If my memory serves me correctly, Descartes thought he proved the existence of the mind by using the method of hyperbolic doubt. He came to the famous conclusion “I think therefore I am.” I was wondering if you thought this was an adequate proof of dualism.
I am not sure if I believe in the existence of a mind or not. What are your answers to these problems.
Why is it that things that are physical can effect the mind? Take beer for example. Beer is a physical liquid that is able to effect our minds. How is this possible? The same goes for how the mind can effect the physical.
It also seems like the idea of a nonphysical cause contradicts the law of the conservation of mass-energy. Do you believe that the mind exists outside the physical world as Cartesian dualists do? If minds affected the physical world, they would have to change its energy level. But that’s impossible because the physical world is closed. No mass/energy can enter or leave it. So it seems like Cartesian minds can’t interact with the physical world.
Etymology is from which the definition of a word emerges, it does not dictate the definition of a word - the english language can create its own definitions. Hence, though you have shown whence the english language derives the word: “atheism”, you have not shown what the enlish word “atheism” actually means. Nor does the english definition of a word have to perfectly conform to what the etymology of the word would suggest its meaning to be; nevertheless, the english definition of any word can be found in a dictionary.
And, interestingly enough–what I posted is also the definition of the word “atheism”. That you wish to make it something else is your problem. Besides: the dictionary does agree with me by saying that atheism is the disbelief in god, and disbelief can have a passive and active voice. Passive voice is the widest possible, rather than the narrow use you wish it to solely be. IOW: disbelief passive voice = not believing, rather than believing in not.
Eric, I recommend picking up this book if you are interested in a monist/materialist theory of consciousness. It’s readable to the intelligent lay-person and will really change the way you think about self-identity.
When you are done with that one you can read the following
Cogito ergo sum has nothing to do with Cartesian dualism, nor does Cartesian doubt has much to do with a Cartesian dualism. While he does introduce the concept of Cartesian doubt in the same work he introduces his mind-body dualism proof (Meditationes de Prima Philosophia), the proof for mind-body dualism comes after Descartes attempts to regain knowledge of the world around him.
I do not see how because the mind can be affected by material objects that the only possible result is that the mind itself is material. As of now, all that the material sciences have been able to conclude is that there is a definite connection between the chemical state of the brain with an individual’s state of consciousness -it has not been able to prove more, and perhaps it is a subject that science will never be able to finally conclude. To jump from the physical can effect the mind to the belief that the mind is nothing but a cluster of molecules is a leap of faith, just as it is a leap of faith to believe that there is a non-material mind.
Let’s see if neuroscience can fully explain the mind via materialist causes then.
I would like to add that the belief that the mind should not be treated as its own substance whatsoever is a ridiculous claim for human logic, which is a property of the mind, dictates the logical constraints of human experience. The mind has its own reality simply because of the fact that we are viewing the world from the lens of our minds.
I follow the dictionary, what I wrote was verbatim from the Oxford: American, if you have a problem take it up with them.
Disbelief in God is the belief that God does not exist. It is simple language.
I do not believe that God exists = I believe that God does not exist.
Begging the question is all that we can do - until neuroscience reduces the mind to a material explanation. If you want to believe that there is nothing but the material world, then so be it.
Laminustacitus, do you accept that if a comprehensive materialist explanation for consciousness can be developed, that the reasonable position to take is that which requires the minimum number of assumptions? (IE, the version that does not introduce supernatural or spiritual entities)
edit: Are you arguing that to not believe in God is as great a leap of faith as that of believing in God? Granted, unjustified assumptions (in the logical sense) are necessary for any functioning person to make, but there is definitely a difference of degree.
I haven’t read much on Descartes in a long time, but I thought Cogito ergo sum has quite a bit to do with Cartesian dualism. As I understood it, Descartes thought the only thing he could know for certain is that he exists. Although he did not think he could be certain that he had a body. He thought it was possible to doubt he had a physical body, but not that he existed. This is because he believed you cannot be deceived of your own existence. So he concludes he must have a mind which is separate from the body. But again, it has been a long time since I read anything on Descartes, so please correct me if I am wrong.
Fair enough. But still, I just find it difficult to understand how something physical can affect something that is not physical.
I know there are difficulties that arise if we claim minds do not exist. But still, the idea of nonphysical cause seems to contradict the law of the conservation of energy. This seems like a pretty big problem for those who claim that the nonphysical mind can affect the physical world.
Occam’s Razor. If a theory of consciousness can be developed that explains all of our phenomenal experience by way of natural laws, and assuming you accept said laws of nature, it would be unreasonable to believe in a theory of consciousness that requires additional assumptions (IE Dualism).
It would be unreasonable to believe in dualism if neuroscience, and psychology prove that the mind can be reduced to material causes. But, until then, there is no reason to reject a belief in dualism on account of Occam’s razor, but it can be used to give strength to the materialist thesis.
However, Descartes, before introducing mind-body dualism in The Meditations, had already “solved” the problem of the existence of physical objects through the existence of a non-deceiving God. But, a less famous, and certainly fallacious proof of mind-body dualism in the sixth meditation is based upon the possibility of the mind being distinct from the body as being a trait that differentiates them through a chain of reasoning that relies on a pre-Leibniz principle of the indiscernibility of identicals.
An immaterial mind controlling the chemical processes of the brain would not contradict the law of the conservation of energy as long as those chemical processes do not violate the law.
Yes, I am that silly, and childish. Yes, I actually believe that if you are going to expect an ontological proof of the immaterial that you give an ontological proof of the material. So, refute idealism once, and for all. Prove to me that material objects do, in fact, exist. If you are nearly as intelligent as arrogant than this would be a simple task.
I don’t know if the indiscernibility of identicals argument is very good. Are you referring to the argument that says since bodies are divisible and minds are not, minds and bodies are not identical? Because I do not think the claim that minds aren’t divisible is true.
Since modern science takes the physical world to be a closed system, no nonphysical thing can affect it. If nonphysical minds affected the physical world in any way, they would also have to change its energy level. But again, this is impossible because the physical world is closed. No mass/energy can enter or leave it. So the immaterial mind would in fact contradict the law of the conservation of energy.