Це відео не доступне.
Перепрошуємо.
PHILOSOPHY - Mind: Mind-Body Dualism [HD]
Вставка
- Опубліковано 14 сер 2024
- Are we just physical things? Or perhaps just mental things? Maybe both? In this video, Alex Byrne (MIT) explains a modern argument due to Saul Kripke for mind-body dualism.
Help us caption & translate this video!
amara.org/v/FYeh/
![PHILOSOPHY - Ethics: Utilitarianism, Part 1 [HD]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/uvmz5E75ZIA/mqdefault.jpg)
![PHILOSOPHY - Ethics: Utilitarianism, Part 1 [HD]](/img/tr.png)
I had a slight understanding of mind body dualism before watching this video. After watching I’m 10x more confused and all I gained is a stick man in my notebook that is just as confused as me.
i have an exam on this tomorrow ...I'm fucked
@@bri4606 how did it go
@@daman7387 the professor cancelled class and moved it to this coming Tuesday 😭😭😭
@@bri4606 lol, is that good or bad for u
@@daman7387 honestly idk, well i have to stress about it for a couple more days...but I guess I can try to teach myself the material
Ah, I came here and left with nothing. Thank you sir
this is very confusing thank you
To help anyone who is confused to understand it better, here is the same argument reworded differently:
1.) If it's true that you are your body, then it could not have been false that you are your body.
2.) It could have been false that you are your body. (For example, you can imagine yourself being born with a body other than the one you currently have.)
3.) Therefore, it's not true that you are your body.
So, from the argument's conclusion, if it's not true that you are your body, then what are you? Obviously, you consciously know that you exist, so you must be your immaterial mind, also known as your soul. Hence, the argument also supports the idea of incarnation and reincarnation.
(Remember, imagining yourself being born with another body is not like imagining a round, square table or a married bachelor. A round, square table or a married bachelor is impossible, but there is nothing impossible about you being born with another body. For the second premise, you need to understand how to distinguish between situations that are possible and situations that are impossible. To prepare for both premises, you need to understand how to distinguish between things that could have been false and things that could not have been false.)
Edit: I don't think I should have said that you are your immaterial mind. No one really knows what you are. This is still an ongoing mystery in the philosophy of personal identity. How do first-person perspectives come into existence if third-person matter is eternal? Where do ideas come from? Are thoughts physical? And so on...
Hi! Great comment. Quick q on premise no 2: if you are imagining yourself being born with another body doesn't that mean that you are imagining somebody else. I don't believe consciousness can exist outside embodiment so it seems natural to me to reject premise 2. Is there another way of seeing things? Many thanks! 👏
@@altvctr Just think of identical twins. They have the same DNA, but they have separate first-person perspectives. How is that possible? Many people associate their identity with their DNA or genetics. But if identical twins have separate first-person perspectives, then that shows that your DNA or body does not create your consciousness or first-person perspective.
If you think that imagining yourself being born with another body means you are imagining somebody else, then you are already assuming that you are your current body, which is fallacious. Why assume that you must be your current body in all of eternity?
Here is one more interesting thing to note: Throughout our lives, we go through change. Our bodies change (e.g. we grow older), and our minds change (e.g. we learn new things). Even our personality, likes/dislikes, and desires might change. However, there is one thing that never changes--that is our first-person perspective. Each first-person perspective will experience different things in the body that they are in. The mystery is why your first-person perspective is in that body and my first-person perspective is in this body.
I didn’t understand ❤️
Não és a única
BUT I AM BERT
the premise 2 is wrong
Im Bert!
You eventually reach the point, when such words, terms and ideas lose their meanings. Finally there is nothing else than experinces. Everything we talk about, are just parts of our experiences. The body is the experience of the body. The mind is the experience of the mind. "We", "me", "you" are just part of "our" experiences. "My" experiences are just experiences including the experience of myself. But if I'm part of "my" experiences, how can be a part of an experience the owner of the experience? So, it's simply senseless, to ask, what I am. To be something or something different or nothing refers to relations in experiences, there is no meaning of these terms outside these relations. At this point someone can harmonize his experiences with the extermination of questions of this kind.
So if you accept mind-body-dualism as a premise you can conclude mind-body dualism? Yeah, sure...
Lmao yall don’t know
The argument in Kripke's book goes like this: pain is an experience. When you refer to pain, you're referring to that experience. There is no obvious NECESSARY connection between the experience and the physical phenomenon. Therefore the experience isn't identical to a physical phenomenon.
It has to do with model logic and how identity is true across all possible worlds. Since it appears there is a possible world where mental phenomena and physical phenomena aren't identical, that means they cannot be identical in any world.
There is no begging the question fallacy being committed in the argument. You have to look at each individual premise. If both premises are true, then the conclusion must be true, because the argument is in valid form (modus tollens).
To help anyone who is confused to understand it better, here is the same argument reworded differently:
1.) If it's true that you are your body, then it could not have been false that you are your body.
2.) It could have been false that you are your body. (For example, you can imagine yourself being born with a body other than the one you currently have.)
3.) Therefore, it's not true that you are your body.
So, from the argument's conclusion, if it's not true that you are your body, then what are you? Obviously, you consciously know that you exist, so you must be your immaterial mind, also known as your soul. Hence, the argument also supports the idea of incarnation and reincarnation.
(Remember, imagining yourself being born with another body is not like imagining a round, square table or a married bachelor. A round, square table or a married bachelor is impossible, but there is nothing impossible about you being born with another body. For the second premise, you need to understand how to distinguish between situations that are possible and situations that are impossible. To prepare for both premises, you need to understand how to distinguish between things that could have been false and things that could not have been false.)
@@km1dash6 you do t have to accept physicalism as a necassary truth...
@@jmike2039 yes. You do. It has to do with the axiom of identity, that if two things are identical, they are necessarily identical. It gets complicated because it has to do with modal logic, suffice to say you can't not be identical to yourself. If 1=1, then there isn't a universe where 1=/= 1. Because of this, any ability to prove that there is a mental state that is not identical to a physical state disproves physicalism.
Most counter arguments attack the conceivability-possibility principle, saying that it might make linguistic sense to say you are not your body, and we might be able to imagine impossible worlds.
The philosopher David Chalmers discusses this in greater detail. I would also advise you to read Kripke's work on identity.
7:17 "... it seems like a possible situation. You could have existed without Bert existing."
The phrase "seems like" is quite different than the word "is".
Just because it seems like You could have existed without Bert doesn't mean that You could have existed without Bert.
The ability to imagine a situation is different than that situation actually being possible.
Premise 2 should read "I can imagine 'It could have been false that you are Bert.'"
Instead it was misrepresented as "It could have been false that you are Bert."
It is stated without proper demonstration of its veracity. Imagining it to be the case does not imply that it is the case.
Moreover, the ability to imagine that it is the case doesn't imply that it is the case. It simply implies that it might or might not be the case. You can't use that as a premise.
"There is no there there."
This argument is just pure sophistry. It circular as it presupposes that the mind and body are separate entities and not one being the property of the other.
Almost every single word in your statement serve as a reminder of how dumb i am
Can we not draw a distinction between our perceptions and our conscious? A digital camera can hear and see is it now conscious?
Well, the premise is being able to imagine that the mind and body are separate. And if so, then the mind and body are separate. You may object to one of the premises, but the argument isn't circular.
there's evidence for both schools of thought so it's tricky for many to know what the reality is.
@@pledgechill7650 in this videos argument the purpose of being able to imagine being disembodied (ie being something other than a body - for example a mind or a soul or anything else) is to make an argument leading to a conclusion of whether or not the mind and body are separate - in other words - imagining being disembodied is the premise which in this case is also what you are trying to conclude - so it seems that it is a circular argument
It's an argument that seem plausible but only due to it not making a clear distinction between epistemological and metaphysical possibilities. In short it is epistemologically possible that we can be without our bodies, that is: we don't know either way if that's the case, but it might not be metaphysically possible or in other words it might not actually be the case that it is possible that we can be without our bodies.
I we view Kripke's argument charitably it is not equivocating but is referring to metaphysical possibilities (in which case the conclusion follows from the premises) and therefore needs to support it's premise that it is possible that we can be without our bodies. The only supporting argument for that premise is that we can imagine it to be so. The problem with that however is that it only addresses epistemological possibility since it only shows that to the best of our knowledge it is possible (in truth it fails to even do that since actual observations and tests would be more reliable methods, tests and observations which seems to indicate the opposite it should be added) in that we don't find any inconsistencies in existing without ones body. Just because we don't find these inconsistencies in our imaginations is hardly however any good assurance that they don't actually exists.
Its is definetly a wrong argument becuase it works in reverse :
If its true that you are not bert it coud not have been possible that you are not bert
You could have been bert
Therefore you are bert
The same argument contradicts its self so it cant be a working argument
this entire thing is propped up on vaguely defined assumptions
I am the wave not the water. But this does not mean a wave is immaterial and eternal.
so you assume 1+1=2 to prove that 1+1=2??? In 7:01, you already assume dualism is true by stating that "bert" and "you" are separated, so further argument is meaningless.
Take a shot everytime he says "Obama"
Well, the first problem is just that premise 1 is false. It claims to be identical to the "He is Barack Obama" example (and I'll just say it is for now), but that example is NOT tautological, as the argument claims.
Saying that the sentence "He is Barack Obama" is tautological is an abuse of language. This touches on Russell's discussion on the distinction between "names" and "descriptions," but that's not too relevant to natural language, since his concept of "names" (a kind of empty bucket like a mathematical variable) don't exist in natural language. And this is the problem: the example treats the words "he" and "Barack Obama" like they're the kind of "names" Russell describes, but they aren't.
"He" in this context means simply the man I'm pointing at. It's not arbitrary, so I can't have just said "X is Barack Obama," because "X" has no meaning. It's not a description. "He" IS a description, meaning "the man I'm pointing at," it's not the person himself, and it's not even a SYMBOL for the thing itself; it's a DESCRIPTION. So the sentence is just abbreviated for "The man I'm pointing at is Barack Obama." "Barack Obama" is also a description, even though it is linguistically a name, but not the Russellian "name." It means "the person named 'Barack Obama' who's the current President of the United States" + whatever background knowledge the listener has about him. So the sentence becomes "The man I'm pointing at is the person named 'Barack Obama' who's the current President etc." There's no logical connection between "he" and "Barack Obama." They aren't two ways of saying the same thing; they're two descriptions that-in this case-have the same referent. So it's not a tautology, and therefore premise 1 is false.
-
The second, probably more fatal flaw, is that premise 2 is complete bullshit, only substantiated by the imagination. And yeah, it may be possible to imagine being in other bodies, but I don't even think it's possible to imagine a COMPLETELY disembodied experience.
Daruqe Thank you very much! Very clear explanation.
I reject premise 1. If you don't then please follow the sophistry below:
If it's true that you are smart, then it could not have been false that you are smart
It could have been false that you are smart
Therefore: It's not true that you are smart
I do accept the conclusion that I am not the body or my body, but I didn't think this argument provided good reason to accept that conclusion as the first premise is where I had some doubts. And now, you have given me good reason to outright reject the argument. At least on its face, your example seems to me to be a good refutation of the argument.
Update: Actually, I don't any longer think your attempt at an analogous argument shows the problem with the argument as the seemingly absurd conclusion that you are not smart, while false in regard to a smart person, is nonetheless true in that the person is not smart in another sense, namely one in which the smart person is not numerically identical to smart, which doesn't seem absurd. You and smart aren't the same thing.
So the reductio that you arent smart falsely equivocates between some given fact (e.g. you) that has the property of being smart with that fact being numerically identical to smart, which is to say literally being the same thing as smart.
But I'm still not sure about the argument though.
Disappointed.
Existential dualism is any reflection to idiosyncratic persona
I think the noumenon is the objective aspect of reality. The phenomena of the universe is the subjective aspect of reality. All concepts like the body, the brain, time, motion, behavior, nouns and verbs are all subjective abstractions. The noumenon is beyond subjective understanding but yet it is speculated that the subjective aspect of reality is in fact a projection/ interpretation of the noumenal object. Therefore, in some sense, the noumenon is truly physical and the phenomena is the metaphysical. Or by the typical metaphors, the noumenon would be the "mind" and the phenomena would be the "body".
both aspects are equally real.
The noumenon is the objective state but the subjective phenomena is the assemblage of orderly experiences.
Rather than the body underlying mental activity, in my solipsistic philosophy, the MIND underlies concepts such as BODY.
So, in effect, I am proposing the reverse order of epiphenomenology.
There can be no mind without concepts nor concepts without a mind. Yet, time exists subjectively in the phenomena. So, the noumena would act as a causal generator or phenomena (as an illusion) but the phenomena would not generate the noumena other than as subjective abstractions of it - not adding to nor taking away from its integrity in any way.
However, there can be no proof of an objective reality beyond the phenomena. So. There can be no proof of a mind, or a physical nature underlying the abstract subjective reality.
All we can know exists is phenomena. And since we know it subjectively, we must presume that the mind and the body are both one and the same, as well as the physical and the metaphysical. And if all that exists is illusion, then illusion is a misnomer.
There is no reason to believe in a noumenon. This subjective reality is all that is necessary. And all interpretations and abstractions and concepts exist as equally valid elements of reality in a relativistic pluralism.
Your body affects your personality. If a person is their personality, they're to some extent their bodies.
I have a question, when objects ( sutch as the watch ) are broken , are they not transformed from one form of matter to another ( exe. burning wood for fire, and the wood breaks down into ash and smoke particles)? Great video , keep up the good work
This method is similar to the reasoning given in mandukya upanishad of vedanta. But the conclusion reached there is quite different. You are not only separate from your material body, the material body is an object of consciousness.
I’m late here, but know of any philosophers who talk about why to care for the body rather than just the conscious?
The fallacy here is pretty simple. If Dualism is not true than the mind is a product of the body (brain). Even if you somehow manage to get an identical mind through a nother process that wouldn´t be the same. Like a clone of me isnt me even if he is identical. So that it couldnt be false that I am my body.
Your argument only makes sense if you presuppose that my mind is not product of my body so that it could be in an other body or without one.
What you saying is: Since the mind can be without the body - the mind can be without the body.
A clone has a cloned mind so he is you. Problem solved
Your post is fallacious as well, because materialism is not the only alternative to dualism, you are making an obvious false dichotomy.
Though mind isn't uniquely matter dependent, since all your cells are replaced within 12 years.
Though you are right that a clone is has a separate consciousness and isn't the same.
Reading the comments, I can identify at least three fallacies in this argument, where the authors of the comments have imo provided convincing explanations thereof:
a) you can't deduce facts about "objective reality" with a purely logical argument not rooted in objective reality (see AntiCitizenX)
b) There is an implicit assumption of some "kind" of dualism, i.e. "I'm not equal to my body", which renders the argument circular (see Paradoxarn)
c) Even if mind would be different from body, it would not follow that it is "mental" or "non-material"; this would also needed to be proven (see e.g. my previous example with software as a similar concept or the "pyhsical process" - i.e. a part of the body, but not the entire body - example from Carla Delastella).
This kind of analytic philosophy isn´t really up to solving the mind-body-"problem":)
+nimim. Marko Mikkilä This physicist solves it: dfpolis #22 the Mind Body Problem.
The mind and brain are, by definition, two different things, regardless of whether or not one is a dualist. The brain is a collection of neurons, while the mind is, by definition, the abstract concept of one's consciousness which could exist in any brain; the "true" ship of Theseus, if you will. The mind/body problem is more a question of whether the mind can exist without the body than a question of whether the mind and body are separate entities. Since by their very definitions the mind and body are separate entities, the real debate is whether one arises from the other.
GrayHat4Life nice!
Your hypothesis fails at the Occam's razor: if you can define mind and body like two different things, but you can also define them as the same thing, then defining them as two different things is useless and wrong.
Username yeah but they are not the same thing. Sure the brain gives birth to the mind and its properties, but the mind does represent a concept entirely different from the brain studied in psychology and neurosciences
GrayHat4Life
My view is that "information/physical substrate" and "shape/matter" are both good metaphors for "mind/brain". There's no information or shape floating around disembodied just like there's no mind outside a body. We don't recognize it but everything we do, everything human minds do.. revolves around bodily things. Even abstract mathematical thought it is suspected to involve our bodily and movement schemas, when we think abstract relations we use our intuitive bodily relations and movements. Professor George Lakoff says that we have a grasp of time solely from bodily interactions with the physical environment-when we say "i met her AFTER lunch" or "BEFORE my 21 birthday" we use our experience with spatial relations between physical objects as they appear from a point of view (not a spread out immaterial conscious-gas). Every aspect of our lived experience is governed by the rules and necessities of a physical body and the interaction between it and the physical environment. Even "beauty" as we define it appeared as the need of our ancestors to identify pray and predators in a camouflage environment, and their need to identify symmetries and other bodily qualities such as textures and colors so that they could tell the health of their potential mating partners. Very likely there were individuals attracted to asymmetries, and fire, heights, and the taste of their shit, and not excited from identifying hidden patterns in the foliage.. yet these individual genotypes have very small chances at enduring throughout evolutionary time. Our experience today is very much centered around the physical, shaped by the physical interactions of our ancestors, and very likely, not only having a physical substrate but being identical to that substrate! You say that the brain and mind are two different things, but what's preventing you to accept that your mind is just how the brain lump of matter feels from the inside! When i look at someone else's brain while being under surgery and see that physical brain totally different from what my mind is.. that's because i'm looking at it from outside, from a 3rd person perspective, while i'm feeling mine "from the inside"!
This is interesting. As far as I can see it there is two extremes, one that the mind (or consciousness) is an immaterial thing separate from the body, or the other is that the mind is a completely physical emergent biological function. I see no reason why all thoughts and memories that make up consciousness and personal identity can't just be firing of neurons. All scientific evidence would back this notion, although the actual spark of consciousness may be harder to explain. I'm not sure there is a 'true ship of Theseus', maybe it depends on what sortal you add or if you look at it with a more temporal approach. But I see consciousness as just the collected function of all those neurons, and feel no need to postulate any further category of substance. It's like saying that a car mechanic fixes mechanical energy, but he just works on engines and furthermore specific parts of the engine.
I found this video confusing as it seems to mix implicitely different concepts.
I can make an example:
- a piece of software running on my PC is definitely a material thing since it is a magnetic or electric pattern on my hard drive or flash drive which controls transistors on the CPU
- I would assume that nobody would argue that this software is "mental" or "non-material"
- If I move that piece of software onto another PC, it is still the same software, but it runs on another PC (if we grant, that the PC itself is not part of the "software").
Same thing here: "I" am electric/chemical patterns (or whatever) that run on a "human body" (called Bert). If I transfer this exact electric/chemical pattern to Bertha or to a non-human substrate like a quantum computer, I'm still "me", just running on other hardware.
So assuming, that I accept the hypothesis which excludes the body as being part of "me", "I" remain still a physical thing.
Therefore I think the following two concepts are mixed in one, but are actually different in nature:
a) I'm not equal to my body
b) I'm a non-material, mental thing
Proposition b) does not follow from a) and is definitely not equal to a).
+Johnny Jakuleg
That is precisely why neuroscience does not entertain dualism- it only exists because a number of influential and powerful (albeit logically and morally indefensible) mythologies necessitate it, and so people feel compelled to make reasonable-seeming arguments to defend their views instead of applying a healthy dose of skepticism and critical self-analysis, as humans are wont to do.
Johnny Jakuleg my thoughts exactly
The computer is not concious of its existence you dumass
Thanks... "Turn thy sight unto thyself, that thou mayest find Me standing within thee, mighty, powerful and self-subsisting." ~ Baha'u'llah, Baha'i Faith
The assumption that the "spirit" Bert could have existed without the physical Bert is very strong. Disembodies spirits spring from such assumptions. More plausibly is that spirits do not exists anywhere but only momentarily. They are created by life experiences from non-existence.
I disagree with the second premise. You could not not have been your body as well. The mind is software that runs on the hardware that is the brain. The mind is an emergent property of the brain. We don't know nearly all about the brain yet, but to suppose that the mind can somehow be detached from the brain is just ridiculous.
I know right!
In World of Warcraft and similar games, there is a difference between a player character and a non-player character. In order to have a player, you have to have a person, not just software.
Although it is a widely acceptable claim (mind-brain identity theory), it is not the only theory that will give an explanation to the problem. The beggining of your answer already enteils a certain perspective. Simply stating it is not as convincing as arguing for it.
Aren’t you just asserting that though?
Determinism being true does not indicate that foreknowledge is practically possible... that much is true.
On the other hand, determinism being true DOES indicate that there IS a specific future that is entirely unavoidable.
The final form of the arguement makes sense.
What about the opposite?
1- If it's true that you aren't Bert, It could not have been false that you aren't Bert. (Truth=Not False!)
2- It could have been false that you aren't Bert.
3- You are Bert.
The argument is built upon associating a skepticism with a hypothetical truth and then tearing down that truth, leaving only its opposite.
So is it me or are these videos rarely about proving or solving something and just talking? I only saw one "equation" at the end and that was it. The last video didn't even have anything that fully proved the point of it.
If you are capable of having dreams in deep sleep, you have already proven to yourself of a mind-body dualism. Thank me later ;)
Omg never thought of that
what do you mean ?
This is a circular argument. Premise 2 requires that you believe in the mind-body dualism which you're trying to prove is real. All you're saying is that if mind-body dualism is real then mind-body dualism is real. However mind-body dualism isn't true simply because you can't have a single thought without your body reacting in some way, which all good poker players are aware of, so are cold-readers and magicians.
You can even influence your mind with your own body language. Walk up straight with your head hold high and your confidence will rise. Stare at a spot on the wall while clinching your jaws and your fists and make an angry face and after a short while you will actually start to feel angry for real.
Your body and your mind are interconnected and can't be disconnected from each other.
Also, for this mind-body duality to work, it, at root, emphasizes division, no? You need a separate "you" from the body; the ego, self, or soul.
Neuroanatomically speaking, no such entity exists. The arguments of the video depend on the self being more than a construct, but something like an actual organ in the head. Such an argument is not complimented by science today.
In fact, the arguments today support concepts of *nondualism*, not dualism. Of course for many of us, this is a problem of Eastern contemplative efforts vs Western assumptions on the nature of mind, yet it's the former that aligns better with the current science.
More specifically premise 2 is the begging the question fallacy.
This is why Leibniz's pre-established harmony is a clever solution to the problem.
So, I got hit in the face and that caused me pain, but it wasn't the fact that i got hit in the face that caused the pain but a previous state in my face that caused the pain... And also, I can't blame the guy that hit me in the face because that was just determent by a previous state of his hand How can anyone find such an explanation "clever"?
One word: Dreams.
Notes:
- are we separate from our mind?
- if no, our mind is a part of our brain, so we die when our body dies
- if yes, our mind can exist past our bodily death (immortality)
- Cartesian dualism believes both our mind and body exist separately as different substances, but work together to allow us to function
our bodies are like the radio, and our mind(consciousness) is the radio signal. this comparison makes a lot of sense for such a topic
@@crazando I agree so much!
What if our mind in our body could be copied into the matrix?
Consciousness, perception and thinking. A theory of mind Plato
1. Plato's Mind (the One, the Self) is the cause agent, the singular cybernetic control point, of all perception,
thinking and doing in the universe, where control is top down from Mind.
2. Plato's Mind is timeless and spaceless, and being the only Reality, time and space
are not ultimately real, but are artificial constructions.
3. Since Mind is mental, not physical, all control and causation is mental, not physical,
and top down, since Mind is the singular (cybernetic) control point at the top.
4. Thus Mind plays the brain like a violin, not the reverse.
5. Man's mind (small m) is a passive mental subset, or monad, of Mind and under its own control.
6. This monad (our mind) is the mental correspondent of the brain and controls it. Our mind
controls our brain/body like a robotic structure.
7. Thinking is the intentional action of Mind (and thus mind) on mental entities such as ideas,
manipulating and transforming them intentionally (through will).
8. Qualia are simply sensory experiences, the conversion by Mind of sensory nerve signals into
mental sensory experiences in a fashion similar to the conversion of physical sensory nerve signals into mental images.
9.. AQs Dennett has explained, In materialist thinking, there is no end to homunculi viewing the universe through a chain of homunculi. Leibniz terminates this infinite regress by making the last viewer the Self , which is at a higher level and suitably equipped.
10. Perception occurs as Mind converts physical sensory signals in the brain into mental experiences in one's mind.
11. These experiences can be made conscious (are made aware) by reperceiving or thinking them.
This is called apperception by Leibniz. Thus consciousness is apperception. (making sense of present reality through habitually constructed individual experiences)
12. The universe, according to Leibniz, is viewed directly by the One (the Self, the ONLY true perceiver), which views these scenes discretely and in sequence (analogous to snapshots) at discrete points as a whole indirectly through the totality of individual monads, and from their own perspectives.
13. This totality of sets of individual perceptions is then distributed in the proper order and perspective to each of the monads in the universe.
14. These individual sets are called "perceptions", and must be distributed in this indirect fashion
by Mind because each monad, in order to remain an individual, has no "windows", to use Leibniz's term.
15. The perceptions are made up of what the monad would see of its nearby neighbors
if it were allowed to do so (external environment experience) . This is purely mental, but allows us to speak in terms of spacial distances and directions, through these snapshots, between physical bodies,
which Mind, being spaceless, cannot actually directly.
16. Mind is also timeless, so that time is physically "created" as an artifact through
the actual motions of physical bodies in physical spacetime.
15. Intelligence is the nonphysical ability to freely make autonomous choices. It is a faculty of
nonphysical Mind, the Nothing out of which the physical universe exploded in the Big Bang.
17. Another name for this nonphysical intelligence is "life." Leibniz maintained that the entire
universe is alive.
18. Each monad is perpetual, created at the beginning of the universe and only annihilated by Mind.
19. Since monads can contain other monads, they can. as plants do through seeds,
and humans do through sexual reproducxtion, produce subsequent generations.
20. A robot or computer has no Mind or Self which has the wide bandwidth, intelligence
and intentionality to actually perceive , think, or do things, such as Mind does.
So, being without Mind, computers can have no actual intelligence or life. (without consciousness)
21. The current theory of mind is materialist. In contrast to the above, it uses the usual decapitated, mindless, or where mind is at best an abstract entity, not a living presence as in the above.
The materialist model of perception, thinking and doing, being Mindless, is dead.
Written Arrangement by Roger Clough
Substance Dualism cannot escape the interaction problem. Physicalism tries to avoid this but lands in the the hard problem of consciousness or ends up denying consciousness or cannot sustain mental causation. Monistic Idealism preserves the reality of consciousness and mental causation with no hard problem.
being a monistic idealist, would that make you a solipsist?
@@swagmasterdoritos no solipsism is the view that only one person or subject exists. Technically at least forms of monist idealist views are metaphysically solipsist, monist idealism in general does not entail does not entail that only you exist or only one person exists as there can, on monist idealism, exist multiple lower level subjects grounded in one higher level subject. But even this is seems to be open to various possible views in the philosophy of personal identity.
I'm also an idealist but I'm curious how you'd respond to those who claim that you are making a god of the gaps argument or an argument structurally equivalent to a god of the gaps like a didit fallacy? Personally, i think this is a flimsy objection but I'm curious about your response.
@@highvalence7649 1. The person who says this is confused on the difference between an explanatory hypothesis and a deductive argument. In a deductive argument, if the premises are true (and the form is valid), then the conclusion follows logically and necessarily. I'm making deductive arguments so I'm not appealing to some gap in our knowledge and using idealism to fill that gap. I argue that other positions suffer from fatal philosophical problems which render those positions incoherent, and I give arguments that show idealism must be true.
2. If you're interested in hearing some of my arguments and/or would like to speak with other idealists like yourself then you should join our discord server called *Idealism Identity.* There's a link to it on my about section on my channel. I'd put it here but it keeps shadow banning my comment. Hope to see you there!
@@MonisticIdealism interesting. Would you say that the hard problem is a priori insoluble?
And yes. I'll check out the dischord.
Question: how does the mind-body dualism handle neurological lesion studies?
What do you mean
The body is a detailed concept in the mind. Understanding consciousness as fundamental is not mind-body dualism.
Bert is now Burt? How did this happen!
I doubt this is going to help anyone pass a test in this stuff, I’m just casually interested. But he hasn’t defined what ‘you’ is. So drawing conclusions without that is kind of a waste of time. He’s just asserting a ‘you’ is a thing that can/does exist on its own. He says it’s possible that ‘you’ could be a disembodied mind.. really? How?
Conclusion- This is a mishmash explanation and I feel for those in this class. Surely there are better explanations of mind body dualism out there.
Great. Let's assume dualism so we can prove dualism.
I'm struggling with the phrase "could have". In what meaningful way can we claim that something "could have" been? What does that even mean? Something which happened could have not happened? I think we have too poor of an understanding of cause and effect to reasonably make claims of what "could have" been. Like a child telling you the dog could have been a cactus.
How do you explain, Physical injury(amnesia), diseases ( Alzheimer’s), drugs. Things that affect the body and altering our consciousness-if our consciousness is not physical product of the body.
This comment section is filled with people who took a freshman critical thinking class and think they have a sufficient understanding of logic to dismiss Saul (motherfucking) Kripke’s elegant modal argument based on the understanding of it they got from an eight minute introductory UA-cam video. While there are good objections to Kripke, Dunning-Krueger is not the place to come from in trying to make them.
I really enjoyed this video and hope it inspires people to pick up and seriously engage with Naming and Necessity. That’s a deeply rewarding read.
Doesn’t the first premise contain the conclusion? I’m confused
my argument is if atoms and smaller materials of the universe are not conscious, or contain any consciousness that we have observed, then how can the human brain made of these materials suddenly have consciousness. it seems to me like saying if you stick lego bricks in a complicated enough way it becomes conscious. how could that happen?
it seems similar to attempting to make an artificially conscious robot. you could program an animatronic robot to move it's hand away from a flame, but how could you program those pieces of silicone and metal and other atoms to actually feel it?
I don't see why consciousness cannot simply be an abstraction of the underlying physics of the brain, just like the programs you see running on your computer are just an abstraction from the binary physics of the computer itself, which are an abstraction from the interaction of electrons.
Just because you cant see the forest by looking at a single tree doesn't mean the forest is outside of reality.
This explanation does not require that you assume things can exist without being material.
i concede that dualism runs into the same problem as physicalism e.g if there is a second universe where the mind lives, then what materials are making it? however dualism also has the additional problem of there being no evidence for this second universe that houses the mind. all evidence points to the brain containing the physical ingredients that produce consciousness. we can lose an eye or a leg and not have it impair our cognition, but if the brain gets damaged at all it impedes cognition. so whatever the brain is composed of must have the ability to experience the universe, which suggests pan-psychism to be the logical conclusion. it still feels paradoxical to me that electrons etc can have feelings. we could suspect the first feelings to be introduced with the evolution of the brain as a center of the nervous system in living organisms that needed to sense it's surroundings e,g light, touch. but it still doesn't satisfy me of the need or ability for there to actually be a mind feeling it, as opposed to it being simply newtonion laws taking place. however cogito ergo sum, so i know that at least in me the materials in my brain have created sense of self. in other words, i know that the brain creates feelings, but i just can't figure out how. sorry if this seems stupid btw but i find it an infuriating paradox that i'm just not smart enough to get past. i'd appreciate your feedback. cheers
Good point
When studying biology, we learn that we have two nervous systems. The oldest is the autonomous system. It controls the speed of heartbeat, breathing, digestion and emotion. It also control a type of muscle that is very slow and which appear white on visual inspection. Example of such slow muscle are the iris in the eye, any sphincter, the muscle around artery and vein to regulate blood pressure.
The second nervous system is the voluntary. It is made of much faster neuron (about 10x faster) and it control much faster muscle ; the red muscle are controlled by our "will" ; we take a decision to do something and these muscle may start moving semi-automatically, like walking or fully under conscious control.
The voluntary system has absolutely no control on the automatic system. However, there is many cases where both need to work toward a goal. For example, when we need to piss, we need to open voluntarily the red muscle sphincter and the autonomous system must also relax the white muscle to allow us to piss. There is cases where the autonomic system sensing high pressure in the bladder will relax the sphincter muscle, but we don't want to piss now, so we feel great effort to force the voluntary muscle to prevent pissing. The opposite happen too, when we are in the bathroom, knowing we opened the voluntary muscle, but no piss come because the autonomic system do not collaborate.
The emotions/feelings are generated by distinct chemicals generated by the autonomic system. These chemicals are released in the blood stream and get sensed by neuron located far away downstream.
The voluntary system interact with each part of the body, and communicate between different parts of the brain using direct connections (using synapses, of course, not a literal direct contact because each neuron cell need to be hermetically closed as any other cell in the body).
The feelings are also mediated by a part of the brain which distinguish "objects" position/identity. Here is a concrete example to explain this from a documentary seen on youtube : a female moose is attacked by 3 wolfs. She is trying to protect the young moose, keep it under her or very close. The baby moose feel the danger and stay close. As the wolfs attack, the female run after one for a few seconds, then run back to her baby, then attack another wolf. The great difficulty for her is to remember where is her baby, feel the love for it and feel rage for the wolf. These two emotions need to alternate very fast.
At some point, the wolf succeed to pull the baby about 100 foots away. The mother is scanning the horizon, trying to find her baby. She can see the wolf staying away, they appear to eat something. But she still wander where her baby can be? Once the familiar look and smell disappear, and the sound that the baby was making is not present, then she can't find it.
For more evolved mammals, more persistent link will exist. For example, lions who lost babies from hyenas will retaliate against any hyenas in the future. Even lions who just witnessed an attack, without losing their own babies, will feel that same emotion toward hyenas and will participate in genocide of other predators. Contrary to moose, the lions can recognize their babies no matter how disfigured by predators, and can associate the grief with the primary cause of their pain. Like humans, they distinguish clearly a race of animal. They use these higher cognitive capacity to dominate, acting like the human construct idea of "king of animals".
Atoms and smaller materials of the universe don't contain mathematics either, so how can a pocket calculator made of atoms be used to solve arithmetic problems? The idea is, if you were to combine the right kinds of atoms into not just a "complicated enough" structure, but specifically the right sort of architecture to support the "operating system" of consciousness, then you'd get conscious experience as an emergent property. We can't prove this yet, since we don't know enough about what consciousness or conscious experience even is to have a proper theory about exactly how they work, but there's enough correlation between observed brain activity and conscious experience to make the idea plausible, and it's much better supported than the idea that the mind is an independent entity from the body.
But, can you really be disembodied or have another body? This argument have it's basis on this possibility, which frankly, has not been demonstrated to be possible. Seems like this argument is circular, as it uses the very point it tries to make as part of it's premise.
This makes you wanna question yourself like what are we, why are we, how did we just come out of existence ? How did existence exist? Why did it exist? Are we dreaming but how are we dreaming if it’s real theoretically?? Is there actually such thing as death? I mean we are made out of energy and energy never dies so when we die do we just still live on and manifest into another body form with all of our memories erased and start over and then we re-questioned the same questions all over again so in all,, the “past, present, future” they’re all the same thing we’re just re-living the same existence all over again? Are we even energy or are we something else? I mean golly, we have to be something if we’re all experiencing this life at the same time individually so we have to be SOMETHING figurative speaking. I don’t know 😹
I feel like the more we dig into more and more questions either A,, it’s all answered or B,, there’s nothing to question if it’s not something to be answered metaphorically speaking…. I mean does time exist? Is time it’s own entity? Is time and our existence a good example of “Mind-Body Dualism?” 🤧
Thank for explaining in a non bias way....
By the way, I started primary school. I had learned to read and write before going to school. I still bring beans and sticks to school. For some reason I can't find suitable sticks... I take a matchstick instead of a piece of bush. A certain number is required. Mine are still missing though. Thanks God, they overlook my shortcomings because they find me intelligent. When I started school as an intelligent person; the school presented me with another reality of the society. I had assumed those who went to school were special personalities. School; seemed like it was not an institution that I would succeed and embrace. School; was as if it was the place where people who could get integrated with the school, would assume a privileged personality when they were being educated. Before school, my place in my own eyes and in the eyes of the society was uncertain. It was not clear whether I was respected, disgraced, at the bottom or at the top. Environmental factors that fed my self positively were very few. I was mostly feeding my self with my intuition that is in depths. School was the first external factor that determined my place in the society. Since it seemed that I was intelligent, my meaningful intuitions continued on a social basis as well. In the 2 years before school; I couldn't experience enough positive psychology because the strength and prideful side of my self was lacking. I can't live it now either. Again, I maintain my self with meaningful intuitions. I have as much meaning as the part of my innate intelligence that has not yet been transformed into psychology. That's why everything makes so much sense to me; including my uncles, including the few items I can see. There has been no increase in the number (or type) of items since I was 4 years old. There has been a slight increase in the number of new people I have met. It's like it didn't increase at all. That's why the volume of meaning that is in me continues at the same amount. Meaning could not turn into psychological pleasure; in short, it could not turn into normal psychology. If there was a direct increase in items and living things or if there was an increase in items and living things due to the expansion of my geographical environment; it would turn into psychology. The items and the living things remained almost constant, the meaning as well... As time passed, however, my psychology increased. Increasing psychology was not the normal psychology that should have increased with the increase in number of things and beings. It was the negative psychology caused by the consciousness and actions of my environment that were insufficient for me. Therefore; almost all of my newly formed psychology consisted of negative psychology. The reason for the existence of my normal volume psychology is that my innate intelligence meets the materials around me. Its potential is as big as my intelligence. You know, "the meaning" was as much as my intelligence... After all, there is a world we live in. The sensation of beings and my encounter with beings; would enable meaning to turn into psychology. We brought the meaning as much as our intelligence, from birth. We did not innately bring the psychology that will be formed for this world. There is a situation where the psychology does not seem to fit our originality. It fits. Because the environment; is one of the 5 parts of the self. Thus, we have said the wonderful connection that the volume of psychology will be as much as intelligence. The psychology we put on our backs later, thanks to the environment; sits in a shape in its original consistency. It is necessary for the intelligence to grasp as many various beings as it is able to grasp. Here; this necessity is the big part of what is called the self. This is what is called the soul, it is this necessity. Psychology is; the vibrations (spiritual movements) created by the relevant substances in the body for the necessity of this comprehension.
This book says new things that way. The name of the book is Sacrosanct İntelligence.
@Chahun Coller, are you a native English speaker? Based on your channel's created playlists and your subscriptions, I suspect that English isn't your primary language. Your native language is Turkish, no? Also based on the same information, it is highly unlikely that you're six-years-old. This video's content, and the majority of the video content within your channel, is way beyond what a six-year-old would be able to comprehend.
However, let's give you the benefit of the doubt and say that perhaps you're starting primary school as an adult. I still really hope that English isn't your primary language. If you actually thought what you wrote was showcasing your intelligence, let me tell you completely missed the mark. Basically, what you said in your post was an avalanche of incoherent verbal diarrhea. You seriously come across as someone who is suffering from Type One - Bipolar Disorder with Psychotic Features.
I'm not joking that I currently think you have a mental disorder. If what you wrote is seriously how you talk, regardless how many times it happens, I would highly suggest that you make an appointment with a psychiatrist ASAP. Especially if you haven't yet gotten any help by the time you read this. Your seemingly pressured tone, disorganized speech, expressed grandiosity, and circumstantial verbiage are common indicators of a possible thought process disorder.
Lastly, if you're not suffering from any mental illnesses, then you have long road ahead of you towards improving your English compositional skills. Here's to you in becoming more coherent the next time you write in English.
Good Luck! You'll need it!
@@CrispyBacon101 This text is literaryly flawed, yes. I've made two corrections since then. good right now.
So what am I? Would this argument conclude that I am reducible to an awareness that is somehow attached to or generated by a human? You could have gotten around to explaining what "we" really are if we are not physical things.
Maybe a version using the principle of identity would be stronger. Nonetheless, this is certainly a different way of arguing for B-MD.
If mind and body are separate, then what are anti depressants for?
Its seems the point of contention would be premise #2 which underlies the whole argument. Is it possible that if you don't have the body of bert, that you are bert. Can you have the body of bertha and still be bert?
I feel like the problem with this argument is in the first premise.
When you make a statement such as "That man is Obama" it is true because implicit in the statement is the definition that Obama is that man.
Whereas when you make the statement "You are your body" we already have two separate definitions that are not intrinsically linked - one of our mind, being our conscious experiences, and one of our body, the physical thing we see. Now the second premise makes the point that these things that are defined could possibly be the same and could possibly be different. This is true. This is a fact about the world that could theoretically be discovered. But, you can't define something like this to be true in all possible worlds if it is true, because it isn't a logical statement anymore but a factual one. Since mind and body are separately defined and we are asking whether they are the same, the question is really more akin to "Is that man the President (defined to be whoever leads the US)", rather than "is that man Barak Obama (defined to be that man)"
You could put the argument as follows:
Def 1: Mind = our conscious experience
Def 2: Body = the physical thing you see as your body
Premise 1: If there exists some world where Mind = Body, then Mind = Body in all possible worlds.
Premise 2: There exists a world where Mind != Body.
Conclusion: Therefore Mind != Body.
But premise 1 is nonsensical. Here it is derived from a comparison to the Obama example. But let us reformat the argument with these terms.
Def 1: Man = the man we see in front of us
Def 2: Obama = the man we see in front of us (by definition, this was the whole point of why this example was always true)
Premise 1: If there exists some world where Man = Obama (tautology), then Man = Obama in all possible worlds.
(This is nonsensical because you don't even need the qualifier for it to be true in the first place because it's already true by definition. The reason it was there in the first place is because the argument disguises any truth of equality as a truth by definition)
Premise 2: There exists a world where Man != Obama.
Conclusion: Therefore Man != Obama.
Premise 1 states:
if it's true that Y = B then:
it could not have been false that Y = B
translates to:
if Y = B then:
it (could not) have been true that Y != B
translates to:
if Y = B then:
P(Y != B) != 1
Premise 2 states:
it could have been false that Y = B
translates to:
it could have been true that Y != B
translates to:
P(Y != B) in [0,1]
which is not the negation of the implication of premise 1. So it is not correct to follow with modus tollens that Y != B.
good video
in 1238 Birth of Madhava, founder of the Dvaita( dualism) Vedanta School in India.
+Wireless Philosophy It's very easy to pin a reductio ad absurdum to this argument so it shouldn't be taken seriously. You and Bert should try to do better.
This argument is flawed because it changes what "Bert" refers to in the middle of the argument. First "Bert" is used to refer to you then "Bert" is used to refer to some person. If you are "Bert" then replacing "Bert" with you in the above argument is a valid thing to do. Try it and the argument is reduced to the absurd statement "you are not you".
+cgm778 I think I agree. The way I see it, "Bert" is defined as a mass of cells, and then is quietly (but in plain sight) re-defined as something other than this mass of cells. Then they state that these two different entities (each labeled "Bert") are different. And somehow this is supposed to be a contradiction.
dear cgm778 I agree. The premise 2 falsely presupposes the soul/Bert being different. Well the way to show premise 2 is faulty, is insert some impossible thing for soul/Bert. It's like the Spagetti Monster belief religion. Soul is just a thrown in fantasy in Premise 2. Soul is a real as the Spagetti Monster.
What the Dualist is trying to even establish is that Soul (Spagetti Monster) exists!
It's like a massive argument trying to prove Santa Claus MUST exist.
Premise 2 includes that sudden insertion of Santa Claus/Spagetti Monster/Soul.
06:38 is just pulling a "you" out of nowhere and calling that "you" as some Spagetti Monster/Santa Claus/Soul that is NOT Bert. It's just a huge insertion of a false "thing" and throwing it into the argument, like a con man throwing in a false thing to sell the listener with!
Argument fails and somewhere some other logicians somewhere I'm sure beat this argument with their proper logical demo language better than what I just said.
For a watch to deserve to be called a watch, by definition, it has to keep track of time and display it.
If the glass has crack or the decorative part are scratched, both the watch is otherwise in good shape, it is still a watch.
If one needle felt and the watch just show hours or minutes, nobody would buy such useless watch even if it still keep track of time reliably.
If the mechanism is broken and the watch always display the same time, then it is not a useful watch.
The mind or consciousness is made of a large number of complex process. Philosophically, we can compare
- the mind
to the function
- "counting time"
for a a watch.
The equivalent of neurons are the gears in the watch.
The source of energy for the watch is usually stored in the potential energy of a long spiral rolled spring. For the brain, it is mostly glucose.
The release of the potential energy is detectable as microscopic motion of every part of the spring as it slowly unwind. For the brain, glucose react with the oxygen that we breath to generate CO2 and the energy gained by the combustion provide both heat and the physical strength to pump sodium out and potassium in the neuron. Once enough gradient has accumulated, the neuron is like a loaded mouse trap, ready to trigger the next chemical/electrical pulse. See wikipedia:Na+/K+-ATPase, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Na%2B/K%2B-ATPase
For a watch to work, every gear must be working. For a human to want to use a watch, it must also display clearly the result.
Exceptional brains like Albert Einstein have the same watch equivalent structure, identical gear system as fellow humans, but they are manufactured with greater precision so keep track of time to the point of giving the orrect answer down a few second drift over a year.
The less carefully brain just don't care if some gear are missing tooth or dust and other bug impede the correct operation. Some fellow human seem to have needle rotating at random, pointing toward the current wind instead of firmly holding to the truth.
Thanks for this man, feels like you woke me up
This is so dumb.
You are talking about different kind of possibilities but deeming them as one.
I' don't want to go into that because nobody will understand so let’s use the simple solution
Your argument works in reverse:
Premise 1: If it’s true that you are soul, then I it could not have been false that you are soul
premise2: It could have been false that you are soul
Therefore: It's not true that you are soul
PROBLEM?
First premise is happening in the "real" world, second premise is "abstract". If you look at it logically, if A=A, then not A = not A. If you think with the mind using abstract, if P(A) = not A, then A = not P(A). This raises the suspicion in the mind, that which is real, can''t know for sure that the soul is the same as the body. Then a realization that "true" and "false" are seperate. "Real" and "Imagination" are 2 different things. Mind and body, are 2 different things. If you talk about a soul, then you agree within the laws of dualism, that there is something that is not the soul, so the soul can't be the same thing as the body.
@@Suuuperb can you simplify it for me please?
And the concept of Barack Obama could exist without the physical man, if he was just a character in a movie for instance. The fact that the name, or concept or whatever, points to that physical man, is a conditional truth. This is mere word acrobtics to confuse.
Kabitu1 existence must be language and mind independent
A lot of people do not understand modal properties and modal logic and it shows.
If I’m not Bert then are you Bert?
How could we ever practically move from "seems so" to "is so"? He is declaring a level of certainty, which all forms of sensory knowledge ultimately are.
It certainly seems like relativity is true, but like every scientific law is it derived inductively and can be falsified in the future. So scientists clearly don't consider it to be an "is so", nor do we of any sensory knowledge. Therefore relativity only 'seems so' but nevertheless can be true considering the wealth of evidence for it.
What you should be arguing is that he hasn't provided sufficient evidence to grant premise 2.
For a layman's introduction see the videos of Niall Jock McLaren
I agree with the point 'you are not Bert' only if it means that our looks don't define who we truly are. But on the other hand, i strongly disagree with the fact 'you could've been here without bert'!
Oh btw i think the name bert is kinda cute lol
does anyone know what he just said?
This mean you are not bert.
When you make make the claim that (4:08) 'Either there were dinosaurs or there were no dinosaurs' could not have been false, I see a problem. The premise that goes before declaring that ~A or A is that conventional logic holds true. In other words, the hidden assumption is that "it is a necessary truth that ~A or A is true". However, imagine a reality in which ~A and A can simultaneously both be true, or both be false. How then does it follow that 'Either there were dinosaurs or there were no dinosaurs' could not have been false - while there obviously exists a possibility that it could indeed be false?
I haven't studied philosophy, so I can't say I know mich on this dualism theory, but the first thought that came to mind was "well what about 'Bert' being a collection of bacteria, and 'me' being like the pilot of this vessel?"
I feel like this explanation ignores a lot of details just so it can sound valid
+KrisKael6 I'm pretty sure Bert and you and I ARE a collection of bacteria. Dualists assert a disembodied "him" is driving Bert. This raises the question WHO is the pilot, what is its/his/her nature, and how can we find out?
I, and other non-dualists, assert that the swarm of bacteria IS DRIVING ITSELF. We state that there IS NO Bert absent the swarm. It is NOT POSSIBLE that there is a Bert absent the swarm. Even if you, I, or Bert could imagine a pilot that is different from the swarm of bacteria, that doesn't mean it is possible that this is the case.
Welcome to the world of studying philosophy. Stick around if you like it. You won't run out of material.
Hey man, sorry I'm a year late, and thanks for the informative reply, just came to say that, and also that I struggle to comprehend our bodies aren't governed by a system. It may be just convenience that leads me to think the central nervous system "governs" our bodies actions, I can understands how certain bacteria, especially when you have more than you need in your system, could heavily influence your decision making, but again, I just can't comprehend my decisions being solely based on what the bacteria in my body desires. And even though the amount of human DNA in the average human body is apparently around 10%, I don't feel that these microscopic forms, even en masse, could accomplish the tasks humanity has accomplished, and even though I don't believe that we are metaphysical beings who chose to have a mortal life or were granted superiority over all other life from a god or anything like that, I do think we are in charge of this ecosystem we envelop
Pity Alex does not go into why this is wrong. So I will have a go.
P1 : "You are Bert": is an assignment statement. Placing a Label on "something" we intend to talk about. It could be your body, your identity, your personality or any other aspect of you that we intend to discuss. YOU are not BERT, you are a bag of chemicals. Bert is a reference to some aspect of that bag.
So although P1 could be trivially true it is not true in the meaning used by the argument.
P2: "You could have been in another body" (apart from the Label issue). No this is false, your function, personality and memory are intrinsically linked to the experiences that your body went through during development. "You" would not have been you if you were in another body.
Also P2: is a Begging the question fallacy - when an argument's premises assume the truth of the conclusion. To be able to be disembodied or differently bodied Mind-Body Dualism would have to be true, which is exactly what the argument is trying to prove.
Conclusion:
Descartes, Saul Kripke and Alex might just as well have said "Mind-Body Dualism is true because I said so"
As Alex says, this is a simplified version of Saul Kripke's variation of Descartes argument. The original versions are more convoluted, trying to hide the begging the question fallacy.
Mind-Body Dualism comes from a time with a lack of scientific knowledge about human physiology and neuroscience. There's plenty of research that proves that our minds and our body's affect one another tremendously. I don't take dualism seriously
I'm not a dualist but dualists don't dispute that the mind and body effect one another. I'm not sure why you'd think the mind and body effecting one another would constitute an argument against dualism but if you're refering to the interaction problem, then it's not like dualists aren't aware that it is the case that the mind and body do interact. It's just that explaining this interaction is difficult or arguably even impossible for a dualist to do within a dualist framework.
BUT I'M NOT BERT YOU GOTTA BELIEVE ME
bro, what?
E=mc2 can probably give us insight into what builds motivation, because the way i see it mind is about wants. To be a truly neutral observer with no reactions to what is observed makes you more of a camera than a person no? From the first primordial microbe to you there is an accumulation of successful life promoting habits, each laid out in the neural connections it formed in order to survive. The wide range of life giving habits can in some sense DEFINE your mind. differentiating Mind and matter is like differentiating Mist from glacier, although made from the same molecular construct, the overall impact on the environment is the only notable difference. But Mind and matter are made of the same thing that can only be distinguishable by impact it has on the environment just like water molecules arrange itself to do different things. Except neither mist nor glacier map out its personal future occurrences it can only be guided by the most efficient trajectory (aka path of least resistance). Can we say that mind is free from cause and effect? I was talking to my brother the other day trying to explain how intelligence is a degree of familiarity with circumstance. How can intelligence be born from cause and effect? I gave my brother the whole "thumbs didnt evolve, those were just deformities that helped" grip tree branches (talk) as our earlier ancestors lived in trees to survive. But then I presented a very plausible scenario of a primate that jumps and tries to swing from a weakened branch that snaps free from the tree as the monkey fails to swing to another branch before he falls. Now with a branch in hand the unfortunate monkey is faced with a natural predator. Normally running is reserved for encounters with predators, and most do, but out of possibly hundreds of millions of primates that faced this scenario several tens of millions were caught before running away, those that faced this situation, had a higher chance of survival if and when the predator bit the wood (No not like that), the monkeys that used the branch to push back with the branch and possibly inflicting some pain, allowing some to experience the usefulness of a WEAPON!!!! of course out of the tens of millions, only a handful of millions perceived the use of the branch as a weapon, seeding the species with a higher understanding of applying objects to get favorable outcomes. Now I dont know that this is the actual way that we learned to use external object to get what we want but it does serve as a way of perceiving how the mind is just as stuck to the laws of cause and effect as is any other object. Now we can say that we perceive future event and choose accordingly to that. But if I told you you can either eat cake or blow your brains out, there isnt much impulse built into you(unless you are a heavily suffered soul) to blow your brains out over just eating sweet cake. You could blow your brains out to prove your rebellious point, but this strategy wont help in passing your genetic information so therefore this kind of choice, although rare and still very real, is too destructive to be part of any healthy human mind.
+Al Gi
That is nonsensical Chopra-esque psychobabble.
Ummm I have serious issue with the 2nd premise. You say "it's true that things could have been different..." how do you know that? What's you ur evidence or proof? If you have none, then yu cannot say it's true that things could have been different. Therefore the 2nd premise is out and so is the argument.
Thanks, Fred Blogs.
Isn't it more like: It could be false that you are Bert ---> It might not be true that you are Bert (?)
No it's not. The argument is basically: If you are Bert, then it's impossible for you to not be Bert. If you aren't Bert, then it is possible for you to not be Bert.
They then argue that it IS possible for you to not be Bert (i.e. Bertha or disembodied), so you must not be Bert (since otherwise, it would be impossible for you to not be Bert).
The idea that because you can imagine you not being tied to your body or in another body, does not make it possible. You are you but only in this point in time/space. You are not the you from 5 minutes ago. If you lose a hand, you are not the same you as you were. You are the compilation of what your mind is aware of, your body, your environment.
+Rodrigo Gallinari
" "you are not the you from 5 minutes ago"
and that's some deep BS. what is your proof?"
It's tautological, unless you're pretending that the thing that we're going to call me is the same at all times. Tell me- if I am me from five minutes ago, why do I now know of your existence? If I am the same me from five minutes ago, am I not the same me from ten minutes ago? Ten weeks? Ten years?
You are fundamentally and willfully ignorant of neuroscience and the implications of applying neuroscience to this topic.
Rodrigo Gallinari
You are *completely* wrong, and also *completely* ignorant of neuroscience. How did you come to the point of having such a high opinion of your own intellect that you would make cocksure declarations vehemently and adamantly opposing an entire field within the biological sciences?
Rodrigo Gallinari
You want me to prove the basic tenets of modern neuroscience, or you want to flip the burden of proof and disprove your unsubstantiated assertion? Let's clear that up before we move forward, because there really isn't any moving forward without clearing that up.
Rodrigo Gallinari
Uh... Did you understand my question?
I don't get how the second question 'can you imagine having another body' is different from 'can you imagine having a soul' or 'are you different from your body'. The logic adds nothing to the argument. I'm not even sure I accept 'Dinosaurs could not have existed'. Of course I can imagine, Dinosaurs not having existed, but I can imagine a lot of stuff, e.g. impossible objects (and Escher could even draw them).
It should be more like "can you experience your soul? " that i would say "yes"
Imagine you have a soul. Therefore, you have a soul.
I'm new to philosophy. I checked out the dialogue by Plato last month. Since then I've spent a lot of my free time researching and reading about Western philosophy. My question is: why is it an absolute truth that he is Barack Obama? In my mind dualism would suggest that he might not be. I'm pretty sure the guy, with the Ph.D, that made this video, is correct. I am, in no way, trying to start a debate or argument. I'm still very 101 when it comes to Descartes and philosophy in general. I would just like to know why I'm wrong.
I just realized how old the comments are
Kinda primitive argument. Ones needs to take into consideration that 1-identity is a social construct and 2-that being Bert and Berta is possible, just like "+" and "plus" are the same and different at the same time.
This is confusing for people that never studied this before, you as a teacher didn't do a very good job at this.
Sorry.
Neither. We aren’t minds or bodies. When you were a child you had a different mind and a different body. The body changes. The mind changes. You are neither of these.
Intellectual purposeless theorisation
Noumenon is a cogito-like containment full of phenomena 😗 . The noumena becomes a double bound universal consciousness. Noumena A and Noumena B. A pond, noumena a, is an organism itself at times is full of jelly like substance full of eggs that hatch into tadpoles they grow up into another ecosystem usually, outside the pond. Then we ate them.
How is the concept of evolution addressed? Consider the evolution of life over the last several billion years. consider the evolution of DNA and what it enables as well as the forces that drove and enabled it to evolve.
we are robots. Bodies that execute.
It's almost as if this video was meant to be meaningless!
That means it could not be false if its true that the video had meaningful meaningless understanding.
@@chokeonthis2932 😇 ahhh, now it's beginning to make sense!
When I was a child I suspected the rock down the road from our place had a soul, now I have proof for it.
Why does ¬Q mean ¬P when no1 said that if Q then P?
The first premise was not if Q then P'. The first premise was 'if P then Q'.
In case you don't know the sign '¬' it is the negation sign which means 'not' or 'it is not the case that'
So, as stated in the video, the form of the argument was an inference rule in logic known as modus tollens which takes the following form:
if p then q
¬q
therefore ¬p
or, alternatively put in logic symbols,
P→Q
¬Q
∴¬P
This is regarded as a valid inference rule in logic. This means that it is logically impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false. Or alternatively put, as I like to put it, the conclusion in the argument follows necessarily from its prior premises. This is the reason ¬Q means ¬P when the first premise was 'if P then Q'.
I hope this was helpful.
oh, my thought is called headache, i have to visit my doctor...
:-)
Premise 1:
Substitute the material part of the mind body connection for a radio.
Substitute the mind or ego identity of the self for music.
If it's true that a radio receives the music of conscious* , then it could not have been false that the mind body connection is identifying a radio with the experience of identifying music.
Premise 2:
It could have been false that you are just a radio.
Therefore:
It's not true that you are a radio. You are just a mere note of music emanating from the chaotic orchestra of consciousness being played through the radio of your brain.
*Speculative conjecture
In my point of view it is more apt to differentiate the properties of self awareness from consciousness.
I believe consciousness to be a term with properties that superset over the term self awareness.
I make this distinction as I believe in the future computers will become self aware, but may not become conscious.
My opinion is that unsolved problem of determining what produces consciousness is most likely to have solutions found in higher dimensions.
I speculate that neural activity of the brain can interact with higher dimensions through quantum entanglement.
That being said I think the final frontier to search for evidence of a soul (mind existing outside of the material body) is to seek out if the brain can interact with a quantum fields.
If a link between quantum fields and the brain could be established then it could be postulated that the mind exists outside of the material world of four dimensions.
This is analogous to viewing the hardware of the brain as a computer that links to the internet to interact with the software of the mind.
*Edited (Revised for clarity.)
+intellectable
That's not speculative conjecture; speculation necessitates making logical (or at the very least, grammatical) sense.
The Aristotelian soul is a far superior explanation
I prefer looking at near death experiences for finding more about the mind-body dualism. I do believe in it btw, but this argument in the video makes no sense at all lol the conclusion is part of the second premise, making it circular as other people observed here in the comments. That's why philosophy is not respected anymore. I think philosophy laid down the foundation for science to appear and it was important because of that. But now just leave it in the hands of science.
Let me describe near death experiences for those who arent familiar with the phenomenon. You die, i.e, your heart and brain stop (confirmed by EEG measurements), while you are dead, you see things in the room you are. After you are ressucitated, you describe what you saw in the room. The observations are verified by the medical staff who was there. This is one of the curious things that happen during an NDE. There are many more. However I believe this one thing is much better evidence of a soul than the argument presented in the video. What do you guys think?
Mind Fuck Level trillion times a trillion.
Anyone who understood?