[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 33 KB, 450x631, Ren-Descartes-31-March-1596-11-February-1650-celebrities-who-died-young-32258090-450-631.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3503422 No.3503422 [Reply] [Original]

Someone explain to me how anyone could possibly believe in the dualism of body and mind.

>> No.3503426

A person could possibly believe in said dualism if they are taught that it exists and accept this tradition credulously.

>> No.3503428

my stomach has a brain that isn't me explain that

>> No.3503430

hwo can u not

there's the body here

and here's the mind

>> No.3503436

>>3503426
>and accept this tradition credulously.
But why would any logically person accept it? To believe in dualism is to imply that there's somehow a distinction between the functions of the mind and the body.

>> No.3503438

>>3503436
*logically thinking

>> No.3503440

If one accepts the notion of a soul or essence, then this can exist as an opposite of the material, that is, the body - it comes from the greeks and early Christianity...

>> No.3503453
File: 48 KB, 400x267, 1359584398002.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3503453

all daykart does is take a simple premise and go full-autism on it

>> No.3503454

>>3503436
The reason that some accept it, is that their logic dictates a satisfactory explanation of consciousness viz the physical and since there does not seem to be such an explanation they are either a) willing to dismiss the question as it is inessential or b)accept that there must be some aspect of consciousness which is not accountable for by physical science

>> No.3503465

>>3503440
But Descartes believing such a premise that is impossible to prove or disprove using the laws of the sciences he so strongly believed in doesn't make sense. His philosophical goal was to find irreducible truths to unite the sciences, correct? To find a means by which the validity of something can be measured.

If I'm not being an idiot here by reading into his writings incorrectly, how is it that he can believe in mind-body dualism?

>> No.3503471

Well you're analysing him from the modern world, which is mostly anglo-centric.

Most south-european philosophy will seem irrational to you coming from this advanced age. Indeed, european thought in general will seem poisonous.

I urge you to stop wasting your time on this dead empire and start reading some Rorty.

>> No.3503476

>>3503454
>b)accept that there must be some aspect of consciousness which is not accountable for by physical science

But wouldn't this drive a person to conclude that this unaccountability is simply due to how little we know about the natural world? Wouldn't this influence the person to more firmly believe in science?

>> No.3503483

>>3503471
>I urge you to stop wasting your time on this dead empire and start reading some Rorty.

I'm a novice when it comes to philosophy so I'm trying to build a base by reading the work of past philosophers first.

>> No.3503485
File: 100 KB, 720x480, shootout.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3503485

>>3503471
>start reading some Rorty
You got me partner...

>> No.3503487

>>3503476
You're not incorrect that such a response would be consistent, and yet evidently it is not the only possible response, and as to why someone would chose to abandon their hope in a "complete" physical science, one could postulate a large number of excuses, from psychoanalytic/biographical to socioeconomic--ultimately the assumption of rational thought will lead any observer of human conduct into endless joyless paradoxes

>> No.3503509

>>3503483
Well that would seem to be useful if you want to learn philosophical in the traditional manner. But in the modern anglo world it is probably more practical to just read the scholarly articles which come in common language and point out the stupidity of previous thoughts.

I recommend this website for instance:
http://plato.stanford.edu/

>> No.3503515

>>3503485
Whats wrong with Rorty?

>> No.3503520

>>3503487
>ultimately the assumption of rational thought will lead any observer of human conduct into endless joyless paradoxes

>there is no such thing as autistic people
You are naive.

>> No.3503523

>>3503520
What?

>> No.3503529

>>3503523
You assume all human beings ever have conducted themselves irrationally at one point.

>> No.3503531

>>3503509
Seriously. No need to torture yourself reading Descartes.

>> No.3503539

>>3503529
I'm not the guy that you were replying to, but what's wrong with that assumption?

>> No.3503540

>>3503529
I assume that rational thought is an epiphenomenon of (irrational) biology actually

>> No.3503555

>>3503539
It ignores the existence of autistic people.

>>3503540
Sure but "conducting" implies something pretty specific. OP is questioning why Descartes "conducted" himself irrationally not why he did anything irrational at all as a piece of biology.

>> No.3503559

>>3503555
>implying autists are rational
they are just subhuman

>> No.3503574

>>3503555
So are you implying that autistic people always act rationally?

>> No.3503589

>>3503559
no

>>3503574
yes

>> No.3503590

We really need a /phil/ board

>> No.3503595

>>3503590
Why? If you want pretentious teenager and humanities undergrads readings of philosophy you come to /lit/. If you want philosophical rigor you go to /sci/.

What exact needs would that board be fulfilling?

>> No.3503598

>>3503595
>If you want philosophical rigor you go to /sci/.
0/10, idiocy isn't trolling

>> No.3503606

>>3503595
It would be containment board to keep religion off of /sci/ and /x/, and to keep shit like this off of /lit/

>> No.3503611

>>3503598
Try and formulate a coherent objection to what I said or I will simply assume that /sci/ made fun of you for being out of your depth, or for following fashionable but firmly refuted schools.

>>3503606
>what is filtering?

>> No.3503612

>>3503606
/lit/ is what it is because of philosophy threads

>> No.3503629

>>3503611
>Try and formulate a coherent objection to what I said or I will simply assume that /sci/ made fun of you for being out of your depth, or for following fashionable but firmly refuted schools.
/sci/ can barely into science, I have no faith in that board whatsoever. But if you like it, power to you.

>> No.3503636

>>3503612
>/lit/ is what it is because of philosophy threads
And it is shit. The threads are repetitive as fuck and add nothing of value to the board

>>3503611
This is the sort of response I expect from /b/tards and tripfags.
>If you don't like it then ignore it!
I can use that same logic to justify furry porn, le /v/ ironic shitposting XDDD and gore spam.

>> No.3503657

>>3503636
>I can use that same logic to justify furry porn, le /v/ ironic shitposting XDDD and gore spam.
Then do it, or move to leddit where you can have the sort of moderation you want.

>> No.3503660
File: 86 KB, 600x586, AREIZOO II.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3503660

>>3503422

"BELIEF" IN THE OBVIOUS DIFFERENCES BETWEEN BODY, AND MIND IS IRRELEVANT. IT WOULD BE LIKE CLAIMING THAT ONE "BELIEVES" IN SCIENCE.

BODY, AND MIND ARE DIFFERENT ASPECTS OF THE HUMAN ORGANISM, THAT IS A FACT.

YOU ARE IGNORANT, AND CONFUSED.

>> No.3503678

>>3503657
Fuck you. 4chan was never unmoderated or a free-for-all. Don't assume that all boards are /b/.
Repetitive and shitty off topic threads only the bring the board down. You might have low standards for the community but that doesn't mean everybody else does.
Why are you opposed to a /phil/ board?

>> No.3503691

>>3503678
>Fuck you. 4chan was never unmoderated or a free-for-all.
Strawman.

>Repetitive and shitty off topic threads only the bring the board down
That's your problem for not being an elitist enough community in the first place.

>Why are you opposed to a /phil/ board?
Because you've yet to demonstrate the demand for one, that isn't already satisfied by either /lit/ or /sci/.

>> No.3503743

I guess it's cause hard to like... understand how consciousness could arise, given the known laws of physics.

>> No.3503771

>>3503555
>It ignores the existence of autistic people.

How are autistic people 'rational'?

That's like the 'sane person in an insane world' hypothesis about schizos - you wouldn't seriously consider a schizo rational though would you?

>> No.3503782
File: 34 KB, 640x480, [MnT]_Pretty_Cure_-_01_[6D078F89].avi_snapshot_05.23_[2012.12.13_14.30.05].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3503782

>>3503611
>Try and formulate a coherent objection to what I said or I will simply assume that /sci/ made fun of you for being out of your depth, or for following fashionable but firmly refuted schools.

Because /sci/ is filled more with people 'entertained by science' than actual people who understand and appreciate it.

There was a hundred+ post some time ago in response to this image - something which should have ended with the first reply.

>> No.3504295

derpartes

>> No.3504304

>>3503782

x = 26 + x

Jibberish.

>> No.3504340

>>3504304
...that isn't jibberish.

>> No.3504382

You are questioning the value of a philosophical understanding of the world that is over 2000 years old.

Do you think that in that time we have made advances?

Do you think that hindsight is 20/20?

This thread is shit and OP should feel bad for making it

>> No.3504423

>>3504340
You're stating that a number "x" is equal to "x+26" that is not possible.

>> No.3504440

>>3504423
Well, no I'm not, although it is possible. First of all, "x = 26 + x" is parsable, not jibberish. It just appears on the face of it to have no solutions, and indeed for some axioms it doesn't. Two ways it can have solutions is if x is an aleph number (first page I found that showed this: http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/cardinals.htm , essentially, an aleph number + a non aleph number will equal that aleph number, it's basically the grand hotel paradox), or the numbers are in whatever they're called, like cyclic sets. I can't remember the actual name, but it's like if you take mods.

>> No.3504441

Live in Christian world for 1700 years. They believe that we live in a temporary world and that God has ordained for the good heaven and for the bad hell. Nevertheless God has the qualities of perfection and philosophers have traditionally been assigned the task of reconciling things like gods perfection and the existence of evil. Consequently everything of the mind gets elevated and all aspects of the body get denied. The mind allows the human subject access to God while on earth in this dogma. Hence mind body dualism.
Dipshit.

>> No.3504445

itt: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=Ugyrm4JU_8M#t=44s

>> No.3504454

>>3503422
Someone explain to me how anyone could not understand qualia.

>> No.3504522

>>3504454
Qualia interests me.

>> No.3504531

itt people who think thoughts are material

LOL

>> No.3504541

>>3503422

>Someone explain to me how anyone could possibly believe in the dualism of body and mind.
People who ignore science.

>> No.3504543

>>3504541

MUH SCIENCE XDDD

>>>/sci
>>>/x

>> No.3506719

>>3504543
What else is there but science?

>> No.3506721

>>3504531
>thoughts are given to you from some higher being and not the result of biochemical reactions in your brain

Do you even neuroscience?

>> No.3506726

>>3504382
I'm questioning why Descartes believed something that was so contrary to the philosophy he was advocating.

>> No.3506734

>>3506726
brotip: it's not

>> No.3506735

>>3506719
Rom coms.

>> No.3507139

>>3503422
>Someone explain to me how anyone could possibly believe in the dualism of hardware and software.

>> No.3507430

>>3503422
"Dualism" and "Unity" are two culturally-reinforced heuristics that don't apply here.
lrn2systems
lrn2epiphenomena
lrn2neurology
lrn2cognitivetheory

>> No.3508001

>>3507139
>implying they aren't two things that describe a whole

Terrible analogy by the way. You can have hardware without software but you can't have the body without the mind.

>> No.3508009

>>3508001
Yes you can. Mind arises from the increasing complexity of the body, not the other way around.

>> No.3508015

>>3503436
They're just fucking stupid.

/thread

>> No.3508016

>>3504531
>all of the neuroscience/psych majors collectively laughing

>> No.3508022

>>3508016

Thoughts themselves sure arise from neural activity, but how do you say these thoughts that arise are material? They don't interract with anything we know from physics

>> No.3508027

>>3508022
Thoughts ARE neural activity, they aren't fish jumping out of the pond, so to speak.

>> No.3508132

>>3508022

>Thoughts themselves sure arise from neural activity, but how do you say these thoughts that arise are material? They don't interract with anything we know from physics

Brotip: compare before and after brain damage

>> No.3508163

consciousness is the ghost in the machine, not really a mythological ghost but merely a byproduct of remembering things and processing them

>> No.3508166

People that assign a mythological origin to the most spectacular physical event ever witnessed in this universe, that is life itself, should be burned alive and sent directly to their deity of choice

>> No.3508177

>>3508166
>People that assign a mythological origin
>to the most spectacular physical event ever witnessed
And so a hypocritical mythos is born.

>> No.3508185

>>3508177
>implying it isnt

>> No.3508209

>>3508022
>They don't interract with anything we know from physics
they do, otherwise you wouldn't speak about them

>> No.3508323
File: 46 KB, 600x767, 1288842661325.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3508323

>>3508209
What are you talking about? The only way you'll ever know any thoughts I experience is by me arranging words on the screen in a agreed meaningful way. Thoughts, like all experience take place in the unique and mysterious position of consciousness. Conciousness takes place on a metaphysical plane, which is undoubtable. Or does the physical plane occur within consciousness and not the other way around? Who the fuck knows

>> No.3508327

Humans have an innate inclination to do so.

There have been done experiments with little children that were lead to believe in a cloning machine.

Objects and living mice were 'cloned' but when they children were asked whether two mice were the same they disagreed, pointing towards the believe that there is something about the mice that is not copyable.

>> No.3508328

>>3508185
spectacularity in life is mundane because even the most profound miracles will repeat themselves eventually.

>> No.3508335

>>3503422
My first ever Philosophy lecturer was a Dualist, and he wasn't even religious.

I think it is a reaction to the alternative: I.e. the universe is simply a clock, free will is an illusion, all your actions are predetermined etc.

We must not forget that what makes us human is our irrationality, not our rationality.

Even the most rational humans have emotions.

>> No.3508341

>>3503595
>implying empiricism = philosophical rigor
The funny thing is how superior these empiricists act, when in actuality the lenses through which they perceive reality are as narrow and dim as the simpletons and religious fanatics they perceive as inferiors.

>> No.3508348

The chemical and electrical processes that create the sense of Self can be understood, but the quality of Existence, both for the Self and the Other (i.e. the Universe containing the Self) are ultimately unexplainable.

>> No.3508364

>>3503422
Qualia.

>> No.3508369

>>3503422

Because people are stupid. Are you surprised byt this?
There are no good reasons whatsoever.

>> No.3508383

>>3507430
>lrn2systems
>lrn2epiphenomena
>lrn2neurology
>lrn2cognitivetheory

AHHAHAHHAHAHA

he actually thinks these 4 disciplines proves dualism wrong

oh boy

>> No.3510245

>>3508328
eventually can suck my dick, i am alive now and what i see is grand, an intricate self aware machine that is the product of endless trial and error competitions with other machines. To assign a mere fairy tale to this wondrous event of nature is criminal

>> No.3510253

>>3508364

In what sense does qualia preclude, or even refute, substance monism?

>> No.3510270

>>3510253
he's just being silly.

>> No.3510273

>>3508364
>Suppose something exists that's exactly like a human, but it lacks a soul. Therefore, the soul exists.

>> No.3510319

>>3503660
THIS.

>> No.3510333

>>3508348
its not unexplainable and the moment we understand it the universe is ours
A consciousness that can improve itself

>> No.3510339

>>3510273
how do we test for a soul exactly?

>> No.3510348

>>3510339
By invoking the ghost of James Brown and asking.

>> No.3510370

>>3510339
>you don't
>that's the point

>> No.3511746

i am aware that i am thinking about myself and ever and so on, transfinitely many souls on the uptake

>> No.3511771

>>3508009
That defies all notions of death. Once your brain stops functioning your body dies. Your body ceases to be your body (that is, "alive") and simply becomes a collection of matter (corpse).

>> No.3511933

>>3508323

Do chimpanzees' thoughts take place on a metaphysical plane too? What about dogs? Rats? What's the cutoff line?

>> No.3511964

There is only Mind.

>> No.3511966

Am I the only one who thinks Descartes looks super cute in that picture?

>> No.3511968
File: 25 KB, 300x454, PL.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3511968

A misunderstanding of the logic of our language.

>> No.3511970

it's not that there is body and there is mind. It's that you are body and mind. Not 'you are body' or 'you are mind'. You are body AND mind.

>> No.3511972

How is it possible that some people don't accept holism?

Body is mind and mind is body.

Simple.

>> No.3511985

Any musicians here? It is obvious that Mind and Body are both real. What is not obvious, to some, is that they are identical. A C1 is identical, yet different, to a C2. Perhaps there are grades of existence. Levels. They range from extremely subtle to extremely dense. Mind is what we call this substance. Body is a condition of mind that is more dense.?

>> No.3511993

>2013
>not beleiving in the computational theory of mind

Ya'll plebs or whut?

>> No.3511997

>>3511970
>You

You need to unpack that term friend.

By you I gather you mean a unique identity or consciousness, but what is that based on?

Mere memroy of your life's narrative?

Or do you trust in the bundle theory of Hume and the buddhists?

>> No.3512348

Guys, what about this: the soul of the human is its socio-cultural development.

>> No.3514252

>>3511972
That's what OP is arguing for.

>> No.3514276

>>3511985
I see it in a similar way. I'm not much of a skilled musician, though I get what you mean by the notes.

They are both real, though identical. I like this.

They work on different ways(physical, material and linguistic, psychic), but they are one, they reflect each other, they go together. It's not dualism, it's perhaps more to the side of monism, but it doesn't deny one in favour of the other, it just brings both together. As much as space and time are not different from each other, even though there are two words there with a lot to be said about each.

>> No.3514336

>>3503422
another person who finds it easier to sleepwalk through life than embrace it.

Enjoy your meaningless life you watch happen on auto pilot.

>> No.3514368

>>3514336
>implying I'm always conscious that there's no such thing as free will
>implying I let it affect my disposition

>> No.3514391

>>3511993
>wiki
>In philosophy, a computational theory of mind names a view that the human mind and/or human brain is an information processing system and that thinking is a form of computing.
I thought that everyone thought that, dualists and monists alike.

>> No.3514416

>>3511985
The octave is the interval where most notes on the harmonic series are doubled between notes, and adds the fewest number of extraneous notes, i.e. it's the most consonant interval. If you look at the subtractive and additive tones too, you see more or less the same thing: very few tones not on the harmonic series of either note are introduced, many notes are doubled. So what you're hearing is very high similarity or consonance.

>> No.3514418

>>3503422
Consider:
>the organic body (imagine looking at another person, or perhaps a body in a mortuary, or at it through an xray)
> your individual perspective, looking into the world, without which nothing would exist, which we pressupose everyone else possesses, without which there would never have been 'anything'

Now tell me - are the same thing?

>> No.3514421

I'm pretty sure no one on here knows what they are talking about.

ITT: sciencetism and thinking rationality has anything to do with science

>> No.3514424

>>3514418
You use language terribly. Reword that.

>>3514421
>sciencetism

>> No.3514430

>>3514416
>>3514421
In case you're reading scientism in my comment here, I'm just pointing out a kind of perspectivism. There's nothing inherent behind the idea of a note "being the same" because of separation by an octave, it's just a way of "looking" at it.

>> No.3514431

>>3514424
deal with it, kid.

I rebel against modern pseudo-rational BELIEFS.

how does it make you feel? someone isn't a hard determinist, nihilist, non-dualist, new-atheist?

pisses you off, that's what.

>> No.3514435

>>3514431
But I'm not angry about anything. I just don't understand why someone would believe something that's so nonsensical.

>pseudo-rational
Okay.

>> No.3514444

>>3514435
You think it's nonsensical.

>implying your "common" sense isn't subjective

>implying rationality is an inherently good or superior thing

>implying you aren't operating on a knowledge of science and not philosophy

>> No.3514450

>>3514424
Its proposing that you take the mind-body debate and rethink it as a matter consciousness-body... for the sake of defamillirisaing the terms of a very worn out debate, so that we might look at them anew.

>> No.3514461

>>3514444
>implying your "common" sense isn't subjective

This. People refute mind-body dualism upon being taught to, in the same manner that people become dualists through instruction. Its the old thesis and anti-thesis thing. The new thesis (non-dualist thought) will invariably meet a new anti-thesis, which eventually we'll all prefer, until that's refuted too. And so it goes.

>> No.3514462

>>3514431
>someone isn't a hard determinist, nihilist, non-dualist, new-atheist?
Bullshit-ridden terms. Fuck you for making me aware of them, pisstits.

>> No.3514532

>>3514461
>This. People refute mind-body dualism upon being taught to
Nobody taught me that the mind and body weren't distinct things. On the contrary, growing up Christian I was taught that you possessed an immortal part of your identity (a soul) that was apart from your body.

I merely concluded on my own that it doesn't make sense for the mind and body to be separable things.

>> No.3514551
File: 544 KB, 1500x1500, curren-stoned_02.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3514551

>>3514532
>I merely concluded on my own that it doesn't make sense for the mind and body to be separable things.
>inb4 but you were taught that at school

>> No.3514629

>>3514532
I have precognitive dreams.

u mad

>> No.3514634

>>3514421
What is scientism?

>> No.3514656

>>3503422
>Someone explain to me how anyone could possibly believe in the dualism of body and mind.
It's a result of being unable to imagine/conceive of a world where you lack a perspective. If you imagine a world where you don't exist, there is still something of you in that world which imagines or views it. You can then use this to argue that your observing/thinking part is in a sense separate from your in the world/physically being part.

>> No.3516583

Once again.

>> No.3516592

>>3516583
please stop

>> No.3517241

>>3516592
Why?

>> No.3517257

>>3514634
I don't really know - I just heard the term for the first time today.

I think it's something like the belief that scientific advancement will be the savior of humanity and will lead us to paradise, regardless of how the knowledge is used or obtained...

Sort of like believing that the utopian scifi universes are a certainty and the dystopian ones are unlikely.

Of course.. even the relative dystopian scifi universes aren't that bad. Even Firefly or Star Wars could be considered dystopias, but things could be SO MUCH WORSE.

It's actually more likely that we'll end up living in a world where most existence is just terrible and unending suffering.

>> No.3517279

>>3514656
this

>> No.3517540

good recommendation of a solid understanding of this sorta stuff:

http://www.amazon.com/Tibetan-Yogas-Dream-Sleep/dp/1559391014/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1362129483&sr=1-1&keywords=The+Tibetan+Yogas+Of+Dream+And+Sleep