Philosophy 101 Unit 1

• Are we natural born cyborgs? Is the mind extended? Are our technological devices part of our (soft) selves?
• Does Clark’s revision of the old mind-body problem solve any of the Cartesian worries we encountered at the beginning of the semester? If so, which ones? If not, why not?
• Which examples in the text did you find especially convincing? Which ones were unconvincing? How does this hurt Clark’s argument?
• What similarities do you see between Clark and Gehlen? What are the differences between these two views?
• Clark boils down our interactions with technology to two fundamental dimensions: the transparency of the interface and the resulting expansion of our capacities. Are there any other ways in which technology might affect our cognitive abilities?
• Clark says the human brain is unique in its plasticity and opportunism. Is he right, or is there some other source of uniqueness? If so, does this fall into the Cartesian problem of dualism?
• Clark downplays the importance of the barrier between biology and technology. Is this barrier important? Why or why not?
• Clark says that language itself is an example of an external prop that not only extends our cognitive capacities but restructures the way we think about the world. Is language an example of an external tool?

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.