finish the homework
Edwingary
Mind-BodyProblem1.pptxWho Am I?
The Mind-Body Problem
PHIL 105, Ben Birkenstock
What is our nature as conscious, thinking beings?
We have a mind - thoughts, emotions, beliefs, desires, sensations
(In this context, “mind” often includes aspects of the person such as “heart,” “soul,” “spirit,” “consciousness,” etc.)
We have a body: biological entities that we can touch and observe, that move through time and space
We have brain: a part of the body that functions with nervous tissue and that seems intimately involved in our mental processes.
What is the relationship of the mind and the body?
Mind-Body Dualism (Rene Descartes, 1596–1650)
Human persons are composed of two types of substances or processes: mental (mind) & physical (body, brain)
How do we distinguish between the mental and physical?
According to Descartes, the mental is the opposite of the physical:
no mass
no position
no extension (does not take up space)
Body affects mind: when you are hungry or tired it affects your thoughts/emotions.
Mind affects body: happy thoughts or fearful emotions can make your eyes water, or body shudder, etc.
Why Would We Believe in Dualism?
Descartes’ Foundationalism
Descartes used doubt as a philosophical tool: if you can doubt something, throw it away! The one belief he thought he could not doubt is the famous ‘cogito ergo sum:’ I think therefore I am
Try to doubt that you are a thinking being; your very doubt is a thought that exists! Descartes therefore took the mind as the foundation of all knowledge and of human identity
Why Would We Believe in Dualism?
Leibniz Law (Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibniz, 1646 – 1716)
If two things are identical, they must have all the same properties
if two things have any different properties, they are not identical
Descartes 1st argument for dualism:
It’s not possible to doubt that one has a mind
It is possible to doubt that one has a body
Descartes 2nd argument for dualism:
The body has spatial parts
The mind does not have spatial parts (thoughts/feelings are not in space)
Therefore, via Leibniz’ Law, the body and mind are not identical
Group Discussion
In your break-out rooms, answer the question:
How do you think the mind can affect physical things?
Remember, one member of your group must email me a document with your answer and all of your names as soon as you are done! ([email protected])
Mind-Brain Identity Theory (Materialism)
Mind is reducible to Matter;
Mental states are just physical states: our thoughts, emotions, beliefs, desires, sensations are identical with the functioning of our brain and the firing of our neurons
Mind-brain Identity theorists claim that we will come to codify the consciousness in brain the way we have come to codify water as H2O.
What is matter? Just the opposite of mind!
No Qualia (Feelings & perceptions)
No Rationality (Reason, logic)
No Intentionality (Being “about” something else; representing something outside itself)
Materialism & The Computational Model of Mind
‘The brain is a computer, the mind is software’
Computer: a machine that implements algorithms (formulas, programs) through “1’s and 0’s”
Thoughts can be simulated by algorithms in a machine.
Meanings (in a conscious mind) can be mirrored by algorithms (in a brain…or computer).
Materialism & The Computational Model of Mind
Computation = using binary symbols (e.g. 1’s and 0’s) to carry out a set of algorithmic instructions.
Therefore, ANY binary tokens can perform computational operations (e.g. switches, stones; i.e. multiple realizability).
Therefore, a brain could be constructed our of ANYTHING!
Furthermore, EVERY object could be described in binary terms.
Therefore, EVERYTHING is a digital computer!
Why Would We Believe Mind-Brain Identity Theory?
Okham’s Razor: a simpler explanation is to be preferred to a complex explanation, as long as it does just as good of a job as the complex explanation.
Simple = requires positing fewer ideas or connections.
Mind-Brain Identity Theorists (Materialists) hold that a “mental substance” adds nothing to biological, physical process.
Neuroscience has shown correlations between our thoughts and our brain; our “feelings” of consciousness are just the product of physical processes, but they do not affect them.
Dualism vs Materialism
False Assumptions?
Materialism sometimes assumes that the only alternative is dualism, not another form of physical mediation of mind
…& vice versa: Dualism assumes the only alternative is Materialism
Dualism Vs Materialism: Pro’s & Con’s
Dualism
Main Challenge: Explaining how completely different substances might interact
The material world becomes worthless, just a tool for our minds to abuse (cf. Descartes torturing cats)
Main Strength: We have a strong intuition that our consciousness is not reducible to physical things.
Our awareness of the world and the ability of our minds to affect it point to a mental reality
Materialism
Main Challenge: It seems difficult to imagine that our mind is just neurons firing and refiring
Main Strength: it seems simpler we only have to believe that one kind of stuff exists
We have a strong intuition that our bodies are us! - “if something is part of my body, it is part of me”
Has easier time explaining the interaction of mind & body: mind IS body!
Group Discussion
In your break-out rooms, answer the question:
Do you think that scientific explanations of the brain show that our consciousness is not real?
Remember, one member of your group must email me a document with your answer and all of your names as soon as you are done! ([email protected])
Is mind really just a ‘ghost in the machine?’
Computational Model of Mind lacks an intentional, conscious interpreter.
The meaning of symbols (6x4=26) without a conscious observer is not meaning, just physical shapes.
The physical binary functions (1’s and 0’s, switches, computer chips/signals) without a conscious programmer are not even algorithms!
They have no symbolic relation (nothing does without a person giving it meaning).
E.g. the image/symbol “1” does not physically stand in mathematical relationship to the symbol “0.”
Is mind really just a ‘ghost in the machine?’
This is true no matter how complex the program and how powerful the machine
“Deep learning” & “Artificial intelligence” are just physical movements of a hard drive! Their ‘meaning’ is just what persons give them
Computers are impressive, but they will not ‘think’ until they can learn, desire, become aware, love, etc.
You cannot solve problem by positing an ever smaller, stupider little ‘ghost in the machine’
the ‘ghost’ is your whole being, body, mind, and spirit! ☺
Hylomorphism (Aristotle - 384-322 BCE; St. Thomas Aquinas - 1200’s)
Hyle - “matter;” Morphe - “form”
All material substances are composed of form + matter.
Form = organizational structure
Matter = the ‘stuff’ which gets structure from its form
Whenever something comes to be, matter comes together with a specific form*
E.g. the form of a Water molecule that it must have 2 hydrogen atoms + 1 oxygen atom in a triangular shape. The matter of a water molecule is 3 atoms.
The form of an atom is a nucleus orbited by particles. The matter is the particles. On its own, matter is FORMLESS!
The form of a chair is a raised seat; the matter is wood or plastic, etc.
Consciousness
cannot be explained by science because it is not a part of the
operation of humans’ brains. We believe that consciousness actually
exists independently, and maybe consciousness appears even earlier
than our bodies.”
Siqi Zhang 626049， Yujun Liu 628181，Gengchen Xie 623880，Jing Chen
624008
Hylomorphism - theory of substance
More on forms:
Forms have a reality in themselves.
Factual statements, such as “2 + 2 = 4” or “China was unified by Qinshihuang” are independent of mind AND matter
They are true whether you and I agree on them or not
They remain true even if the universe stopped existing tomorrow
So there must be an intelligible, or formal, aspect to reality
Hylomorphism - theory of substance
Forms have a reality in themselves (continued)
…Similarly, properties such as colour (redness), shape (roundness), morality (goodness) seem to have an existence beyond particle physics or human subjectivity
We depend on properties to do physics or to describe our human character traits!
So, we can say that “forms” - structures or essences, are real beyond the material world.
without them, matter would just be void blackness!
But we can only know many (some say all!) forms of things because they are displayed in material reality
e.g. we know 2 + 2 = 4 because our reality has more than 1 thing!
we know roundness because we have seen the moon, a ball, etc.
Hylomorphism - Substantial Forms
Things can have many forms - the seat of a chair is round, the legs of the chair are straight; “Substantial Form” is that form that makes something what it is
“something to sit on above the ground” - this is the substantial form of a chair
In things that move, act, or live, the substantial form is the organizational structure that guides their movement
The substantial form of a computer is processing inputs (algorithms) through binary code.
The substantial form of a tree is what structures its growth, movement, etc.
For a Hylomorphist, something ceases to exist when it loses its substantial form
Broken keyboard = still a computer. Broken hard drive = no more computer
Lose a branch = still a tree. Tree dies = no more tree, just wood.
Hylomorphism - theory of substance
The substantial form of something is related to a complete reality
“the whole is more than the sum of its parts”
Things - chairs, houses, molecules have formal reality that cannot be explained just by particle physics (‘emergence’).
E.g. a tree or a dog are not just cells. There is something we might call “tree-ness” or “the form of a dog” that organizes existence.
The form of a living thing is what hylomorphists call its “soul.”
Plants have “nutritive souls,” forming them to eat, grow, and reproduce
Animals have “sensory souls,” forming them to perceive, hunger, and move.
Group Discussion
In your break-out rooms, answer the question:
Plato (Aristotle’s teacher) thought that forms existed independently of substances
there is such a thing as the “idea of a tree” that exists apart from all trees;
Aristotle thought that forms exist only in matter
the “idea of a tree” exists only in the physical trees of the world.
Which view do you find more convincing?
Remember, one member of your group must email me a document with your answer and all of your names as soon as you are done! ([email protected])
Why Would We Believe Hylomorphism?
Contemporary science has largely discarded Newtonian (Mechanistic) Physics in ways that line up well with Hylomorphism (form and purpose in nature).
Newtonian Causality: particles bumping into each other
Efficient causality (immediate cause of action)
Contemporary science:
Quantum Indeterminism: matter is indefinite and relative
Material Causality (matter is formless by itself)
Emergence: the behavior particles, cells, and organisms can only be explained by the properties of the whole (molecule, animal, etc.) it is part of.
Formal Causality (forms cause the organization of their parts)
Modern Biology: the end result is the reason for the process that leads to it (respiration is cause of lungs)
Final Causality (there are real purposes in nature that guide movement and change)
Hylomorphism - theory of persons
Humans (and some animals) have “rational souls,” forming them with nutritive and sensory souls as well as reason, will, and memory.
For a hylomorphist, your soul is the guiding principle that gives form to your body
It is not enough just to have certain characteristics (seat + legs =/= chair; reason + body =/= human)...
…they have to be structured in a specific way
(seat + legs + form that causes legs to hold up seat = chair;
reason + body + form that inform reason to guide body and body to sustain reason)
…in order to create a substance, or a person.
Hylomorphism - theory of persons
Therefore, a human person is the combination of mind/soul/form + body/matter
The form of a chair without wood is not a chair, just an idea. Wood without form is just matter, not a chair
Mind without body is like a ghost; Body without mind cannot live and function.
All living bodies have souls, just as all things have forms
Hylomorphism: Strengths and Weaknesses
Main Challenge: how is the soul both the physical structure of the body, and its relationship to the environment in consciousness?
Strengths:
Solves interaction problem; all matter depends on form to have any causal power whatsoever
a ball can only roll because it is round, an animal can only move because it has desire, etc.
holds importance of body (form is affected by changes to matter), but does not make mind reducible to matter
allows for survival of consciousness without body but only in radically different state
solves problem of other minds; other body = another person
solves problem of space-time; form is in space & time by virtue of the matter it informs
Group Discussion
In your break-out rooms, answer the question:
If you were a dualist, what would be your strongest argument against hylomorphism? If you were a hylomorphist, what would be your strongest argument against dualism?
Remember, one member of your group must email me a document with your answer and all of your names as soon as you are done! ([email protected])
Advaita Vedanta (Vedantic Non-dualism)
A - dvaita = Non-dual | Vedas = foundational writings of Arian-Indian Civiliation (1500+ BCE)
Upaniṣads: Final Chapters of the Vedas; Foundation of Vedantic Philosophy (500+ CE)
Purpose of the Upaniṣads: to know the Atman (Self)
The Self “is a pure subject of experiences, detached from the objects of its consciousness,
enduring and changeless and separate and independent of its mental and physical states.” (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Advaita Vedanta: Atman (the Self)
“The sages call it the eternal self. It is neither big nor small, neither long nor short, neither hot nor cold, neither bright nor dark, neither air nor space. It is without attachment, without taste, smell, or touch, without eyes, ears, tongue, mouth, breath, or mind, without movement, without limitation, without inside or outside. It consumes nothing, and nothing consumes it.
The Self is the seer, Gargi, though unseen; the hearer, though unheard; the thinker, though unthought; the knower, though unknown. Nothing other than the Self can see, hear, think, or know” (Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad 3.7, 8, 11).
Advaita Vedanta: Atman (the Self)
Consciousness is not knowledge: it does not have an object or intention
Consciousness is not emotion or fear, it is not sensation or perception
Consciousness is pure awareness, “He who dwells in the mind:”
“'He who dwells in the mind, and within the mind, whom the mind does not know, whose body the mind is, and who pulls (rules) the mind within, he is thy Self, the puller (ruler) within, the immortal.'” Brihadâranyaka Upanishad, Part 3, Chapter 7, 20
It cannot change, because it is not an object or mind or body, it is pure subject.
We cannot observe or experience it, because it is that which observes/experiences, but we cannot deny it, because we are constantly observing/experiencing.
Advaita Vedanta and the World: Maya (appearance) & Uphadhi (limitation)
Consciousness is purely self-existent and self-reflexive; it is God (Brahman, Isvara) and Pure Existence (Pure Actuality, Aristotle, Aquinas)
The world is the reflection of consciousness, like a mirror reflection
The world is not separate from consciousness, but it is not the same:
some ‘subtle’ forms of matter (called “sattva”) have the potential to reflect consciousness and thus produce sensation, reflection, thoughts, and minds: individuals (jiva)
Advaita Vedanta and the World: Maya (appearance) & Uphadhi (limitation)
“Śaṅkara maintains an Upaniṣadic view that minds are materially constituted by sattva, the subtlest aspect of each primary element. Sattva has a qualitative predominance of lucidity and transparency. It make the mind akin to the reflective surface of a mirror capable of reflecting light, or like a transparent glass that allows light to pass through while illuminating variations on its surface. Unlike minds, mediums like rocks are inert because of their opacity. They lack enough sattva constitution to be reflective even though they are also fundamentally grounded in consciousness.” (SEP, “Sankara”)
Advaita Vedanta:
Jiva (Individuals) and Avidya (Ignorance)
Sankara “explains that just as we mistakenly perceive nondual space as delimited by an object—for example, a pot delimiting a pot space—so too do we misunderstand non-dual consciousness as delimited by the mind (see GKBh 3.3–9). The pot space is not a genuine limiting property of space because space is not divisible by the pot form. The pot space is an appearance. It is merely an as though limiting property, a conditioning adjunct (upādhi) that we superimpose on to space to account for particular functions (e.g., containing a liquid). So too, do people mistakenly assume the mind-body-sense complex possesses consciousness and that consciousness is intrinsically intentional. In reality, the mind-body-sense complex is merely an upādhi that does not possess or limit nondual consciousness.” (SEP, “Sankara”)
Advaita Vedanta:
Jiva (Individuals) and Avidya (Ignorance)
Sankara’s fourfold distinction of the Jiva’s mind:
“the intellect (buddhi) which is the mental function of determination and definitive knowing; and
the manas, which includes sensory, affective, and conative functions as well as indecision.
the I-notion (ahaṃkāra–literally the “I-maker”,) which is one’s sense of self; and
the power of recollection (citta)” (SEP, “Sankara”)
Advaita Vedanta:
Jiva (Individuals) and Avidya (Ignorance)
As consciousness passes through the world, it gives to the minds of living creatures a sense of awareness, of self-hood, “I.”
That is, we do not just process information, seek pleasure, and avoid pain,
Through the connection of consciousness to the mind/body, we feel that it is our minds/bodies that are conscious
This is Avidya (ignorance); in reality, our minds/bodies experience nothing, they are just a vehicle through which universal consciousness experiences the world!
Liberation is simply the realization that “you are that” (tat tvam asi); you are not a mind/body, but the infinite awareness of Atman, or Brahman.
Advaita Vedanta:
Upadhi (Mind/Body) and Avidya (Ignorance)
“fear and anxiety [are] due to assuming one’s self as a limited being subject to sorrow, sickness, and death. Based on this error, individuals seek wholeness, happiness, and limitlessness through known ends like material gains, social status, hedonic pleasures, or reaching heavenly worlds; however, such endeavors are perpetually bound to fail because results of finite actions are limited, transient, and dependent. They may provide temporary reprieves or happy mental states, but do not provide the limitless wholeness of liberation. Only the direct understanding of one’s self as nondual brahman negates the error of superimposition, and frees one from the beginningless karmic cycle of death, rebirth, and suffering….Then only nondual consciousness remains standing. Upon recognizing this reality, the mind rests in its own intrinsic being with absolute fullness, peacefulness, and tranquility.” (SEP, “Sankara”)
Why Would We Believe Advaita Vedanta?
When we say “I am hungry, I am smart,” who is the I?
Your body is hungry (Materialism). Your intellect/mind is smart (Dualism). But who are you?
When we say “I am loving, I am traumatized,” who is the I?
Your person (body+mind, sense of self & memory) is loving or traumatized, but what is the I?
I =/= any quality, because:
it may possess many qualities
no quality is self-aware
When we say “I,” we must be referring to something limitless, something without qualities
Why Would We Believe Advaita Vedanta?
But if consciousness has not qualities - body, person, hungry, pleased - then, as we said, consciousness must be limitless
If consciousness is limitless, then all differences between all things, causes, and effects are not part of our true identity.
Our bodies & our minds are a part of reality, but they are not our true identity
Therefore, there are not multiple selves - there is no “I” (jiva) - there is only our One True Self, Atman!
Why Would We Believe Advaita Vedanta?
Does this mean our sense of individuality - of “myself” & of other things - is bad?
Not necessarily; it is part of the beautiful expression of God, of the Self
It is only bad when it stops us from accepting our identity with the One Limitless Self.
However, clinging to our sense of individuality is the cause of suffering.
