviours (including thoughts). <o:p></o:p></span></span><span style="background-color: white;">What are the arguments for epiphenomenalism?</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family: inherit;"></span></span></div>
<a name='more'></a><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Well, there aren’t many but I’ll give you the one
which is probably most often used by epiphenomenalists – scientific research.
In 1970s American scientist B. Libet found out that it actually takes 0.5
seconds before a stimulus (such as touching something hot) enters your consciousness.
However, your <b>body</b> would be able to
respond to such a stimulus within only 200 milliseconds. Personally, I think it
proves nothing – it’s rather obvious that you and me do <b>not</b> control everything what happens in our bodies. I don’t have to
think about veins so they could start pumping my blood. I don’t need to make a <b>conscious</b> decision about my lungs – oh,
breathe, my lungs! I can’t imagine living with my consciousness filled with completely
unnecessary information. What would be the point? <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Think again
about the <b>definition</b> of
epiphenomenalism. Now try to answer a simple question: “How can an
epiphenomenalist argue that his theory is true?”. Since, according to
epiphenomalists, all mental phenomena are simply are just random physical processes?
Arguing that epiphenomenalism is the right theory is meaningless since to
actually perceive it as a true one, you should be able to think logically;
something which would <b>not </b>be even
possible if epiphenomenalism were true. Any attempt to prove the theory right
would actually result in proving epiphenomenalism wrong… What do you think
about epiphenomenalism! I’d love to hear from you in the comments! </span><span style="font-family: 'Book Antiqua', serif;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>Mind And Philosophyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14462172256350231136noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6790311037663429554.post-26432636860993984512012-07-22T15:13:00.000+02:002012-07-23T13:39:13.102+02:00Tabula rasa – blank slate – meaning<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg_Y4IxndvrnWjU_0AWe_bekjXM63IySurZ2yWhSOJgRwoPd5NFIpiZd-ymChWuHeydbTv4UnWx622ep_9JP73OMUiqNA0D-ux_mMSYsDB2gyTIXbvIZI9upoRic2PWaMiw6JWrP562yyI6/s1600/Tabula+rasa2.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg_Y4IxndvrnWjU_0AWe_bekjXM63IySurZ2yWhSOJgRwoPd5NFIpiZd-ymChWuHeydbTv4UnWx622ep_9JP73OMUiqNA0D-ux_mMSYsDB2gyTIXbvIZI9upoRic2PWaMiw6JWrP562yyI6/s320/Tabula+rasa2.png" width="254" /></span></a><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: inherit;">We’ve
already dealt with <a href="http://mindandphilosophy.blogspot.com/2012/07/defining-free-will-schopenhauer-and.html">free will</a> and <a href="http://mindandphilosophy.blogspot.com/2012/07/determinism-and-free-will.html">determinism</a>; however,
you may still wonder what’s the <b>origin</b> of your mind. According to <b>tabula rasa</b> theory your mental content
comes <b>only</b> from your experience. The
meaning of tabula rasa originates from Latin “blank slate” or “white paper”; it
means that you’re born with an empty mind which is to be filled with your life
experiences which, according to tabula rasa theory, are the unique source of
mental content. One of the most famous philosophers who held belief in tabula
rasa is probably English philosopher <b>John
Locke</b> who claimed that “<b>all</b>
ideas come from sensation or reflection”. It sounds reasonable, doesn’t it?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: inherit;">Personally,
I don’t believe in tabula rasa theory. There are numerous literary works which
aim to prove that we are <b>not</b> born
with tabula rasa. Some of them (such as "Lord of the Flies" by W. Golding) seem
to convince the reader of an innate evil, others (such as a classic of children’s
literature "Pollyanna" by E. H. Porter) claim that all people are born good. It
shows how different philosophical theories may be when it comes to <b>mind</b> – tabula rasa, innate evil, or
innate goodness. Are you really born with tabula rasa then?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: inherit;"></span></div>
<a name='more'></a><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEia6RjsUir28shtTNGBhq2qjclvGmxV1mL4I3HJ0ffqW_1axT4LEuByn_G6zz42xsGqf9zwLcCi0zfJ7nVToHiECIvQOF4ncFT85SJ0NS5G29cTmZjnPnyg-Mqq34o9U9GiqECNj6SJoBNd/s1600/John+Locke.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEia6RjsUir28shtTNGBhq2qjclvGmxV1mL4I3HJ0ffqW_1axT4LEuByn_G6zz42xsGqf9zwLcCi0zfJ7nVToHiECIvQOF4ncFT85SJ0NS5G29cTmZjnPnyg-Mqq34o9U9GiqECNj6SJoBNd/s320/John+Locke.png" width="248" /></span></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">John Locke<br /><i>(1632-1704)</i></span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: inherit;">That would
mean that you didn’t have any experiences <b>before</b>
you were born. John Locke claimed that “in experience all our knowledge is
funded”. I believe it is a very reasonable argument. Think about a skill you
have learnt recently – how did you learn it? From <b>experience</b>. You can’t learn how to read without seeing letters, you
can’t learn how to write without actually writing – you must <b>experience</b> something in order to <b>learn</b> something. This is the source of
knowledge. Nevertheless, new born babies <b>know</b>
how to suck mother’s breast despite the fact they have <b>not</b> experienced breast-feeding
before. It is, however, disputable if such an act counts as knowledge or simply
as reflex actions. Whatever the truth about reflex actions and knowledge is I strongly
believe that knowledge <b>does</b> come
from experience… And this is why I can’t agree with Locke’s tabula rasa view – we are already born <b>with</b> experiences.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family: inherit;">There are
various scientific experiments which show that a foetus is able to hear what
happens outside the womb. He can hear his mother’s voice and is even able to distinguish
it from other voices; some claim that music influences foetus’s IQ and
personality. Of course there is still no consensus about how <b>much</b> foetus can hear (and to what
extent it influences his future life) but most scientists agree that foetus <b>does</b> hear. And hearing is undeniably an
<b>experience </b>which is, according to Locke, a source of knowledge. Is tabula rasa theory
false? What do you think about it?</span><span style="font-family: 'Book Antiqua', serif;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: 'Book Antiqua', serif;"><br /></span></div>
<h2 class="title">
</h2>
<h2 class="title" style="color: #828282; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin: 0.5em 0px; position: relative; text-transform: uppercase;">
People are born with...</h2>
<div class="widget-content" id="widget-content">
<iframe allowtransparency="true" frameborder="0" height="180" name="poll-widget4630222258965227714" src="http://www.google.com/reviews/polls/display/4630222258965227714/blogger_template/run_app?txtclr=%23000000&lnkclr=%238a2e2e&chrtclr=%238a2e2e&font=normal+normal+15px+Arial,+Tahoma,+Helvetica,+FreeSans,+sans-serif&hideq=true&purl=http://mindandphilosophy.blogspot.com/" style="border: none; width: 100%;"></iframe></div>Mind And Philosophyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14462172256350231136noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6790311037663429554.post-41271886457025668002012-07-21T13:02:00.000+02:002013-05-15T20:54:32.699+02:00Solipsism: do others exist in your mind only?<br />
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEig7xJu8Zwu2mFwuH09cRzKhNOEC0t_q8vDUD4dqNQSEHjdnJsYZhRBAS9FAXgO3-AnRwyLjwYilj8LmTq4mU4O93USMfRLNsfs_pQVd-0S4zmbu-khJ4y-ZrN4Tfj_kIDDMNFNkL5QKezw/s1600/Solipsism.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="232" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEig7xJu8Zwu2mFwuH09cRzKhNOEC0t_q8vDUD4dqNQSEHjdnJsYZhRBAS9FAXgO3-AnRwyLjwYilj8LmTq4mU4O93USMfRLNsfs_pQVd-0S4zmbu-khJ4y-ZrN4Tfj_kIDDMNFNkL5QKezw/s320/Solipsism.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><b><span lang="EN-GB">Solipsism</span></b><span lang="EN-GB"> is one of the most interesting theories of mind. Why?
I’ll tell you how solipsists define solipsism. Get ready, solipsism definition
is as follows: one’s own mind is <b>all</b>
that can be known to exist. But what does solipsism really mean? Not only
solipsists and philosophers in general know the meaning of solipsism – also
average people like you and me have probably experienced solipsism as a child (<b>infant solipsism</b>). Solipsism is so
convincing that there is even a <b>solipsism
syndrome</b> – therefore you could actually <b>suffer </b>from solipsism. If you’re not<b> afraid</b> to start doubting in others’ existence, continue reading…<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span lang="EN-GB"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family: inherit;">
Think about
your childhood. What’s your first memory? Most people can trace their memories back
to the time they were about 3 or 4 years old. You probably can’t remember from <b>your</b> own experience what had happened <b>before</b> your 3<sup>rd</sup> birthday or
even if you are it’s almost impossible to have any memories before 2<sup>nd</sup>
birthday. How can you know what had happened before then?
<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family: inherit;"></span></span></div>
<a name='more'></a><br />
<div style="float:left;">
<script type="text/javascript"><!--
google_ad_client = "ca-pub-8805053284597012";
/* mindandphilosophy_sidebar-right-1_AdSense7_250x250_as */
google_ad_slot = "3768595345";
google_ad_width = 250;
google_ad_height = 250;
//-->
</script>
<script type="text/javascript"
src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js">
</script>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Probably
your parents <b>told</b> you that. But how
can you <b>know</b> that your parents even
exist? How can you <b>know</b> that you
were born at all? Maybe it’s just a figment of your imagination? Solipsists claim
that the only thing you can be sure about is your own <b>mind</b>. Therefore you cannot know that the <b>outer world</b> exists. There’s a possibility that you simply created
the world you know and it exists in your inner mind only. Maybe I’m not the
author of this blog and you simply created impression of someone else writing the
Mind and Philosophy blog? I don’t know if you experienced this sort of thinking
but I remember that I wondered about such a possibility when I was a child even
without any philosophical knowledge. This is called <b>infant solipsism</b> and most of us (probably you as well) reject this way
of thinking already in your childhood – some of us don’t even remember that we
thought this way as children. However, there are some philosophers who do not reject
this point of view and claim that they can’t know if outer world exists or not.
And there are even some philosophers who believe in <b>metaphysical solipsism</b> claiming that the <b>self</b> is the <b>only</b> real and
independent reality.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjsacdNAlOLpZTx02T7lwfkGbeCCQCYI9ER4m-YCeN6erCygCnEOdRoIZiPPwr3npi0lKylZ_jioMkXrEpJmptmNXuqcy8pWFSqW4evGlKhl4l5ipr97kWAAGKEbHIaneszWzAkmg7YSmen/s1600/Gorgias+of+Leontini+solipsism.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjsacdNAlOLpZTx02T7lwfkGbeCCQCYI9ER4m-YCeN6erCygCnEOdRoIZiPPwr3npi0lKylZ_jioMkXrEpJmptmNXuqcy8pWFSqW4evGlKhl4l5ipr97kWAAGKEbHIaneszWzAkmg7YSmen/s1600/Gorgias+of+Leontini+solipsism.jpg" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Gorgias of Leontini<br />
<i>(c. 485 - c. 380 BC)</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family: inherit;">So let’s sum
up the main ideas of solipsism. I’m presenting you with arguments of Gorgias of
Leontini who is considered to be the father of solipsism. <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="background-color: white; text-indent: -18pt;">
</div>
<ol>
<li>Nothing exists</li>
<li>Even if something exists, nothing can be known about it</li>
<li>Even if something can be known about it, knowledge about it can't be communicated to others</li>
<li>Even if it can be communicated, it cannot be understood</li>
</ol>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Since it’s
so difficult to prove these statements wrong most people reject them only
because they <b>feel</b> they’re wrong (</span></span>too learn more about perception of good and evil see the post about <a href="http://mindandphilosophy.blogspot.com/2012/07/innatism-good-and-evil-language-and.html">innatism</a>)<span style="font-family: inherit;">;
however, they still aren’t able to give any reason for rejecting solipsism. Probably
you won’t be surprised that people who live in isolation for an extended period
of time often question the reality of external world; sooner or later they will
probably suffer from what is called </span><b style="font-family: inherit;">solipsism
syndrome</b><span style="font-family: inherit;"> (similar to depersonalization disorder); they will start believing
that the world is nothing more than their minds’ creation… Isn't it frightening?</span><br />
<span lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></span></div>
<h2 class="title">
</h2>
<h2 class="title" style="color: #828282; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin: 0.5em 0px; position: relative; text-transform: uppercase;">
Do you remember experiencing infant solipsism?</h2>
<div class="widget-content" id="widget-content">
<iframe allowtransparency="true" frameborder="0" height="140" name="poll-widget-9183477475201479234" src="http://www.google.com/reviews/polls/display/-9183477475201479234/blogger_template/run_app?txtclr=%23000000&lnkclr=%238a2e2e&chrtclr=%238a2e2e&font=normal+normal+15px+Arial,+Tahoma,+Helvetica,+FreeSans,+sans-serif&hideq=true&purl=http://mindandphilosophy.blogspot.com/" style="border: none; width: 100%;"></iframe></div>Mind And Philosophyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14462172256350231136noreply@blogger.com44tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6790311037663429554.post-23025077718891701512012-07-20T12:08:00.000+02:002012-07-20T23:43:47.136+02:00Defining free will – Schopenhauer and compatibilism<br />
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjtV9zia2DcYGtiQF5VKn60mEQuGJdV7zYtoJS2rslqfAWuFwaDNh33BCIImILmEB27CZ1KWBO-IFefiU4sFr_Jqa-dyn7HcVYssAIMZ_1mt6hHIouUwAVutsCkJkcAk7NOZB_BZtDZaghE/s1600/Schopenhauer.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjtV9zia2DcYGtiQF5VKn60mEQuGJdV7zYtoJS2rslqfAWuFwaDNh33BCIImILmEB27CZ1KWBO-IFefiU4sFr_Jqa-dyn7HcVYssAIMZ_1mt6hHIouUwAVutsCkJkcAk7NOZB_BZtDZaghE/s320/Schopenhauer.jpg" width="268" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Arthur Schopenhauer<br />
<i>(1788-1860)</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<span lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family: inherit;">In the last
post about <a href="http://mindandphilosophy.blogspot.com/2012/07/determinism-and-free-will.html">determinism and free will</a> it was stated that according to
the <b>determinism</b> definition and the examples
we’ve dealt with it is impossible to prove that we have <b>free will</b>. In fact, deterministic reasoning suggests that we have
no free will; however, there are various branches of determinism – for instance
<b>compatibilism </b>(since William James called
also soft determinism). What’s the definition of compatibilism and what’s so
interesting about it? The interesting part of it is probably <b>combining</b> free will with determinism –
according to compatibilism free will <b>can</b>
exist even if our actions are determined.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family: inherit;">You may
wonder how it is possible but as you’ll see the answer is really easy. It’s all
about defining free will correctly (from the compatibilists’ point o view of
course). It is possible to define free will in such a way that – despite deterministic
limitations – free will will be still free (though it will <b>not</b> be free from determinants). Take a closer look to the
definition of free will by <b>Arthur Schopenhauer</b>:<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family: inherit;"></span></span><br />
<a name='more'></a><span lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<i><span lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills.<o:p></o:p></span></span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<i><span lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family: inherit;">You may
notice that there are so to say <b>two levels</b> of free will. On one hand you can do anything
you will – and this is undeniably the freedom of mind – on the other hand
however you can’t change your will. Your free will controls only the actions,
there is no "free will no. 2" which would be responsible for controlling your
"free will no. 1". If you took some time to consider this sentence, maybe
you would find a paradox in it. Isn’t the action of willing already an action?
I mean, this is something you can <b>do</b>
– you can will. Therefore if you can do what you will you can also will what
you will but that’s contradictory to the second part of definition stating that
you can’t will what you will. Hence the first part of the sentence would be correct
only if the action of willing would not be actually an action and couldn’t be
done; and if an action can’t be performed and if an action is not an action it
means it does not exist. If it does not exist, compatibilism would be ripped of
free will and would become a traditional determinism…<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Don’t you
think that we often use terms whose definitions are actually really broad and
vague? Determinists frequently argue if human beings have free mind or not.
Such discussions are sometimes completely meaningless if there is no consensus
about what free mind is. You may argue if boombleday exists but the discussion
would never end because nobody really knows what boombleday means. What do you
think about free will? Is it possible to define it? I’d love to hear from you!</span><span style="font-family: 'Book Antiqua', serif;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></span></div>
<h2 class="title">
</h2>
<h2 class="title" style="color: #828282; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin: 0.5em 0px; position: relative; text-transform: uppercase;">
Is it possible to define free will?</h2>
<div class="widget-content" id="widget-content">
<iframe allowtransparency="true" frameborder="0" height="160" name="poll-widget5791643601487867001" src="http://www.google.com/reviews/polls/display/5791643601487867001/blogger_template/run_app?txtclr=%23000000&lnkclr=%238a2e2e&chrtclr=%238a2e2e&font=normal+normal+15px+Arial,+Tahoma,+Helvetica,+FreeSans,+sans-serif&hideq=true&purl=http://mindandphilosophy.blogspot.com/" style="border: none; width: 100%;"></iframe></div>Mind And Philosophyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14462172256350231136noreply@blogger.com11tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6790311037663429554.post-47620674941261221162012-07-19T13:09:00.000+02:002012-07-22T18:21:48.953+02:00Determinism and free will<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgE2rhfLsKb0tbaMrqdwDznI-o_Ev0CQjWx7_nKbciH7ihvO2-ITBaWMJb7F5LRUau3Jx_xWF-c01vIng-qijp7vkLtHIF7fMib_Epc9WPvteQWULhQdolWvh8vyLYxrD2RIPAZKbz8-Kgh/s1600/Determinism-free+will+cartoon.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="236" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgE2rhfLsKb0tbaMrqdwDznI-o_Ev0CQjWx7_nKbciH7ihvO2-ITBaWMJb7F5LRUau3Jx_xWF-c01vIng-qijp7vkLtHIF7fMib_Epc9WPvteQWULhQdolWvh8vyLYxrD2RIPAZKbz8-Kgh/s320/Determinism-free+will+cartoon.png" width="320" /></a><span lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family: inherit;">In the post
about <a href="http://mindandphilosophy.blogspot.com/2012/07/physical-monism-vs-substance-dualism.html">materialism and substance dualism</a> we’ve briefly dealt with the
problem of making decisions (such as standing up). But did you really have <b>free will</b> to actually <b>decide</b> to stand up? Well, according to the
<b>determinism</b> theory you did not. Why
did you stand up then? Determinism <b>definition</b>
states that all events are ultimately determined by causes which are independent
of the will. There are many examples of determinism and – as in the case of
most philosophical theories – there are various branches of determinism including
soft and hard determinism (known also as compatibilism and metaphysical
determinism). If you want to see how determinism works practically, click "read
more" (or if you already did then start reading the next paragraph…</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family: inherit;"></span></span></div>
<a name='more'></a><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family: inherit;">And you did
it! According to the determinism theory you had <b>no choice</b>. It was determined
that you would continue reading this post even before you discovered Mind and
Philosophy blog. And if other readers "decided" not to read further, it had
been determined as well. Therefore determinist says that there is no such thing
as decision so there is no such thing as <b>free will</b> either. You may ask: "What’s
the ground for such belief?" The ground is quite simple. Imagine that you’re having
great time in a restaurant with your best friends and you’re about to order the
dessert; there are only two options available: big portion of delicious
ice-cream (your favourite flavour!) or big portion of healthy fruit salad. You
know that you shouldn’t choose the ice-cream because you could have problems
with your stomach/weight and you’ve already eaten much anyway; but still you’d
prefer the fruit salad which is not as delicious as the ice-cream but is surely
healthier. After some struggle you choose the ice-cream. When you go back home
you realise that you’ve got stomach problems. What would you think? I’ll list two
possible thoughts:</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<ul>
<li><i style="background-color: white; font-family: inherit; text-indent: -18pt;"><span lang="EN-GB">I
could have ordered the fruit salad!</span></i></li>
<li><span lang="EN-GB" style="background-color: white; font-family: inherit; text-indent: -18pt;"><span style="font-size: 7pt;"> </span></span><i style="background-color: white; font-family: inherit; text-indent: -18pt;"><span lang="EN-GB">I
could have ordered nothing!</span></i></li>
</ul>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family: inherit;">You could
have ordered the fruit salad? Really? Why didn’t you order it then? What were
the causes of your decision? Here are some possible reasons:</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<ul>
<li><i style="background-color: white; font-family: inherit; text-indent: -18pt;"><span lang="EN-GB">I
like the ice-cram better.</span></i></li>
<li><i style="background-color: white; font-family: inherit; text-indent: -18pt;"><span lang="EN-GB">Everybody
else had the ice-cream.</span></i></li>
<li><i style="background-color: white; font-family: inherit; text-indent: -18pt;"><span lang="EN-GB">I’m
not that fat.</span></i></li>
</ul>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family: inherit;">As you see,
there are <b>plenty of reasons</b> and every single reason undeniably influenced your
decision. And that’s the very essence of
determinism. There are complex causes which determine what you do and according to determinism these are the causes which make all decisions about your whole life. This is a
controversial statement because it can’t be proved in any way. I believe that the
only way of proving that determinism is false is creating a time machine, go back
to the restaurant and eat that healthy fruit salad. But in this case, creating
a time machine would be determined as well…<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family: inherit;">P.S. By the
way, it was also determined that Mind and Philosophy blog would have its new site
on Facebook! Like <a href="http://www.facebook.com/MindAndPhilosophy">Mind and Philosophy page</a> to keep in touch!</span><span style="font-family: 'Book Antiqua', serif;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #990000;"></span><br />
<h2 class="title" style="font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; margin: 0.5em 0px; position: relative; text-align: right; text-transform: uppercase;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #990000; font-size: small;"><i>RELATED POSTS</i></span></h2>
<h2 class="title" style="font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; margin: 0.5em 0px; position: relative; text-align: right; text-transform: uppercase;">
<a href="http://mindandphilosophy.blogspot.com/2012/07/defining-free-will-schopenhauer-and.html" style="background-color: white; font-weight: normal; text-align: justify; text-transform: none;"><span style="color: #990000; font-size: small;">Defining free will</span></a></h2>
<h2 class="title" style="font-size: 13px; margin: 0.5em 0px; position: relative; text-align: right; text-transform: uppercase;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #990000; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif;"><br /></span></h2>
</div>
<div class="widget Poll" id="Poll1">
<h2 class="title">
</h2>
<h2 class="title" style="color: #828282; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin: 0.5em 0px; position: relative; text-transform: uppercase;">
Do you think you have free will?</h2>
<div class="widget-content" id="widget-content">
<iframe allowtransparency="true" frameborder="0" height="160" name="poll-widget-399273453786647488" src="http://www.google.com/reviews/polls/display/-399273453786647488/blogger_template/run_app?txtclr=%23000000&lnkclr=%238a2e2e&chrtclr=%238a2e2e&font=normal+normal+15px+Arial,+Tahoma,+Helvetica,+FreeSans,+sans-serif&hideq=true&purl=http://mindandphilosophy.blogspot.com/" style="border: none; width: 100%;"></iframe></div>
</div>Mind And Philosophyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14462172256350231136noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6790311037663429554.post-41107676401297373322012-07-18T07:49:00.001+02:002012-07-18T18:39:37.097+02:00Property dualism: physicalism in disguise?<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi27VdhXty7QHON_dMDpPTxyPO6UYnBdwBygAnTA9L9BG5YbaKNCvOnPdCCfv4njZcL2H56O8BBBwMDTDtgjZNjZczBZ1Z7q_x1N581wyoeyvzdoEez61oIS2LyJu1iFKwNvAQ2QcjoOl0Y/s1600/Property+dualism.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="179" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi27VdhXty7QHON_dMDpPTxyPO6UYnBdwBygAnTA9L9BG5YbaKNCvOnPdCCfv4njZcL2H56O8BBBwMDTDtgjZNjZczBZ1Z7q_x1N581wyoeyvzdoEez61oIS2LyJu1iFKwNvAQ2QcjoOl0Y/s320/Property+dualism.png" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Property dualism scheme</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Do you think
it is possible to combine the physicalism (materialism) with the substance
dualism? (If you don’t know the differences between these two check out <a href="http://www.mindandphilosophy.blogspot.com/2012/07/physical-monism-vs-substance-dualism.html">the previous post</a>.) For centuries people
have tried to find common aspects of completely different ideas, theories etc.
(what’s interesting is that this is actually how some religions were established).
Philosophers have also tried to find something in common as far as the substance
dualism and physical monism are concerned. One of the possible outcomes is the <b>property dualism</b>.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family: inherit;">What is
exactly the property dualism? As in the case of physicalism it states that
there is only <b>one entity</b> (physical). It also states that the physical entity has <b>two properties</b> – mental and physical;
so don’t let yourself be fooled by the word “dualism”. In fact, the “dualism”
does not refer to the substance dualism but to the <b>dualism of the physical substance</b>. I believe this view is even
closer to the monism than to the dualism. Why do I think so?<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family: inherit;"></span></span><br />
<a name='more'></a><span lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Let’s come
back to the physicalism. A physicalist doesn’t believe in the existence of
mental substance. Therefore he tries to explain mental phenomena by referring
to the physical processes which take place in the body. It can explain a wide
range of “mental” states, such as love, sadness, envy and so on. Therefore the
substances which are regarded as non-physical by a dualist are considered to be
corporal from the physical monist’s point of view. What’s the conclusion? The
conclusion is that for philosophers in general (regardless of the theory they
follow) the distinction between what is physical and what is not, isn’t clear
and there is (and probably will be) no consensus in this matter.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Both a property
dualist and a physical monist reject the existence of any mental substance – the only difference between them is that a property
dualist acknowledges the existence of mental <b>property</b> whereas a physical monist rejects this possibility as
well. Doesn’t it remind you of the problem with the self contradictory definition
of substances (we dealt with it in the post “<a href="http://www.mindandphilosophy.blogspot.com/2012/07/physical-monism-vs-substance-dualism.html">Physical monism vs. substance dualism</a></span></span><span style="background-color: white;">”</span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: inherit;">)? If, according to a property dualist, there is no mind and no mental
substance how can he define a </span><b style="background-color: white; font-family: inherit;">mental
property</b><span style="background-color: white; font-family: inherit;">? The adjective “mental” was brought to England from France; French
</span><i style="background-color: white; font-family: inherit;">mental</i><span style="background-color: white; font-family: inherit;"> comes from Latin </span><i style="background-color: white; font-family: inherit;">mentalis</i><span style="background-color: white; font-family: inherit;"> which is derived from a Latin
noun </span><i style="background-color: white; font-family: inherit;">mens</i><span style="background-color: white; font-family: inherit;"> which simply means “mind”.
Since the property dualism states that there is no such thing as “mind” there
is </span><b style="background-color: white; font-family: inherit;">no ground</b><span style="background-color: white; font-family: inherit;"> for forming a term
“mental”. But if the term is already coined, having in mind that property
dualists do not believe in a mental substance and attribute it to the body,
what is in fact the meaning of the term “mental property”? Either it means
nothing or it actually refers to what is regarded by substance dualists as
mental but is seen as corporal by those who reject the idea of mental and
non-physical property – and "those" include not only physicalists but also
property dualists.</span></div>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhPiKDplWBKACwdcQFhC4Bv9e319vnYHlWzQ49ZlkS0y9YLt7jeyEj7pDnPhE7U0DWNsFQXp6xXFnYujx3FzTBGxG_hgIga7a6Ln4tjYGMue37LZAGkXdQXIgUeypEeVxchjC2Hf628fS03/s1600/Property+dualism+revealed.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="179" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhPiKDplWBKACwdcQFhC4Bv9e319vnYHlWzQ49ZlkS0y9YLt7jeyEj7pDnPhE7U0DWNsFQXp6xXFnYujx3FzTBGxG_hgIga7a6Ln4tjYGMue37LZAGkXdQXIgUeypEeVxchjC2Hf628fS03/s320/Property+dualism+revealed.png" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Does "mental" equal "physical"?</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family: inherit;">What do we
end up with? With a theory which rejects the existence of a mental entity
but sees the mind’s properties within a
physical substance and yet claims that the mind as it is seen by substance
dualists is actually the part of the body. What is then the difference between
the mental and physical properties if mind is physical as well? Isn’t the
property dualism a <b>physicalism in
disguise</b>? What do you think?</span><b style="font-family: 'Book Antiqua', serif;"><o:p></o:p></b></span></div>Mind And Philosophyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14462172256350231136noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6790311037663429554.post-83207053837423394382012-07-17T13:29:00.000+02:002013-06-02T12:47:14.422+02:00Physical monism vs. substance dualism - arguments<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: inherit; text-align: justify;">In the last
post we’ve been dealing generally with the differences between the two major
schools which are <a href="http://mindandphilosophy.blogspot.com/2012/07/descartes-dualism-and-monism.html" target="_blank">monism and dualism</a>. It’s time we take a closer look to one of
the most popular branches of the dualism – </span><b style="background-color: white; font-family: inherit; text-align: justify;">substance
dualism</b><span style="background-color: white; font-family: inherit; text-align: justify;">. It states that there are two completely different substances (entities)
– mental and material. This used to be one of the most popular theories in the
times of Descartes – nowadays, however, as the science progresses it seems that it's becoming
more and more difficult to defend such a controversial view. Why is it so?</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: inherit; text-align: justify;"></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: inherit; text-align: justify;"></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; text-align: justify;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEidw4uVyeSPvugjDcKz5oQ_PWBmAZUT9erp5YZQrsBDPgImvzA5qdiXTXIbJAla8WPLZV7SdkhE0HWxc_eq9BgCT05vlRa0qKplZAZUsigul-zkw9U5iP8xLginPBSQcMmaFnvB2QFNwhzV/s1600/Perception+of+world.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="181" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEidw4uVyeSPvugjDcKz5oQ_PWBmAZUT9erp5YZQrsBDPgImvzA5qdiXTXIbJAla8WPLZV7SdkhE0HWxc_eq9BgCT05vlRa0qKplZAZUsigul-zkw9U5iP8xLginPBSQcMmaFnvB2QFNwhzV/s320/Perception+of+world.png" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Perception of world by substance dualists</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family: inherit;">To my mind,
the biggest problem in understanding the concept of the theory is the
definition of substances which turns out to be quite misleading. While we’re
usually sure what the physical substance is, many of us get lost when it comes
to explaining the non-physical entity. The word “substance” means that
something <b>must</b> be physical, whereas
substance dualists argue that the world we live in consists of physical
substance (which could be actually regarded as a pleonasm) and non-physical
substance (which seems to be a paradox). Such a great confusion in the very
definition of the philosophical theory may cause the whole theory to be unclear
and tricky. Some dualists compare non-physical substance to wind, music, or
energy; however, these comparisons are the source of even greater confusion.
All of these examples are strictly physical – wind and music consist of waves
which can be heard, felt, and with the use of scientific apparatus you’re even
able to see them. Personally, I believe that a much better term would be simply
a <b>form</b>, which does not suggest that
it needs to be physical.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family: inherit;"></span></span><br />
<a name='more'></a><span lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Physical monists
argue that substance dualists actually confuse physical and non-physical substances
(entities, forms, or whatever you want to call them) with the <b>point of view</b>. While reading this blog,
you’re probably sitting on the chair (or lying in the bed) – if you’re a
healthy person you will, sooner or later, stand up. You’ll <b>think</b> that you want to stand up, you’ll <b>make your decision</b>, and as you’ll be standing up, you’ll <b>feel</b> how it is like to stand up. That’s
at least your perspective. Now imagine you’re a scientist with all the advanced
apparatus which enables you to see the inside of a body. What would you
observe? You would probably see that there is a <b>brain activity</b> in the part of the brain which is responsible for
decision making. Then you would observe a <b>nerve
activity</b>, and subsequently a <b>muscle
activity</b> causing the reader of this blog to stand up. You as a scientist
would not be able to observe the feeling of how it is like to stand up, and you
would not be able to observe the cause of such a brain activity. But does it
really mean that if these aspects of standing up can’t be observed they don’t
exist? This is a monist point of view; I think that since, according to the
substance dualism, world is built of physical and non-physical entities there
is in fact no way of <b>directly observing</b>
the non-physical entities. They are <b>manifested</b>
in physical entities but as such can’t
be observed. I believe that this is why one’s personality often changes when
the brain is damaged. Non-physical part of your body <b>cannot manifest</b> through the damaged physical body. It doesn’t mean,
however, that a damaged body kills the non-physical entity.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;">
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjJwtyLWp2kJTe7bRO2gVbOgCkD04Cbai8h2Tc8PFSBtTuuphbfw7yMdIHPWvFtBm_GDjSKTadY1VDG8ve1UYLezG08YpXYU2CL95qndPfjPysehIIfwxeXuH0ENSLo5Ni_RblLQnBren9Z/s1600/Physical+monism+vs+substance+dualism.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: justify;"><img border="0" height="222" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjJwtyLWp2kJTe7bRO2gVbOgCkD04Cbai8h2Tc8PFSBtTuuphbfw7yMdIHPWvFtBm_GDjSKTadY1VDG8ve1UYLezG08YpXYU2CL95qndPfjPysehIIfwxeXuH0ENSLo5Ni_RblLQnBren9Z/s320/Physical+monism+vs+substance+dualism.png" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Brief summary of arguments</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<span lang="EN-GB"></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: inherit;">If the
non-physical part of the body can’t be observed directly how can it be observed
at all? The only possible way of proving the existence of the non-physical
entity is to show the independence of the two body parts. I think that the only
way to show this independence is to find a situation in which mind exists independently
</span><b style="background-color: white; font-family: inherit;">outside</b><span style="background-color: white; font-family: inherit;"> the body. Obviously, there
are not many opportunities (if any) to prove the mind-body independence. Maybe
with one exception only – death and near-death experiences. There are numerous
cases of patients who were clinically dead; and despite being clinically dead
they were able to hear and see outside their bodies (this is called an out-of-body-experience - OBE). Many patients who were successfully brought back to
life were able to precisely describe what doctors did, said, and so on (one of
the well known cases is the one of Pam Reynolds who precisely described the
drill which the doctor used to open her skull even though she hadn’t seen it
before). If you’re interested in death and near-death experiences I recommend
you a wonderful book I read many years ago – “Back and Beyond” by R. Wilkerson.
From these near-death experiences you can deduce that there are both physical
and non-physical side of the human being and that the latter can exist without
its physical part. I think these experiences can’t be explained by
hallucinations if they actually reflect the reality (as in the case of the
drill seen by Pam Reynolds).</span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="float:left">
<script type="text/javascript"><!--
google_ad_client = "ca-pub-8805053284597012";
/* mindandphilosophy_sidebar-right-1_AdSense7_250x250_as */
google_ad_slot = "3768595345";
google_ad_width = 250;
google_ad_height = 250;
//-->
</script>
<script type="text/javascript"
src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js">
</script>
</div>
<span lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family: inherit;">I believe
that there are some flaws in the substance dualism (the main one is the
definition of substances) but all in all science (especially near-death experiences) can help
to prove the theory right. The biggest mistake of many monists is that they in
fact want a <b>physical proof</b> <b>for</b> <b>non-physical substance</b> which is as self-contradictory as the
misleading use of the word substance in the substance dualism theory (this type of misleading use of words is called <a href="http://mindandphilosophy.blogspot.com/2013/05/logical-fallacies-classification-formal.html" target="_blank">equivocation</a>). That’s
how I see it – I’d love to hear your opinions and arguments too, so please do take
time to <b>leave a comment</b>!</span><span style="font-family: 'Book Antiqua', serif;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>Mind And Philosophyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14462172256350231136noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6790311037663429554.post-22705486632862594492012-07-16T22:13:00.002+02:002013-05-24T00:19:46.141+02:00Descartes, dualism and monism<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Let’s assume
that both you and me do have minds; I guess it would be way easier to think this
post over if you had some free mind to use. Otherwise the idea of thought without
a mind might get a little bit tricky – but as you’re about to see, thought <b>could</b> exist without a mind. Anyway, before
I become completely incomprehensible let’s start on with our bodies.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEijv3KMfz-OV6yQ4OYsDv-Rz4osWH2Vri88-4PWHolh9WTvEo_6U7oDH79nxaP3g7KZJy2eKoIA2j7Ud6ZKb-C1CqmaYp_4XmQcq7YiQdawqtJ3StU-whaCz41Hdv5v930WjxFNR_vC11yT/s1600/Descartes.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEijv3KMfz-OV6yQ4OYsDv-Rz4osWH2Vri88-4PWHolh9WTvEo_6U7oDH79nxaP3g7KZJy2eKoIA2j7Ud6ZKb-C1CqmaYp_4XmQcq7YiQdawqtJ3StU-whaCz41Hdv5v930WjxFNR_vC11yT/s320/Descartes.jpg" width="188" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Re<span style="font-family: inherit;">n<span style="line-height: 19px; text-align: -webkit-auto;">é Descartes<br /><i>(1596-1650)</i></span></span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<span lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family: inherit;">You probably do not have to think much to say what your
body really is. You know that you’ve just used a hand to open this blog and you’ll
probably use it again to scroll this blog for other posts or maybe to close this
window (but please don’t do it now). You know your body is something physical –
you can touch it, you can see it, sometimes you can even smell it, and if you
were desperate enough you could try to taste it. However the problem of what
exactly made you open this blog, read it, and finally close it is more complex. I
guess most people, probably including you as well, would say that they did so
because they <b>wanted</b> to. They <b>thought</b> that this blog would be
interesting to read so they gave it a try. You may therefore argue that because
you are able to think you have also your own <b>mind</b>. That would mean that everyone of us has the mind <b>and</b> the body. In the philosophy of mind
this view is called <b>dualism</b>. It
means that the body and the mind (not to be confused with the brain which is a
part of the body!) are not the same and that mind is not something physical
thus it can’t be neither touched nor seen (and you can’t taste it either). One
of the most famous philosophers who believed in dualism and who is often regarded as the father of this mind-body problem is a French philosopher René
Descartes (he was the first philosopher whose works I began to read, and if you
still haven’t read any of his texts, I really recommend that you start with “Discourse
on the Method” – you can easily find it on the Internet).</span></span><br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<div style="float:right">
<script type="text/javascript"><!--
google_ad_client = "ca-pub-8805053284597012";
/* mindandphilosophy_sidebar-right-1_AdSense7_250x250_as */
google_ad_slot = "3768595345";
google_ad_width = 250;
google_ad_height = 250;
//-->
</script>
<script type="text/javascript"
src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js">
</script>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Other philosophers,
however, argue that the mind and the body <b>are</b>
actually identical. Personally, I don’t agree with them but you’re free to
choose which theory you find to be the right one. The theory I’m talking about
is called <b>monism</b>. As you probably
might have guessed, apart from the view that the body and the mind are real
there are also two other theories: <b>physicalism
</b>stating that only body is real and <b>idealism</b>
whose supporters maintain that the reality we can now is mental in its nature.
A physicalist would argue that seeing your own body has nothing to do with your
mind. He would explain that this is strictly a physical process which involves
the light, your retina, nerves and finally your brain which creates the image
of your body. You may think “All right, I could believe that seeing is – at least
to some extent – a physical process (a blind dualist would not be able to see
his body!) but what about the feelings? Love, sadness, happiness? They are mental
states!”. A physicalist is prepared and would answer that this is all about the
hormones, for instance endorphins make you happy. There are also idealists who
believe that the nature of the reality is mental – however weird may it sound
it is quite an interesting theory to study (even though I’m not an idealist).
Most idealists admit that the thinking process cannot exist without a thinker,
what makes their theory different from the physicalism is that the source of
thought is not a body. Thinking depends entirely on the mind and not on the
brain. Some idealists claim that the physical reality is no more than an illusion
of the mind. It is as difficult to argue with this view as it is in the case of
physicalism. One cannot prove that the physical process is not a mental state
nor that a mental process is not a physical process. I believe this is a vicious
circle and the number of counterarguments is practically infinite. <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family: inherit;">So to sum up
– the two major theories in the philosophy of mind are dualism (mind and body)
and monism (mind or body). It is up to you which theory you will choose – and
to be honest, probably nobody will be able to prove you’re wrong. I think it’s
all about what you <b>feel</b> is right…
oops, physicalists don’t feel – my bad! <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: 'Book Antiqua', serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<h2 class="title">
What is a theory that you believe in?</h2>
<div class="widget-content" id="widget-content">
<iframe allowtransparency="true" frameborder="0" height="180" name="poll-widget2290806097711532484" src="http://www.google.com/reviews/polls/display/2290806097711532484/blogger_template/run_app?txtclr=%23000000&lnkclr=%238a2e2e&chrtclr=%238a2e2e&font=normal+normal+15px+Arial,+Tahoma,+Helvetica,+FreeSans,+sans-serif&hideq=true&purl=http://mindandphilosophy.blogspot.com/" style="border: none; width: 100%;"></iframe></div>Mind And Philosophyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14462172256350231136noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6790311037663429554.post-45462737667387465302012-07-16T15:02:00.000+02:002012-07-16T15:02:11.724+02:00Welcome!<h2 style="text-align: center;">
<b>Welcome to my blog!</b></h2>
<br />
Since I've been interested in the philosphy of mind for some time already, I decided a few days ago that I should finally find a way to share my views on the subject - so here I am! I will try to write as much as I know and do my best to encourage you to develop your own ideas, recommend some interesting books, movies etc. I'll explain different theories of mind, show how they differ, what their flaws are...<br />
<br />
In the next post I'll explain you the very basics of the philosophy of mind and write a short introduction to the mind-body problem... You'll see how the mind influences the body (and vice versa), <b>assuming</b> that you have your own mind at all - practically nothing is certain when it comes to philosophy!<br />
<br />
I hope you'll enjoy the blog and I'd love to hear from you too!Mind And Philosophyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14462172256350231136noreply@blogger.com0