Philosophy 101 Unit 1

Descartes believed that the mind was separate from the body. He believed that the mind was non-physical, as opposed to the body, which was indeed physical. He also believed that the connection between the mind and the body was through the pineal gland. To quickly summarize, Descartes couldn’t have been further from the truth.

The mind does indeed reside in the body. The mind is inside the brain. Descartes would not doubt say that, oh if the mind is in the brain, and you think about a tree, why is it if you were to open up a person’s skull and look at their brain, there would be no tree? While this claim is completely moronic, I cannot entirely fault Descartes here because during his time in the 17th century, they knew very little about neurology. Nevertheless, it is still an absurd statement to make.

The evidence supports that the mind does in fact reside within the brain. Diseases such as dementia and Alzheimer’s that have an effect upon the brains’ functioning. This also effects a persons ability to think, remember, reason, and many other things we associate with the mind. Another example is if a person is involved in an accident and suffers brain damage and either becomes a vegetable, brain dead, or some other medical term that describes brain functioning or lack of it. By Descartes argument, because the mind is separate from the brain, this should have no effect on a person, aside from their intelligence. This person should still be conscious and aware of their surroundings, react to stimuli, etc. However, they don’t. One final example is when you are sick. Say you have a cold. Your congested, sneeze, coughing, all that fun stuff. You ever notice you feel like absolute shit and have trouble concentrating on things and focusing on the topic at hand? Yes well if the mind was indeed separate from the body, being sick would have no effect on the mind. A persons thinking would be clear, they would have no trouble concentrating, etc.

If I have yet to prove Descartes didn’t know where the mind was any better than Bush knows where Osama is, let me leave you with these few thoughts. The first of which is, Descartes believed that the Pineal gland is what connected the physical body with the non-physical mind. We know today that pineal glad is apart of the endocrine system and creates a hormone called melatonin, which affects a person’s circadian rhythm. The last thing I would like to talk about is LSD. We known (some have only learned, others experienced) that LSD is a hallucinogen that effects serotonin and dopamine receptors in the brain, along with many other things I don’t quite understand. My point is again that if the mind were separate from the brain, none of the hallucinations would occur from ingesting LSD. Maybe if Descartes had experimented with a recreational drug like LSD, he would have realized that the mind and body are indeed not separate.

Reminders: 

1) Post Two is due next week, so start thinking about something to post on! 20 comments are due the week after that. 

2) Read Haugeland, “Semantic Engines” in the course packet for Tuesday (and be ready for a quiz!)

3) Screening tonight at 6 in the main lounge.

4) There is a talk tomorrow in Greg Hall rm 213, at 3pm entitled “KANT’S PARALOGISMS OF PURE REASON”. Should be fun, and you’ll get extra credit for showing up. 

Here are some prompts for this week’s R&L thread. Post by Tuesday before class for credit. 

• Descartes gives two proofs of God’s existence. Are they valid? Are they sound? (Dont answer unless you know what those terms mean!)
• Descartes’ proofs of God are both ‘ontological proofs’. Are there better proofs for the existence (or non-existence) of God? Are any such proofs convincing? Why or why not?
• Expand on any of the debate topics this afternoon. Feel free to stray from Descartes’ text as far as you like. I am especially interested in hearing more discussion on the relationship between the mind and the body. 
• Descartes’ grand conclusion in the Meditations is his thinking subject- the cogito. If nothing else in Descartes interests you, it is hard to deny that this very compelling conclusion. But we know that Descartes still has problems. How else might Descartes have solved his skeptical challenge from this foundation?
• Post anything you’d like on Waking Life. Just about all the segments in the film can be found on Youtube, if you need a refresher. 

I have always been fascinated by animal behavior. I simply see so many similarities between humans and animals purely in behavior. After all, how can I really know what animals are thinking? Or for the sake of the argument, if they are? I can only rely on their behavior and/or communication of their thoughts via a language that I can understand (sign language in some cases). Strictly speaking, and if you’ve read any of The Naked Ape you know what I mean, to understand animal behavior, we just need to see how it correlates with human behavior (and vice versa). Lately, in class and in the posts online, many arguments have been brought up that animals are simply complex programmed machines without thoughts. Many examples can be argued like that of mourning elephants or signing chimpanzees, but in the end, there is no way to prove that animals are indeed equivalent in terms of their capacity to think and understand to that of humans.

Aristotle brings up an interesting point in the section about wisdom. He insists that intelligence and political science must be distinguished from wisdom. Furthermore, he states, “….the content of wisdom is always the same, but the content of intelligence is not. For the agent they would call intelligent is the one who studies well each question about his own [good], and he is the one whom they would entrust such questions. Hence intelligence is also ascribed to some of the beasts, the ones that are evidently capable of forethought about their own life.” If you were lucky enough to see the video about the bower birds, you would probably agree with me that these birds are very complex and exhibit signs of forethought. Do they study questions about their own lives? How can we possibly know? Their whole lives are invested in procreation and determining (individually) what would please and summon a potential mate. Their nests (or whatever it’s called) are constantly being arranged and tidied up. Perhaps after one potential suitor flies away, these birds reassess and see what they could do that will work for the next female that swoops by. Aristotle also claims that all that animals are capable of is intelligence, but not wisdom. This is a claim that I personally struggle with. Let’s go back to the example of a chimpanzee who has learned sign language so that he can communicate with us. Side note—I believe it was in our discussion about Descartes that we mentioned that the only way of knowing/recognizing that another human has the ability to think and therefore exists is due to language. The assumption is that animals don’t have language, but rather just vocalize meaningless sounds (or sounds that have very concrete meanings related to emotions and not thought). Well if a chimpanzee is able to communicate his thoughts/wants/desires/feelings to a human, does that not mean that this animal is capable of thought (demonstrated through the language), but also more than just intelligent? Wisdom is a combination of craft, scientific knowledge, and understanding. Explain this to me, a specific chimpanzee (one of the famous ones) wanted to tell his care taker that he wanted “fruit juice,” since he didn’t know the sign for it, he signed “fruit” “water.” Does that not demonstrate wisdom (composed of those three elements)?

Wisdom, as Aristotle discusses it, suggests broad knowledge about the greater scope of the world, not just one craft or something you gain from experience. Further in his article he states, “By nature animals are born with the faculty of sensation, and from sensation memory is produced in some of them, though not in others.” Elephants are capable of memory. In my opinion, this is not something that can be taught. When they come across the bones of a deceased relative, they mourn. Then they exhibit a sort of ritual dance. This behavior in my opinion is considered a form of overarching knowledge/wisdom/understanding of the circumstances.

Well in class we have been talking consistently about the Evil Genius, a being similar to the power of God, and especially the power to disrupt one’s own thoughts is pretty impressive. So if God is all powerful, why not God? Think about it. Protestant religions believe in God’s omnipotence so much that some of them believe that they actually have no control over their lives, and that every decision made by them is actually made by God. This theory of predestination has a lot of backing behind it if it uses the theories of Descartes’ Evil Genius. Unfortunately, from here is where my argument gets really skeptical on an epic scale, but try to follow along. In meditation three, Descartes tries to use God to escape the black hole created by his Evil Genius theorem. Descartes concludes that the idea of God is innate, and this leads to the only possible cause of the idea of God is God, meaning God exists.

Now let’s go back to our theory of predestination. If God exists, he would inherently control all our thoughts and actions, also what we would perceive. To me, this is starting to sound a little similar to the Evil Genius. Descartes was a catholic and theorized a benevolent God that would not mess with his senses and Descartes believed in this. My inner skeptic tells me to tell you right here that the Evil Genius could have been telling Descartes to say God was benevolent to perpetuate his reputation. This struggle is one of the founding reasons behind the Protestant Reformation. (I really don’t have a belief in one side or the other in the predestination vs. free will arguments, for the record) Descartes, being a catholic, could have seen this “Evil Genius” idea as a rip on Protestant groups like the Calvinists, as he personally didn’t believe in this idea. Now God could easily be telling each side what they want to hear, meaning that obviously the Calvinists are right, but leaving no way to prove it as well, he IS God after all.

This leads me back to the original point. The Evil Genius could possibly be God. He is deceptive in his ways similar to that of God, in that he can deceive your senses and even your own thoughts. People believe they can talk to God, so why not a two way street? This is simply because people don’t want to hear that their god is deceiving them. I don’t blame them in the least, but the whole omnipotence and all-powerful thing does kind of give me a bad taste in my mouth about what exactly God can do, if there is a god after all. According to our various religious texts, God can flood the world and randomly set bushes ablaze and have them talk to you. I’m pretty sure God can mess with your thoughts as well.

Combined with Plato, and Socrates (whom was Plato’s teacher), Aristotle is one of the most important founding figures in Western philosophy. “He was the first to create a comprehensive system of Western philosophy, encompassing morality and aesthetics, logic and science, politics and metaphysics.” In his text on “Technē & Epistēmē” he discusses the five states in which the human soul grasps truth in its “affirmations or denials”. The five stages consist of the following: Scientific knowledge, craft-knowledge, intelligence, understanding, and wisdom. The scientific knowledge is knowledge that is “known by necessity”. This intelligence that is known by necessity would resemble the building blocks or basic starting points of much of our scientific knowledge. This particular type of knowledge is teachable and demonstrable like any type of science and mathematics that are learned in a classroom or laboratory through teaching or experimentation. This type of knowledge uses logic, but cannot prove logic. Rather scientific knowledge uses logic to reach other conclusions. Craft-knowledge is a category of knowledge that results in a type of production taking place. A craft is a “state involving true reason concerned with production.” Next there is intelligence. This is a hard virtue of thought as it is not meant in the everyday way we use the term intelligent. A person whom is intelligent would be someone who is able to study what is good for themselves and for human beings. Understanding (the next virtue of thought) is deeply connected with the previous three, as none of the others would be in existence without understanding. It is the necessary base for which all the previous virtues of thought require. Lastly there is wisdom. Wisdom is described by excellence is a craft. Aristotle defines wisdom as “understanding plus scientific knowledge”.

Artificial intelligence is the intelligence of complex machines combined with the branch of computer science which aims to create an artificial intelligence. Artificial intelligence can be defined as “the study and design of intelligent agents,” whereby intelligent agent is a system that perceives its environment and takes actions which maximize its chances of success. As we discussed in class, animals as explained by Descartes, are only complex machines with a sort of artificial intelligence as they do not have the thoughts or a mind to think with. This is in effect, saying that artificial intelligence is present in animals. Animals are thrown into Descartes classification of doubt. He doubts they exist as they do not meet this basic requirement of having thoughts. I myself am strongly against such a claim. Animals are more than a type of artificial intelligence. Animals have conscious thoughts, we as humans are simply unable to understand and comprehend them. Humans voice their thoughts through language and behavior as animals do too. Animals “converse” to one another with different sounds and actions that humans cannot decipher. Dolphins are incredibly intelligent, usually even said to be the most intelligent animals second only to humans. “Some research shows that dolphins do have high cognitive capability meaning that they are able to recognize the self”. I believe that Descartes is entirely incorrect in basing existence solely on the fact that in order for a thing to exist it must have a mind with thoughts.

An interesting article about dolphins and other animals and their cognitive abilities can be found at the link: Cetacean Intelligence

Descarte used a piece of wax as an example of what is failing our senses. Or how they can decieve us. He says “Perhaps the wax was what i now think it is: namely that the wax itself never really was the sweetness of the honey, nor the fragrance of the flowers…but instead was a body that a short time ago minfested itself to me in these ways and now does so in other ways.” But what more are we than that wax? we take on what is around us, the culture, the language, the sights, sounds, and smells. Each one of us has been molded, shaped, and contorted by the society we live, or have lived in. So how impossible is the task that Descarte attempted to take on? How can we just let go of every thing that has created us. We are nothing more than a compilation of others thoughts and opinions. Even if you claim to “not follow the crowd” you still have allowed them to manipulate your being. It is impossible for us to be like the wax in the way that, just being completely melted and losing all that was put into us. Now we may attempt to ignore, or forget our past, but noone can argue that their past experiences have shaped us to be what we are. The only thing we have that we can actually manipulate at all is the present. But what decisions can we make that can later be remade? What beliefs can we stand on now that we can’t later doubt? The idea that the only thing we can truly stand on is the fact that we ourselves can verify solely our very own existance is terrifying. There is nothing that you can build off that. I am existing because I think I am? Its hard for me to comprehend the fact that my very soul could be just a figment of my imagination. The only thing that can keep me at peace is the fact that I can stand solidly on my faith. Be it wrong faith or right faith, I refuse to question. If that makes me a lesser person so be it, but it makes me a being with something to look forward to. Regardless if what I’m looking towards is a giant mirage, I’m still able to base it on a solid belief on something that matters to me. If for a second anyone believes that their faith is above mine, or below mine, they are correct. For its not the object that we base our faith on, its the notion that there is something to base it on, be it God, or Buddah, or your kitchen sink for all I care. Its something that means you have that choice. Which making that choice is what makes us human. Even if we are being decieved.

-Elena Solomon-

Galileo lived from 1564 to 1642; Rene Descartes lived from 1596 to 1650. Descartes existed at the same time as Galileo; he challenged Aristotle and the Church at the same time as Galileo; he introduced radically unique thought at the same time as Galileo – thought, from both men, that would form the basis for the modern worldview of today. Yet Descartes finished his life with a pension from the French King, a request to teach the Swedish Queen Christina, and he died in general high esteem (1)*, whereas Galileo ended his years subjected to house arrest under suspect of heresy (2). Descartes managed to maintain a good name by using euphemisms for the term “God” in his works and prefaced his works, such as Meditations on First Philosophy, with letters addressed directly to men of the Church that defined his purpose, or at least a sweetened version of his purpose in order to remain clean in their eyes.

Such a letter can be found on the very first page of the aforementioned book, addressed “To those Most Wise and Distinguished Men, the Dean and Doctors of the Faculty of Sacred Theology of Paris.” Descartes is, in essence, sucking up. The letter details Descartes’ purpose in publishing his Meditations, throughout which he intersperses arguments of: ‘ “…we must believe in God’s existence because it is taught in the Holy Scriptures…” (3) but for those who don’t believe, I have written these thoughts,’ or “…one may infer from Sacred Scripture that the knowledge of him…is so utterly easy [to achieve] that those without this knowledge are blameworthy…” (3) and then he proceeds to actually quote from the Bible. He does this to turn those who might be his persecutors, the esteemed men of the Sacred Theology to whom he addresses his letter, into his supporters. Once they realize Descartes’ purpose is to “refute [non-believers’] arguments and to use all [Christian philosophers’] powers to demonstrate the truth” (4), with emphasis on truth, they can read through his work without the need to condemn him like they did Galileo – as Descartes wrote it in the name of God.

Descartes’ use of the word ‘truth’ in the above statement, and not some other word, such as ‘gospel’ or ‘scripture,’ reveals his other key method of escaping the heretic label: euphemisms. By using ‘truth’ Descartes further cloaks his upcoming challenges of God, for he ‘proves’ his belief that worshiping God is the only way. Whether he actually believes the latter is subject for debate; while it probably holds true, he may have just been covering his tracks. At key points in his work – for example in Meditation Two, when he breaks down all normal semblances of cognition and outright challenges God – Descartes substitutes the title God with “evil genius” (5), effectively nullifying his challenge (because he does not, in fact, challenge the will of the Almighty God, but rather some Evil Genius – or so he desires the men of the Sacred Theology of Paris to believe). Thus Descartes effectively escapes condemnation, unlike Galileo, who outright declares the Church at fault, or so the Church believes he does.

While Descartes seems the wiser of the two men, since both he and Galileo play the same game yet end with opposite fates, Descartes does have one advantage over Galileo: Galileo goes first. Descartes realizes the danger in publishing his philosophy only after hearing of Galileo’s infamous trial and conviction; he thereafter ceases plans for Treatise on the World, his novel worth four years of work, and instead puts out Discourse on Method and many other works besides (1). Descartes depends on Galileo for his own survival, and consequently today seems the wiser, but in actuality merely went second in the intellectual advancement known as the Scientific Revolution.

1. “René Descartes.” Wikipedia. 9 Sept. 2008 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/rene_descartes#biography>.

2. “Galileo Galilei.” Wikipedia. 9 Sept. 2008 <http:// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo#Life>.

3. Descarte, Rene. Meditations on First Philosophy. 3rd ed. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Company, 1993. 1.

4. Descarte, Rene. Meditations on First Philosophy. 3rd ed. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Company, 1993. 2.

5. Descarte, Rene. Meditations on First Philosophy. 3rd ed. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Company, 1993. 16.

*I know Wikipedia is not a great source to cite, but this is not a formal paper and I only used it for common knowledge –well, “common” knowledge. Information that can be found in many places – that I happened to get from this website, and I had to cite something. Also, the information posted on Wikipedia is regulated by scholars to maintain high accuracy levels.

I’ll begin by saying that my first impression of Descartes’ first meditation is that he has a rather pessimistic outlook on his life.  He seems very intent on throwing everything into doubt, including his new opinions that he built after “[razing] everything to the ground and [beginning] again from the original foundations,” in other words, developing new opinions and beliefs.  Now I understand and agree, for that matter, that it is important to live an examined life, and to question things.  .  However, doubting something does not mean it is entirely false, along the lines of “innocent until proven guilty.”  We should doubt and question things, including our own core beliefs, but we should do so reasonably.  Honestly, I think Descartes takes it a little too far; for instance, towards the end of the passage he mentions believing in some supreme evil power rather than a divine power, solely because of some doubt.  It seems unnecessarily introspective to believe that the devil is trying to trick us with everything and everyone we see.  Indeed senses can be deceiving, but I trust my senses at least a little bit more than that.  Descartes says that “it is a mark of prudence never to place our complete trust in those who have deceived us even once.”  Again, I don’t agree (or “assent” as Descartes says).  While we can fool ourselves into seeing things that aren’t there, does that mean we can’t trust ourselves, that we can’t grow and learn to change things about ourselves so that we can perceive things as the really are?  I believe we can.  Also, the idea of believing in an evil power rather than a divine power is just very unsettling.  If that is indeed the case, then we are simply beings in a world full of illusions and then we die.  What the hell is that?  Really, if I accepted that like Descartes did, I probably wouldn’t be spending my time writing, I’d be killing myself.  So why does Descartes write?  If everything is illusion, then surely even his hopes of informing the uninformed about his meditations are just as unnatainable as anything else in a false world that is, on the surface, real.  I see a contradiction here.  Without hope, it seems like all is lost.  Many of us are not really happy with our lives exactly as they are now; we may want to change little things, or we may want to change big things.  Thus, I believe the biggest reason we wake up in the morning is because we believe that there is some way we can make changes in our lives for the better.  We have hope, regardless of uncertainty, and that is what is important.