I THINK therefore I AM

@richrf,

Here's a quote from Robert Pepperell. (Pepperell, R., & Punt, M.. Screen consciousness: cinema, mind and world. (Consciousness, Literature & the Arts, 4, 2006)) It comes in a passage arguing that both Internalism and Externalism are false.

The uncertain relationship between mind and world has of course generated countless finely nuanced philosophical arguments. But, put starkly, it seems there are three options:

That the mind and world are distinct.
That the mind and world are unified.
That the mind and world are both distinct and unified.

? While there are many powerful arguments in favour of the first two options, it is the third which I explore here, and the one I will suggest is most plausible.

Ren? Descartes (1596-1650) is often credited with formalising the dualistic distinction between thinking substance (res cognitans) and material substance (res extensa); that is, between ideas attributable to the mind on the one hand and the material world of bodies and objects on the other.

? Descartes' reputation as the prototypical dualist, however, does not fairly convey the complexity, some would say confusion, of his view on the distinction between mind and world. In the synopsis of the Meditations, we read:

? the human mind is shown to be really distinct from the body, and, nevertheless, to be so closely conjoined therewith as together to form, as it were, a unity.

And again in Mediation VI itself:

Nature teaches me ? that I am not only lodged in my body as a pilot in a vessel, but that I am besides so intimately conjoined, as it were intermixed with it, that my mind and body compose a certain unity.

Despite the hint of qualification, Descartes is quite explicit: The mind and body are both 'really distinct' and united - they are two and one.

@richrf,

richrf;70985 wrote:

Spirals (or oscillating waves) are everywhere in nature and are used as metaphors in many ancient philosophical thoughts such as those Heraclitus and Daoism. They can be made by plotting a pendulum.

Alright this is getting interesting, but I'm still confused as to how it has anything to do with consciousness.

@Whoever,

Whoever;71075 wrote:

And again in Mediation VI itself:

Nature teaches me ? that I am not only lodged in my body as a pilot in a vessel, but that I am besides so intimately conjoined, as it were intermixed with it, that my mind and body compose a certain unity.

Despite the hint of qualification, Descartes is quite explicit: The mind and body are both 'really distinct' and united - they are two and one.

Yes he is quite explicit, only, what does it mean? Not, I suppose that they are three. That is what two and on usually is; three.

@richrf,

That's the problem. Logic leads us to this conclusion, but what does it mean? This is the Middle Way metaphysical position of the Buddha and Nagarjuna, so for me it would mean whatever they say it means.

I believe this problem of sorting out the relationship between a unity and the numbers one, two and three, takes us to the heart of the debate over the meaning of the trinity in Christianity. Peirce writes about the relationship between a unity and these three numbers at length, but I can't remember where. Maybe in 'A Guess at the Riddle.'

Russell reduced mind and matter to a plurality of neutral entities. Thus he allowed that our mind-matter theories might need a third term to become fundamental. I'm getting out of my depths here, but perhaps mind and matter are distinct to the extent that they can be said to be real, and can be said to be identical in that they reduce to a third phenomenon. If we say they exist then they are distinct, while if we say they do not exist then they are identical. The truth would be that it would be unrigorous to say that they do exist or that they don't, since both views are partial. (And both are logically indefensible). We would be adopting the view of Heraclitus, for whom 'We are and are not.'

@Whoever,

Whoever;71140 wrote:

That's the problem. Logic leads us to this conclusion, but what does it mean? This is the Middle Way metaphysical position of the Buddha and Nagarjuna, so for me it would mean whatever they say it means.

'

You mean I have to find out what Buddha and the other guy believed the Cogito meant in order to find out what it means, or in order to find our what you mean? Very puzzling. I think that Buddha (and the other guy) were born way before Descartes, so how could they know what the Cogito means, anyway, and when would they have talked about it. Very puzzling.

@richrf,

richrf;70832 wrote:

Think of the physical body as a condensation of Consciousness (ethereal) into something more dense (physical matter).

What should lead one to think this?

Can it not be the other way around? That the consciousness is an evaporation of the physical body?

@Aedes,

Hi all,

My imagination at work:

1) There is the beginning. The One. Call it the Dao or Heraclitus' Logos.

2) From the beginning you get two. This would be the Yin and Yang or Heraclitus' paired opposites. So how do we get two from one? It is the same way line turns into a wave. A wave has polarity. A top and a bottom. The line has to be changed.

3) How does the line change? The One turns and looks at itself. It uses energy or the Chinese Qi. This is the trinity. Opposites and movement.

http://www.yijing.co.uk/img/wuji-taiji.gif

Notice the "fish" turning into itself.

It is similar to a fetus.

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/MEDLINEPLUS/ency/images/ency/fullsize/9578.jpg

Notice the resemblance the the ear:

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/images/ency/fullsize/9529.jpg

There seems to be micro and macro symmetry throughout the universe. For me the ocean represents all that is (The Dao or Logos). The waves of the ocean are Individual Consciousness. So they are separate and connected at the same time, but also part of the whole. It depends upon how you want to look at it. Do you want to look at the Universal Consciousness (the ocean) or do you want to look at the waves (individuals).

How are the waves formed? By movement or what is sometimes called Will. Movement of people navigating on the ocean or the moon navigated through space. Movement is what creates individual waves. Without, there is just one. Waves can collide into each other (like when I bump into another person), and create a mutual event.

When Descartes says I think therefore I am, I imagine the movement of my thoughts creating who I am.

And that is my imagination at work. :bigsmile:

BTW, movement is essential to good health! So remember to stretch and exercise every day!

Rich

@Aedes,

kennethamy;70928 wrote:

But Descartes, so far as I can see, presupposed nothing. He simply pointed out that for someone to doubt that he existed it was necessary that he exist. The notion of the the self comes afterward.

Sure he did: he presupposed that he existed when considering whether or not he existed.

It is not necessary for an unchanging self to exist in order for a person to have doubts about one's own existence. Descartes, however, made this leap.

@Aedes,

Aedes;71168 wrote:

What should lead one to think this?

Can it not be the other way around? That the consciousness is an evaporation of the physical body?

You can look at it in this way since it is a continuum. But a couple of things to consider, as part of the thought experiment:

1) There are some clues that nature leaves us that indicates that individual consciousness may continue through multiple physical lives. Some may call in inherited characteristics. I call it the transcendental soul - i.e. that which is learning.

2) Another way to look at it is that the strings of a baseball (at least the old way they made them), still exist, even if they unravel and the baseball no longer exists.

So, I agree, that one can look at it very either direction and come to the same thought.

Rich

---------- Post added at 04:22 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:21 PM ----------

Holiday20310401;71090 wrote:

Alright this is getting interesting, but I'm still confused as to how it has anything to do with consciousness.

My above most may help explain a bit more how I feel that Consciousness (Universal and Individual) may create spirals which can then be condensed into denser matter.

Rich

@richrf,

There must be a reason that every spiritual tradition has a sacred symbol that is based on the circle.

@GoshisDead,

GoshisDead;71198 wrote:

There must be a reason that every spiritual tradition has a sacred symbol that is based on the circle.

Hi,

Yes, I noticed the same thing. I also notice circles and spirals everywhere I look and in what I do. Repetition, for me, is the key to move into another state when practicing Taiji.

Rich

@GoshisDead,

GoshisDead;71198 wrote:

There must be a reason that every spiritual tradition has a sacred symbol that is based on the circle.

Could be psychological? I'm sure Carl Jung mentioned this sort of thing somewhere(being an avid Campbell fan:)).

@GoshisDead,

And there must also be a reason why so many of those same traditions warn against attaching one's self too strongly to those symbols (that activity called idolatry).

@Zetetic11235,

Zetetic11235;71201 wrote:

Could be psychological? I'm sure Carl Jung mentioned this sort of thing somewhere(being an avid Campbell fan:)).

Yes, Jung recognized these symbols as universal archetypes. He was an avid student of Western and Eastern mythologies, religions, and history. Quite an interesting person.

He also studied dreams - but more for content as opposed to the phenomenon itself. I also find this interesting.

Rich

---------- Post added at 05:20 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:17 PM ----------

Didymos Thomas;71205 wrote:

And there must also be a reason why so many of those same traditions warn against attaching one's self too strongly to those symbols (that activity called idolatry).

Yes, those who warn against idolatry will often posit their own - in a different way of course.

It seems like people enjoy thinking that some people are better than others and some things are higher than others. Confucianism is a great exponent of hierarchy (one can idolize many things in Confucianism), which is somewhat countered by the circular way of looking at things which is more at the heart of Daoism. One begats the other.

Rich

@richrf,

Confucian hierarchy is not in any way derived from an opinion that holds that some people are better than others. Confucian social hierarchy is based on what Confucius thought to be the jobs most vital to a society: he placed farmers on the top of his hierarchy not because farmers are better people than other but because food prevents starvation. It's a pragmatic hierarchy not a moralizing hierarchy.

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas;71211 wrote:

Confucian hierarchy is not in any way derived from an opinion that holds that some people are better than others. Confucian social hierarchy is based on what Confucius thought to be the jobs most vital to a society: he placed farmers on the top of his hierarchy not because farmers are better people than other but because food prevents starvation. It's a pragmatic hierarchy not a moralizing hierarchy.

You can use the words more important if you wish. People on the top of the hierarchy love hierarchies. It is the people on the bottom that create revolutions.

Rich

@richrf,

richrf;71228 wrote:

You can use the words more important if you wish. People on the top of the hierarchy love hierarchies. It is the people on the bottom that create revolutions.

Rich

I'm not really sure what you mean.

In Confucius' philosophy, his role as a bureaucrat would place him lower in the social hierarchy than the farmer - typically, the farmer is at the bottom and the population that rises up in revolution. But Confucius placed the farmer at the top of the hierarchy.

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas;71230 wrote:

I'm not really sure what you mean.

In Confucius' philosophy, his role as a bureaucrat would place him lower in the social hierarchy than the farmer - typically, the farmer is at the bottom and the population that rises up in revolution. But Confucius placed the farmer at the top of the hierarchy.

Hi,

What Confucius thought doesn't really matter, since he had no armies. I don't even know what he actually said. However, what Confucianism suggests (hierarchy and worship of those higher in the hierarchy) was a largess for the Emperors, bureaucrats, senior citizens, etc - anyone who can benefit from being up high on the hierarchy. Emperors in the centuries following the death of Confucius, adored him Anyone can make a case for being at the top of the hierarchy, and they do in order to reap the rewards. The people at the bottom, however, have to pay for it.

I personally enjoy watching people vie for King of the Hill.

Rich

@richrf,

If you do not know what Confucius said, you cannot know what his philosophy suggests.

Later theorists, who were heavily influenced by Confucius, did place the Emperor at the top of the social hierarchy and maintain a great many other disagreements with Confucius. Confucianism should not be confused with the entire tradition of Chinese social philosophy.

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas;71233 wrote:

If you do not know what Confucius said, you cannot know what his philosophy suggests.

Later theorists, who were heavily influenced by Confucius, did place the Emperor at the top of the social hierarchy and maintain a great many other disagreements with Confucius. Confucianism should not be confused with the entire tradition of Chinese social philosophy.

From what I recall, everything that Confucius said is hearsay, so I don't want to put any words in his mouth. I respect the dead. Smile

"His teachings may be found in the Analects of Confucius, a collection of "brief aphoristic fragments", which was compiled many years after his death. Modern historians do not believe that any specific documents can be said to have been written by Confucius, but for nearly 2,000 years he was thought to be the editor or author of all the Five Classics such as the Classic of Rites, and the Spring and Autumn Annals."

However, Confucianism has a long and illustrious history of providing support for emperors and others who figured out an easy way to live off others by creating a hierarchy.

Rich

Philosophy Forum

I THINK therefore I AM

Quick Links

My Account

able2know