The Mind/Body Problem

[crimsonfloyd]

This seems to be one of the oldest and most important questions in philosophy, for it seems that the way one defines their relationship between the mind/body tends to have a major impact on the ethical path they choose to take and the wolrdview they develop. What are your views on the relationship between the mind and body? Is it possible to escape skeptical questions concerning knowledge of anything "real" outside of ones mind, or are we trapped in idealism?

Personally I feel inclined towards a panpsychist view concerning the mind, that is the view that conciousness is present at the most fundumental level of all material, for several reasons. First of all there seems to be very little reason to appeal to a literal seperation between the body and the mind, for the coroloation between physical and mental processes are extremely strong (ie fuck up the portion of the brain related to long term memory and mental processes concering long term memory will no longer occur properly). The problem for such materilaist stances is when 1) conciousness is when brought into the picture and 2) when skepiticism is brought into the picture. Concerning the first issue, materialist views have problems explaining conciousness, and while one can argue that this is due to linguistic constraints, it doesn't leave the materialist with a strong case. Concerning the second problem, the materialist has no response to the skepic. How do we know that the material even exists? How do we know everything isn't in our heads? I have yet to see a strong materialist response to this problem other then appeals to intuition, which really isn't that strong. Alas panpsychism can solve both of these problems. The first issue is solved, as conciousness is inherent to all material and therefore is inherent to any discussion of the materialistic. The second issue is solved as one can claim thus: an induviudal is not merely a completley seperate subject from the rest of the world but rather a point within a matrix, and as such the subject has both the ability to understand conciousness within the context of the point and within the context of the matrix (ie what it is like to be "you" and what it is like to be part of existance). Obviously the conciousness of the entire matrix and the point within the matrix are very different types of conciousness but niether one is any more "real" then the other, and if one can recognize both, then there is no reason to be skepitic, idealistic or any other such nonesense.

Obviously this theory could have major moral and metaphysical implications, although these are issues I am still personally hashing out. However I would be interested in others oppinions on either the panpsychist solution to the mind/body problem, its moral implications or other general oppions on the relationship between mind/body etc.

 

[Øjeblikket]

consider there is more in being for doing and being by not doing, sir.

 

[Alwin]

an interesting read on a new metaphysics which "solves" the mind-body problem amongst others, and implies a new moral order is:

Robert M. Pirsig - Lila, an inquiry into morals

 

[Korona]

(...The entire post...)

Um well I am in the middle of writing an essay on just this problem which is kinda funny, I should be writing it now but I am procrastinating instead .

Basically the mind/body problem crystalises in Descartes medications. Descartes is the arch dualist. Heck dualism is also called Cartesianism after him. Its also the source of most the problems in the world today, so he has a lot to answer for. A heck of a lot of my degree has been spent unpicking the damage that this little book has caused!

I think you have misunderstood the force of the dualist arguement. Its pretty compelling, and I'm unconvinced that the panpsychic view you outlined really deals with the problem adequatly. Even taking a very favourable view to it I think we still have a kind of substance dualism, where "consciousness" is seen as a property belonging to matter, but isn't explicable by looking at the smallest subatomic particals. It isn't really in the matter, it is alongside it and it is totally unexplained just what this 'conscoiusness' is supposed to be! It also sounds suspicously like a kind of "well its all magic anyway" so I am skeptical myself. (Descartes says something simmilar, the mind world problem is shot through with the problem of explaining just what consciousness is supposed to be, so I dont think its your fault )
However I think Descartes would get you anyway, because his arguement runs along the lines of :
"the world is the sum total of sense impressions, and mental impressions"
"I could be being decieved about my sense data and also my thoughts could be being manipulated by an evil demon, you cant say for sure that they aren't"

• therefore we cant have complete faith in the world
• therefore if we want a list of what is certain the world wont be on it
• all we can be sure of is that we are thinking (being decieved) and the act of thinking alone confirms that we are res cogitans (thinking things)
• therefore the world and the mind are seperate types of things, one is the kind of thing you can be sure of, the other is the kind of thing you can be decieved about

Its pretty compelling, and so long as you believe that we are inherantly observers, moving through and experiencing a world that can in principal be detached from us, so we can say "unplug" ourselves from our senses and mental activity, and still exist as pure thinkers, then mind/world dualism will still exist.

At this point we wheel out Heidegger, the godfather of Phenomenology, and the guy people like Satre and so on ripped off blind. (noone cared because they thought Heidegger was a Nazi and Satre was considered 'really cool')

His point is pretty good. Basically (if you can get your head around the weird language he uses) he says that our fundamental being is of being-in-the-world. We can't seperate ourselves from the world like Descartes wants to do. If you take away the world you loose a means of defining and describing things. If you postulate a detached consciousness then you loose the ability to say what kind of thing it is you have. You can't describe something without a frame of referance. "The view from nowhere" just does not exist!

Therefore so long as we want to talk about things, they have to be things in a world. So long as we are beings whose being has some kind of form then we exist in-the-world. The kind of scepticism that leads to the mind world dualism doesn't get off the ground. Its confused, its dangerous, its downright stupid. Sadly Descartes thinking is everywhere. I dont know anyone who isnt a Cartesian at heart. Even science seems dependant on it.

Descartes is famous for the phrase "I think therefore I am". Basically this is only half the story. To be really complete we should say "I think therefore I am, and so is the world by which my thinking is given definition and on which it is logically dependany". not so catchy but oh well

Bit long, hopefully it was at least clear enough to follow what I am saying..!

edit: I don't think the Pring book sounds too good, its meant to be a hashing together of Hinduism with some other "revalations". I would be worried about getting these ideas second hand, and diluted through a novel because at best have a lot that is 'lost in translation'. At worst it will be downright misleading. There are plenty of good books on Eastern philosophy/religion (there is no distinction really). I'd go for one of those

 

[ARC150]

This is definitely an interesting topic, but a response here is proving difficult - the posts by crimsonfloyd and Korona are, to my mind, somewhat difficult to follow; the former seems a bit disconnected in its premises and conclusions, the latter seems a bit misconstructed; and though the latter is a response to the former, I am not certain that they are actually discussing the same ideas. I say all this, not by way of criticism, but just to note that I am unclear as to some of the points being made. To that end, I have some questions/comments of what has thus far been written - and I apologize for the following, laborious format:

crimsonfloyd
This seems to be one of the oldest and most important questions in philosophy, for it seems that the way one defines their relationship between the mind/body tends to have a major impact on the ethical path they choose to take and the wolrdview they develop.

--Point in fact, this idea is relatively new, considering that it was only first put forth by Descartes in the 19th century - I mention this because it ranks the idea as much more recent than the question of ethics, and I am unsure
as to the relation of one on the other. Would you clarify the impact of
mind/body dualism on ethics?

crimsonfloyd
...there seems to be very little reason to appeal to a literal seperation between the body and the mind, for the coroloation between physical and mental processes are extremely strong (ie fuck up the portion of the brain related to long term memory and mental processes concering long term memory will no longer occur properly).

--To my mind, this does not address the idea of Mind/Body Dualism (MBD). The question is not one of causality, but of inherent nature. There is no debate over the idea that the brain is the organ of thought; the question is in what is thought.

-I am standing in Chicago and think of a widget for the first time.
-I leave Chicago
-Is the thought of the widget left in Chicago?
-No
-Then where is it?

This seems a bit pedantic, but it relates to the next argument/query:
-I think I see a sheep in the distance, but it is actually a white boulder.
-Did I see a sheep or a boulder?
-I did not see a sheep, for there is not one there
-I did not see a boulder, for a boulder would look to me like a boulder, not a sheep
-What did I perceive?
--I perceived a bit of sense-data; I perceived my thought related to, but separate from the object in question.

Korona
Descartes medications

--I know this is a typo, but I got a really good laugh over the unintentional humor nonetheless. Sorry, just had to mention it...

Korona
I think you have misunderstood the force of the dualist arguement. Its pretty compelling, and I'm unconvinced that the panpsychic view you outlined really deals with the problem adequatly. Even taking a very favourable view to it I think we still have a kind of substance dualism, where "consciousness" is seen as a property belonging to matter, but isn't explicable by looking at the smallest subatomic particals.

--In lieu of going into all the details, I will simply suggest that you take note of the fact that there are multiple definitions of MBD - I don't mean varied opinions on a particular matter, but different topics altogether (e.g. Epistemological, Metaphysical and Religious Dualism).

*As a side note:
-I caution you against the web reference that you provide for Descartes's Meditations (both the english translation and the provided "original Latin"). If this is simply a link that you are providing for easy reference within this post, no problem; but if this is the translation you are using for analysis, it is probably not the way to go. The work is not the accepted translation of Descartes - and I don't think it is a particularly good one anyway. Furthermore, the Latin translation is also poor-to-grossly-inaccurate.
-Last (and I mention this less for its relevance - though it is relevant - and more for my own particular misgivings with the point), "I think, therefore I am" is, in Latin "cogito ergo sum." Descartes own transcription reads "cogito sum" - I think. I am. The aforementioned phrase presupposes a causal link between thought and existence; the latter states the two ideas as independent but immediately recognizable truths. Again, this is relevant, but I have already rambled too much to go into explanation of this...

 

[speed]

Descartes lived in the 16-17th centuries, not the 19th.

Sorry Crimson FLoyd, but I too found your original post cryptic and poorly written.

Pardon my liberal use of wikipedia, but I think the following clears up alot of the problems here:

To further demonstrate the limitations of the senses, Descartes proceeds with what is known as the Wax Argument. He considers a piece of wax: his senses inform him that it has certain characteristics, such as shape, texture, size, color, smell, and so forth. However, when he brings the wax towards a flame, these characteristics change completely. However, it seems that it is still the same thing: it is still a piece of wax, even though the data of the senses inform him that all of its characteristics are different. Therefore, in order to properly grasp the nature of the wax, he cannot use the senses: he must use his mind. Descartes concludes:

"Thus what I thought I had seen with my eyes, I actually grasped solely with the faculty of judgment, which is in my mind."

In this manner, Descartes proceeds to construct a system of knowledge, discarding perception as unreliable and instead admitting only deduction as a method. Halfway through the Meditations, he also claims to prove the existence of a benevolent God, who, being benevolent, has provided him with a working mind and sensory system, and who cannot desire to deceive him, and thus, finally, he establishes the possibility of acquiring knowledge about the world based on deduction and perception.


I do find it interesting that Descartes believed some were born with innate ideas and knowledge, irrespective of training or learning.

 

[Freanan]

I think it makes most sense to assume that mind is a state that is taken or a process that is executed by physical things in our body.
After all much of this has already been scientifically shown.
So it seems to be true or very believable that from all we can judge by observing the physical world, including ourselves, that mind is something our neurons and hormons are doing (because physical laws make them do it).

On the other hand we have no method to find out wether the physical world, including ourselves, actually "exists", or if it is just some simulation, dream, whatever.
But the answer to the question if this outer real reality exists, has no actual consequences in the physical world, which is all we can perceive. If i see my computer because it exists or because i dream it has no consequences, as my whole life happens in the dream.

So in the only reality that exists for us, it is rather believable that mind is something that is done by physical matter IMO...

 

[Vital Remains]

I didnt start thinking about this kind of thing untill about six years ago and it still freaks me out. it makes me think "whats the point in living? I dont even know what my purpose is." I guess its all just part of the machine. Everything happens for a reason.

 

[ARC150]

Descartes lived in the 16-17th centuries, not the 19th.

Thanks for the correction - I don't know why I wrote "19th" - the argument is still valid though, given that ethics predates Descartes by millenia.

Descartes proceeds to construct a system of knowledge, discarding perception as unreliable and instead admitting only deduction as a method. Halfway through the Meditations, he also claims to prove the existence of a benevolent God, who, being benevolent, has provided him with a working mind and sensory system, and who cannot desire to deceive him, and thus, finally, he establishes the possibility of acquiring knowledge about the world based on deduction and perception.

I do find it interesting that Descartes believed some were born with innate ideas and knowledge, irrespective of training or learning.

According to Descartes, it is not so much that we are born with innate ideas, but that certain ideas are inherently understood, recognizeable as truth (e.g. 1+1=2 is something immediately aprehended without other knowledge).

His recognition of the knowledge of God, however, seems flawed to me...to many, in fact - this is the infamous "Cartesian Circle" of which I imagine you are familiar...

 

[crimsonfloyd]

Basically the mind/body problem crystalises in Descartes medications. Descartes is the arch dualist. Heck dualism is also called Cartesianism after him. Its also the source of most the problems in the world today, so he has a lot to answer for. A heck of a lot of my degree has been spent unpicking the damage that this little book has caused!

I think you have misunderstood the force of the dualist arguement. Its pretty compelling, and I'm unconvinced that the panpsychic view you outlined really deals with the problem adequatly. Even taking a very favourable view to it I think we still have a kind of substance dualism, where "consciousness" is seen as a property belonging to matter, but isn't explicable by looking at the smallest subatomic particals. It isn't really in the matter, it is alongside it and it is totally unexplained just what this 'conscoiusness' is supposed to be! It also sounds suspicously like a kind of "well its all magic anyway" so I am skeptical myself. (Descartes says something simmilar, the mind world problem is shot through with the problem of explaining just what consciousness is supposed to be, so I dont think its your fault )
However I think Descartes would get you anyway, because his arguement runs along the lines of :
"the world is the sum total of sense impressions, and mental impressions"
"I could be being decieved about my sense data and also my thoughts could be being manipulated by an evil demon, you cant say for sure that they aren't"

• therefore we cant have complete faith in the world
• therefore if we want a list of what is certain the world wont be on it
• all we can be sure of is that we are thinking (being decieved) and the act of thinking alone confirms that we are res cogitans (thinking things)
• therefore the world and the mind are seperate types of things, one is the kind of thing you can be sure of, the other is the kind of thing you can be decieved about

Its pretty compelling, and so long as you believe that we are inherantly observers, moving through and experiencing a world that can in principal be detached from us, so we can say "unplug" ourselves from our senses and mental activity, and still exist as pure thinkers, then mind/world dualism will still exist.

Ok well first of all it doesn't seem like I explained my stance well enough, so let me try and express it more clearly: I am arguing panpsychism as a solution to idealism/skepticism, and an alternative to substance dualism and its offspring.

My argument basically goes as follows
1) We can only know something is real if we can prove it is more then appearence
2) For subject A to prove subject B is more then apperence subject A must prove that subject B has a subjective experience (there is something it is like to be subject B)
3) Subject A can only be sure of subjective states he can personally experience
4) The only way subject A can be sure subject B is real is if he shares a subjective state with subject B
5) If matter has a subjective state (there is something it is like to be matter) then all material subjects would share this subjective state
6) If there is a subjective state to matter we can know others are real

So what I am trying to say is that if we can show that there is something that it is like to be matter then we can 1) know other material subjects exist and 2) that we are sharing in the subjective experience of being matter with all matter. Therefore we cannot think of ourselves as "detached observers". This would not be a form of substance dualism because conciousness is NOT immaterial but rather is just as material as a quark or any other subatomic particle. One can argue that this is property dualism (all are one substance but some elements of that substance have additional properties) but there is no foundation for claiming substance dualism. It can either be argued that this property of conciousness is possible to be found via scientific research, but has not yet been found (or has not yet been recognized) or that one cannot find this property of conciousness through scientific methods because of science is objective. Because science is objective it must remove the subjective expierence. In this case how can one show panpsychism to be any more plausable then dualism or any of its offspring? I would argue through experiece. To try and explain subjective experiences (let alone the nature of all subjectivity) through objective terms seems futile, experiencing them first hand seems far more effective. This may be where my take on panpsychism gets accused of being "magical" but I personally dont see anything magical about appealing to subjective expeirence.

At this point we wheel out Heidegger, the godfather of Phenomenology, and the guy people like Satre and so on ripped off blind. (noone cared because they thought Heidegger was a Nazi and Satre was considered 'really cool')

His point is pretty good. Basically (if you can get your head around the weird language he uses) he says that our fundamental being is of being-in-the-world. We can't seperate ourselves from the world like Descartes wants to do. If you take away the world you loose a means of defining and describing things. If you postulate a detached consciousness then you loose the ability to say what kind of thing it is you have. You can't describe something without a frame of referance. "The view from nowhere" just does not exist!

Therefore so long as we want to talk about things, they have to be things in a world. So long as we are beings whose being has some kind of form then we exist in-the-world. The kind of scepticism that leads to the mind world dualism doesn't get off the ground. Its confused, its dangerous, its downright stupid. Sadly Descartes thinking is everywhere. I dont know anyone who isnt a Cartesian at heart. Even science seems dependant on it.

Well I haven't read Heidegger's work but it sounds very interesting. However from what you've put forth it is still possible that this "world" in which everything relates to one another still could be completely idealistic (all mental). We still have not been given a reason to believe anything else is real, all we have been shown is that whatever it is we see is related to one another. The idealist can simply re-contextualize to this framework. But then agian I haven't read his work, so I'm probably missing out on a lot...

 

[crimsonfloyd]

crimsonfloyd
This seems to be one of the oldest and most important questions in philosophy, for it seems that the way one defines their relationship between the mind/body tends to have a major impact on the ethical path they choose to take and the wolrdview they develop.

--Point in fact, this idea is relatively new, considering that it was only first put forth by Descartes in the 19th century - I mention this because it ranks the idea as much more recent than the question of ethics, and I am unsure
as to the relation of one on the other. Would you clarify the impact of
mind/body dualism on ethics?

Actually Epicurus fromed the classic argument against what would become Cartesian dualism thousands of years ago. Others spoke on the topic as well.

crimsonfloyd

...there seems to be very little reason to appeal to a literal seperation between the body and the mind, for the coroloation between physical and mental processes are extremely strong (ie fuck up the portion of the brain related to long term memory and mental processes concering long term memory will no longer occur properly).

--To my mind, this does not address the idea of Mind/Body Dualism (MBD). The question is not one of causality, but of inherent nature. There is no debate over the idea that the brain is the organ of thought; the question is in what is thought.

Yeah you're right, this isn't really relevent. This was a product of not going over my argument close enough (fortuntley I removed it from my final paper in Philosophy of Mind, hehe)

 

[Korona]

Well I haven't read Heidegger's work but it sounds very interesting. However from what you've put forth it is still possible that this "world" in which everything relates to one another still could be completely idealistic (all mental). We still have not been given a reason to believe anything else is real, all we have been shown is that whatever it is we see is related to one another. The idealist can simply re-contextualize to this framework. But then agian I haven't read his work, so I'm probably missing out on a lot...

I think the worry seems to be that there is a "possiblity" that the world is somehow unreal, or something. Be that through the evil machinations of an evil demon or whatever. The point that I want to get across is that while you can be sceptical about things IN the world, you can't be sceptical about the world in itself because of what such wholesale scepticism entails.
When you start to doubt that the world itself is unreal you loose your entire conceptual framework. That robs you of the ability to think or speak of anything at all. It's because of this that you have at least some kind of world just through virtue of the ability to speak and reason. A lot is perhaps uncertain but a certain type of scepticism just doesn't get off the ground because you cant be a self worrying about the existence of the world, when only a self in the world can even begin to worry about that kind of thing!

What kind of a world is this? Well it isnt the world of measurement, of science and physics. Rather it is the world of the everyday interactions we have with objects and each other. Without this we have no framework of sceticism to start worrying if the world really exists in the first place!

Is the world physical or mental? This type of worry only gets going when we take a up a detached view of the world. When we realise that we are fundamentally "IN" the world we can see that this kind of detached stance is an illusion we never really achieve. There is never a viewpoint that would let us genuinly doubt whether the world was mental or physical. It's just not a valid question because it involves too much scepticism about the type of things we need to ask the question in the first place.

 

[speed]

Actually Epicurus fromed the classic argument against what would become Cartesian dualism thousands of years ago. Others spoke on the topic as well.


Yeah you're right, this isn't really relevent. This was a product of not going over my argument close enough (fortuntley I removed it from my final paper in Philosophy of Mind, hehe)

Epicurus is the most maligned and neglected of philosophers. Its a shame the christians so mollified his name and burnt most of his works. He really did make some startling advances for the time in both philosophy and science. Personally, I think if I was to chose a philosophy to live by, his would be it.

 

[Crimson Velvet]

Don't we all really live by his philosophy, to a certain degree at least?

 

[Dushan S]

When something gets complicated, in real life that is usually because we are doing it wrong way, out of wrong premises, out of wrong concept what should happen.
But in philosophy, especially in the west, it is usual. Instead of addmiting that premises are wrong we are trying harder.

Mind body duality comes from the stronger identification with things we can hide than the body that cannot be hidden. Our inner world is what we are embracing, and body is often "there". Big role in this has christianity with his false and twisted interpretation of Christ teaching.(body as "bad" and devillish, and soul as "spiritual") It is harder but it is possible to have detached and objective view on our emotions and thoughts, for instance thru meditation process, or in some situation of stress, or during psychotheraphy. So everyone can have personal experience of loking at body AND thoughts AND emotions as something that is "over there". It is usual moment of recognizing that we are creating our thoughts and emotions, and that intellect and mind are tools we are using in the same way as it is with the body. This simple experience efectively and easy, ends whole mind-body duality. There is fact that we know world only thru very subjective experience, and the "real world" is actualy just a concept made in our mind out of signals given to us by our 5 senses. That experience is subjectively interpreted, and is different than "real world" of some other person. (if it wasn't like that, all people would have same opinions on most matters)
If there is a duality, it could be duality between Awareness that we are, that can be aware of its body as a vehicle, and its psychological end emotional apparatus that is also a vehicle in a different way. Between us and our tools. So what is this Awareness if it is not mind, intellect, emotions and body, is another question.
So even if I am kind of spoiling philosophical approach, I think it needs something about 3-4 times sitting and being calm and selfaware for 20 minutes or even less to have direct information about duality, and that makes all those books that took you hours and hours to read unnecessary. It makes a lot of people angry when I mention in conversations about "phylosophical questions" that to me, a most of the philosophers are plain retarded from the practical point of view. It is like writing books about cooking without ever cooking a meal, but based on logically thinking what intergrieds could come together with certain spices and then theoretically assuming that recipe will give something nice and tasty...or not. And then you call it science, and have generations of people that does not know a shit about cooking and eat food that tastes awful, but they are "great cooks", and this is called a "cooking science". I really understand why some simple folks can have a view at "intellectuals" as wackos that are talking nonsense.

On the other hand, this "scientific" philosophy has got so far in its evolution that I really don't think that anyone that is into it could easily admit it is a lot of rubbish and go more simple routes that actually give some results.

 

[Cythraul]

^ What the hell are you talking about?

 

[SPIDERMAN]

This post should have been the first one

When something gets complicated, in real life that is usually because we are doing it wrong way, out of wrong premises, out of wrong concept what should happen.
But in philosophy, especially in the west, it is usual. Instead of addmiting that premises are wrong we are trying harder.

Mind body duality comes from the stronger identification with things we can hide than the body that cannot be hidden. Our inner world is what we are embracing, and body is often "there". Big role in this has christianity with his false and twisted interpretation of Christ teaching.(body as "bad" and devillish, and soul as "spiritual") It is harder but it is possible to have detached and objective view on our emotions and thoughts, for instance thru meditation process, or in some situation of stress, or during psychotheraphy. So everyone can have personal experience of loking at body AND thoughts AND emotions as something that is "over there". It is usual moment of recognizing that we are creating our thoughts and emotions, and that intellect and mind are tools we are using in the same way as it is with the body. This simple experience efectively and easy, ends whole mind-body duality. There is fact that we know world only thru very subjective experience, and the "real world" is actualy just a concept made in our mind out of signals given to us by our 5 senses. That experience is subjectively interpreted, and is different than "real world" of some other person. (if it wasn't like that, all people would have same opinions on most matters)
If there is a duality, it could be duality between Awareness that we are, that can be aware of its body as a vehicle, and its psychological end emotional apparatus that is also a vehicle in a different way. Between us and our tools. So what is this Awareness if it is not mind, intellect, emotions and body, is another question.
So even if I am kind of spoiling philosophical approach, I think it needs something about 3-4 times sitting and being calm and selfaware for 20 minutes or even less to have direct information about duality, and that makes all those books that took you hours and hours to read unnecessary. It makes a lot of people angry when I mention in conversations about "phylosophical questions" that to me, a most of the philosophers are plain retarded from the practical point of view. It is like writing books about cooking without ever cooking a meal, but based on logically thinking what intergrieds could come together with certain spices and then theoretically assuming that recipe will give something nice and tasty...or not. And then you call it science, and have generations of people that does not know a shit about cooking and eat food that tastes awful, but they are "great cooks", and this is called a "cooking science". I really understand why some simple folks can have a view at "intellectuals" as wackos that are talking nonsense.

On the other hand, this "scientific" philosophy has got so far in its evolution that I really don't think that anyone that is into it could easily admit it is a lot of rubbish and go more simple routes that actually give some results.

 

[ARC150]

This post should have been the first one

No, it shouldn't - this is equivocation at its finest...has nothing whatsoever to do with the original topic.

Actually Epicurus fromed the classic argument against what would become Cartesian dualism thousands of years ago. Others spoke on the topic as well.

No. He didn't.

He speaks of Mind and Body, but defines them along the lines of Democritician Atomic Theory (read: Atoms and Void). He relegates the mind to the same basic structures, in and to themselves, as the body. This is diametrically opposed to Descartes's idea that the Mind is a unique entity as compared to the Body.

 

[ARC150]

Korona & crimsonfloyd: Would either of you mind posting a link to you papers?

 

[crimsonfloyd]

I think the worry seems to be that there is a "possiblity" that the world is somehow unreal, or something. Be that through the evil machinations of an evil demon or whatever. The point that I want to get across is that while you can be sceptical about things IN the world, you can't be sceptical about the world in itself because of what such wholesale scepticism entails.
When you start to doubt that the world itself is unreal you loose your entire conceptual framework. That robs you of the ability to think or speak of anything at all. It's because of this that you have at least some kind of world just through virtue of the ability to speak and reason. A lot is perhaps uncertain but a certain type of scepticism just doesn't get off the ground because you cant be a self worrying about the existence of the world, when only a self in the world can even begin to worry about that kind of thing!

What kind of a world is this? Well it isnt the world of measurement, of science and physics. Rather it is the world of the everyday interactions we have with objects and each other. Without this we have no framework of sceticism to start worrying if the world really exists in the first place!

Is the world physical or mental? This type of worry only gets going when we take a up a detached view of the world. When we realise that we are fundamentally "IN" the world we can see that this kind of detached stance is an illusion we never really achieve. There is never a viewpoint that would let us genuinly doubt whether the world was mental or physical. It's just not a valid question because it involves too much scepticism about the type of things we need to ask the question in the first place.

Yeah I talked to someone who was well read on Heidegger last night in regards to just this last night, it makes sense why this isn't really a concern for him...

ARC150, I have a copy of my paper that I can post but 1) its not the final draft which mysertiously disapeared and 2) its not regarding pansychism or dualism but rather Frank Jackson and Brian Loars' dialogue concerning the Knowledge argument, though some similar issues do arise...