Category Archives: Philosophy of Mind

Consciousness, Monism vs Dualism, Philosophy, Philosophy of Mind

Dualism

5 Comments

There are two kinds of people in the world, those who believe there are two kinds of people in the world and those who don’t.

Also known as Benchley’s Law of Distinction, this quote is due to Robert Benchley, US actor, author, and humourist (1889 – 1945). Benchley was a dualist.

Benchley was a dualist about kinds of people, but you can be a dualist about anything. “There are two kinds of …” Just fill in the dots.

Dualism usually refers to dualism in the philosophy of mind and it usually refers to substance dualism (also known as Cartesian dualism).

In philosophy of mind, dualism is [a view] about the relationship between mind and matter, which claims that mind and matter are two ontologically separate categories. In particular, mind-body dualism claims that neither the mind nor matter can be reduced to each other in any way, and thus is opposed to materialism in general, and reductive materialism in particular. Mind-body dualism can exist as substance dualism which claims that the mind and the body are composed of a distinct substance, and as property dualism which claims that there may not be a distinction in substance, but that mental and physical properties are still categorically distinct, and not reducible to each other. This type of dualism is sometimes referred to as “mind and body” and stands in contrast to philosophical monism, which views mind and matter as being ultimately the same kind of thing. …

If you think that mind can be “reduced” to matter (as I do) then you are not a dualist, you are a monist. If you think that matter is made of mind (as Tim does) then you are also not a dualist, you are a monist. Either way, you think that, ultimately, there is only one kind of stuff of which man’s mind is made.

Descartes, after whom Cartesian dualism is named, is famous for the phrase, ‘I think, therefore I am.’ There’s another phrase he used in Meditations on First Philosophy. It is ‘clear and distinct idea.’

Furthermore, my mind is me, for the following reason. I know that I exist and that nothing else belongs to my nature or essence except that I am a thinking thing; from this it follows that my essence consists solely in my being a thinking thing, even though there may be a body that is very closely joined to me. I have a clear and distinct idea of myself as something that thinks and isn’t extended, and one of body as something that is extended and does not think. So it is certain that I am really distinct from my body and can exist without it.

‘Clear and distinct’ is on a par with ‘self-evident’. An idea that’s clear and distinct to one person may be unclear and indistinct to another. And I don’t think much of Cartesian dualism. But I mention this phrase because it summarises two things (there are others) I think every philosopher should aspire to.

(1) Being clear.
(2) Distinguishing between distinct things.

This post is apropos of nothing in particular.

Consciousness, Philosophy of Mind

We’re made out of meat

3 Comments

The human soul is no more and no less than a suite of software running on wetware known colloquially as “brains”. Like I said, we’re made of meat.

Or lego. Or matter. Or spirit. You see, it doesn’t matter what we’re made of. Because what we are is not what we’re made of. What we are is what we’re made into.

They’re made out of meat.

Meat?

Meat. They’re made out of meat.

Meat?

There’s no doubt about it. We picked several from different parts of the planet, took them aboard our recon vessels, probed them all the way through. They’re completely meat.

That’s impossible. What about the radio signals? The messages to the stars.

They use the radio waves to talk, but the signals don’t come from them. The signals come from machines.

So who made the machines? That’s who we want to contact.

They made the machines. That’s what I’m trying to tell you. Meat made the machines.

That’s ridiculous. How can meat make a machine? You’re asking me to believe in sentient meat.

I’m not asking you, I’m telling you. These creatures are the only sentient race in the sector and they’re made out of meat.

Maybe they’re like the Orfolei. You know, a carbon-based intelligence that goes through a meat stage.

Nope. They’re born meat and they die meat. We studied them for several of their life spans, which didn’t take too long. Do you have any idea the life span of meat?

Spare me. Okay, maybe they’re only part meat. You know, like the Weddilei. A meat head with an electron plasma brain inside.

Nope. We thought of that, since they do have meat heads like the Weddilei. But I told you, we probed them. They’re meat all the way through.

No brain?

Oh, there is a brain all right. It’s just that the brain is made out of meat!

So… what does the thinking?

You’re not understanding, are you? The brain does the thinking. The meat.

Thinking meat! You’re asking me to believe in thinking meat!

Yes, thinking meat! Conscious meat! Loving meat. Dreaming meat. The meat is the whole deal! Are you getting the picture?

Omigod. You’re serious then. They’re made out of meat.

Finally, Yes. They are indeed made out meat. And they’ve been trying to get in touch with us for almost a hundred of their years.

So what does the meat have in mind?

First it wants to talk to us. Then I imagine it wants to explore the universe, contact other sentients, swap ideas and information. The usual.

We’re supposed to talk to meat?

That’s the idea. That’s the message they’re sending out by radio. ‘Hello. Anyone out there? Anyone home?’ That sort of thing.

They actually do talk, then. They use words, ideas, concepts?

Oh, yes. Except they do it with meat.

I thought you just told me they used radio.

They do, but what do you think is on the radio? Meat sounds. You know how when you slap or flap meat it makes a noise? They talk by flapping their meat at each other. They can even sing by squirting air through their meat.

Omigod. Singing meat. This is altogether too much. So what do you advise?

Officially or unofficially?

Both.

Officially, we are required to contact, welcome, and log in any and all sentient races or multi-beings in the quadrant, without prejudice, fear, or favor. Unofficially, I advise that we erase the records and forget the whole thing.

I was hoping you would say that.

It seems harsh, but there is a limit. Do we really want to make contact with meat?

I agree one hundred percent. What’s there to say?” `Hello, meat. How’s it going?’ But will this work? How many planets are we dealing with here?

Just one. They can travel to other planets in special meat containers, but they can’t live on them. And being meat, they only travel through C space. Which limits them to the speed of light and makes the possibility of their ever making contact pretty slim. Infinitesimal, in fact.

So we just pretend there’s no one home in the universe.

That’s it.

Cruel. But you said it yourself, who wants to meet meat? And the ones who have been aboard our vessels, the ones you have probed? You’re sure they won’t remember?

They’ll be considered crackpots if they do. We went into their heads and smoothed out their meat so that we’re just a dream to them.

A dream to meat! How strangely appropriate, that we should be meat’s dream.

And we can mark this sector unoccupied.

Good. Agreed, officially and unofficially. Case closed. Any others? Anyone interesting on that side of the galaxy?

Yes, a rather shy but sweet hydrogen core cluster intelligence in a class nine star in G445 zone. Was in contact two galactic rotations ago, wants to be friendly again.

They always come around.

And why not? Imagine how unbearably, how unutterably cold the universe would be if one were all alone.

They’re Made Out Of Meat
by Terry Bisson
From “Bears Discover Fire and Other Stories,” Copyright © 1994, Tor Books
Used By Permission

Consciousness, Hell

Hell: The Logic of Damnation.

19 Comments

Book Reveiw. http://undpress.nd.edu/book/P00167

“Focusing on the issues from the standpoint of philosophical theology, Walls explores the doctrine of hell in relation to both the divine nature and human nature. He argues that some traditional versions of the doctrine are compatible not only with God’s omnipotence and omniscience, but also with a strong account of His perfect goodness.”

Reviews
“This book is a gem, clearly written and accessible to philosophers and non-philosophers alike. Within a fairly brief scope it covers the central issues and arguments relevant to its topic . . . Further, the book makes a case that universalists will find very hard to answer.” —Religious Studies

“Walls . . . does not think that because a culture trivializes the concept of hell it does not exist, nor does he think that belief in the existence of hell compromises belief in a good and loving God.”—Christian Century

“Hell: The Logic of Damnation is a forcefully argued reopening of questions that most liberal theologians had long thought to be decisively closed. . . . Jerry Walls has provided a bracing antidote to the moral frivolity and evil of our time.”—First Things

Sorry about this next one Richard. Get well soon Robin!

Ayn Rand, Consciousness, Exegesis, John, Keep it Metal!, Lamb of God, Philosophy of Mind, Semantics

Are you lego or logos?

2 Comments

Are you lego or logos?

And man became a living being.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Philosopher Nicholas F. Gier explains the Logos Christology of the Gospel of John.

The famous prologue begins: “In the beginning was the logos, and the logos was with God, and the logos was God.” The standard English translation of logos is Word, following the basic meaning of lego as to say or speak. In other words, God is the author of the logic of the world, and his son is the expression of this logic. Furthermore, in the Genesis account of creation God speaks, or as Leonard Bernstein has suggested, sings the structure of the world into being. In Christian theology Christ is the one who orders the world; he is the one who puts it together, gives it meaning, and then redeems it from its fallen state. As Paul states: “For in him all things were created . . . and in him all things hold together” (Col. 1:16-17).

The etymology of the logos, the Greek word behind “reason” and “logic,” shows that the idea of synthesis is at the origin of these words. The Greek logos is the verbal noun of lego, which, if we follow one root leg means “to gather,” “to collect,” “to pick up,” “to put together,” and later “to speak or say.” We already have the basic ideas of any rational endeavor. We begin by collecting individual facts and thoughts and put them together in an orderly way and usually say something about what we have created.

There are three Reasons that I prefer Andrew Sullivan’s translation (and mine) of λόγος.

In the beginning was Reason, and Reason was with God, and Reason was God.

[Proudly powered by LOGOS™.]

Ayn Rand, Evolutionism, Intelligent Design, Laws of Nature, Monism vs Dualism, Philosophy, Philosophy of Mind

What are you?

82 Comments

In a footnote to his paper God and Objectivism: A Critique of Objectivist Philosophy of Religion published in JARS, Stephen Parrish says

I find it difficult to ascertain exactly what Objectivists believe about the mind and the body. They reject substance dualism, yet also reject any sort of reductionism. It seems to me that their view of the mind-body relation is a sort of nonreductive physicalism. In this view, what really exists is matter—specifically, the brain, and the mind supervenes on, or is realized by the brain. This means that the mind does not exist apart from the brain, but cannot be reduced to it, by which it is meant that it cannot be totally explained in terms of the physical makeup of the brain. Writes William Thomas (n.d.a) on the mind-body relation:

What we call the mind is the set of capacities to be aware, to perceive the world, to think about it, to feel, to value, to make choices. How do these capacities arise? In many respects, the answer to that question must come from science, not philosophy. But everything we know indicates that they are the product of biological evolution and that they depend on our physical sense organs and brain, as well as on the many other support structures that the body provides.

Even the above, is not all that clear and could be interpreted in terms of either property dualism or nonreductive physicalism. I think that the latter fits in better with the overall picture of reality that Objectivists espouse. Actually, the mind-body problem is another area in which Objectivists need to work. …

Get to work, Objectivists!

Tell me, do you accept or reject substrate independence? Substrate independence is the claim that

conscious minds could in principle be implemented not only on carbon-based biological neurons (such as those inside your head) but also on some other computational substrate such as silicon-based processors.

In other words

what allows you to have conscious experiences is not the fact that your brain is made of squishy, biological matter but rather that it implements a certain computational architecture.

Do you accept or reject this claim?

[Cross-posted to The Third Watch.]

Consciousness, John, Malaclypse the Younger, Philosophy, Philosophy of Mind

Drug-free January

1 Comment

It’s traditional.

Cocaine. So much cocaine.

Yes, folks, January is my month of self-imposed moral tyranny. But it’s for my own good! And, anyway, abstinence makes the heart grow fonder.

Do not suppose that my January regime is any less tyrannical for being self-imposed. No, sir, this ain’t a democracy. The party of my mind is a hoi polloi of hapless homunculi. It’s a rabble. It’s a rabble that needs to be told what to do (or, in this case, told what not to do). A rabble that must be roused or doused. By dictators. By benevolent dictators. With drugs.

The human soul is no more and no less than a suite of software running on wetware known colloquially as “brains”. We’re made of meat, sweetmeat. But wait! Aren’t Christians supposed to believe that the human soul is immaterial, immortal and indivisible? Well, no, not necessarily. This Christian believes that the human soul is material, mortal and modular. It’s a Biblical view of things. Consider the New Testament account of how it all began.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (KJV)

The King James Bible translates the Greek word λόγος (‘Logos’) as ‘Word’. Although ‘Word’ is certainly close enough, and an excellent choice, there is no exact translation. These days, I think, we might just as well translate λόγος as ‘Information’, ‘Reason’, ‘Algorithm’, or ‘Code’. In other words, software.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us. (KJV)

That’s right. It’s axiomatic in orthodox Christianity that Jesus was God incarnate. Incarnation literally means embodied in flesh or taking on flesh. Jesus became meat. Just like us.

Do you ever wonder why the zombies in zombie movies are so intent on getting some “brains”? Well, they don’t want to be the Living Dead. They want to be the Re-Incarnated. They want to be physically Resurrected! But for a non-lurching physical Resurrection you need nice, new resurrection bodies. Most importantly you need “brains”—the wetware—on which to run the software. (You are the software.)

Where were we? The rabble has rambled. Well, never mind… my mind? Where is it? Hahaha! Yes, I know what you’re thinking. You’re thinking I’ve been taking too many drugs! You’re thinking … drug-free January, Richard?! Good call!! Well, in the words of Malaclypse the Younger

‘Tis an ill wind that blows no minds.

And that’s one thing that drug-taking does teach you. It teaches you that consciousness is chemical. And that the mind is modular.

I’ve seen things you people wouldn’t believe …

Ayn Rand, Bogus Science, Consciousness, Evolutionism, Freedom, Intelligent Design, Laws of Nature, Meta-ethics, Monism vs Dualism, Philosophy, Philosophy of Mind

We are not Robots Ayn Rand. We are Moral Agents.

12 Comments

Though we are wonderfully designed beings *we are not Robots!* This is a monumental fact that raises human beings into another League far above the rest of creation.
One of the most self-evident of proofs that we Humans are dualistic Spirit beings, and part of a higher reality than the materialistic realm is that we possess Libertarian free will. Atheist Materialism is at a complete loss to explain this. Therefore they deny it. Evolutionary Psychology is the new big thing in atheist academia, and it specializes in theorizing away freewill morality. In Contrast the Biblical theistic explanation of reality actually has the explanatory power to deal with the issue as to how and why freewill and freedom are possible.
Materialism is a very shallow faith… a purely convenient atheistic whim that does not square with the facts of experience. They abitralily impose it upon reality by sheer force of will. The fatal problem is in a purely Materialistic Universe Liberty and freewill are impossible because everything is enslaved to deterministic causation. Atheist Materialists infer that everything in existence from the moon and the stars to Ford cars and lustful thoughts all were pre-determined within ‘the big bang’. Of course even admitting the universe had a beginning is a recent novelty for Materialists. They used to believe the universe was eternal and would mock Christians fo believing God made the universe out of nothing… that is until science proved that the universe did in fact have a beginning just as The Book of Genesis declared.
Now having quietly corrected themselves on that thorny issue, it is staggering to apprehend just how outrageous and blundering the atheist assertion of materialism still is! Not only does it deny freewill, It actually infers that Henry Ford was compelled to invent the Motor car! They are supposed to be inescapably determined by the Laws of physics! They assert everything that exists and happens, from the Big Bang to Entropic Death is supposed to be nothing more than the ‘settling of Cosmic dust’…the blind result of an explosion! It ought to be obvious to anyone with a modicum of common sense that this is absurd! Many Atheists (Richard Dawkins included) hate discussing this matter. Many bury their heads in the sands of denial. In contrast Freewill *And design* is fundamental to Theism and the teaching and ethics of the Bible.
For eg. The Bible clearly teaches Gods will is currently * not being done* on Earth as it is in Heaven. The Earth is filled with Rebellious evildoers whom freely commit atrocities and perversions …. And The Bible says God holds mankind accountable for our wicked works… We are accountable to God because we are not compelled by materialistic forces to commit evil, Nor does he impose his will upon us. We act via our own choices. We are moral agents. Christ taught his Jewish disciples to pray to Their heavenly Father “Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done in Earth as it is in heaven…”. They were praying for an end to the free reign of unchecked evil. In the meantime we need Just government to mitigate the evil urges of fallen man.
Freewill Morality begins back in the Garden of Eden. When God made Adam he gave him the liberty to disobey Him. God gave Adam a choice, and it is in the Genesis story that the principles of Libertarian ethics find their origins. It is here where Man gets his God-given inalienable right to Life, and the liberty to exercise his own moral judgments as a freewill agent.
Consciousness and free will are Theistic realties. The problem of slavery to determinism is the ultimate proof that if Atheist Materialism were true, it would render reality Amoral as it not only negates the Libertarian ethics of inalienable rights, by rendering Man a mere chemical reaction, but destroys morality absolutely! Moral law has not foundation in a cold materialistic universe and Materialistic beings cannot be moral agents as they don’t possess freewill. It is a double dilemma. Most Materialists claim we horribly delude ourselves as to the existence of morality and freewill… They say the scientific man has exorcised these bogeymen ( This is what the foolish superstition of Materialism leads to and a good example of this reasoning can be found in the writings of honest atheist Bertrand Russell)
And then flying in the face of all this you get the psychotic delusions of Objectivist atheists whom pretend they can squeeze Inalienable rights out of stones. They are Bat shit crazy… bordering on dishonest.
Rabid atheist Ayn Rand was 100% wrong in her John Galt’s speech when she called The Adam of the Bible a Robot! The truth is *It is Her Atheist Materialism which renders Man a mere amoral machine!*
That is an inescapable fact! Rand was absolutely wrong! She is deranged! Her whole argument is Bunk. She is the enemy of Libertarianism because she sets about to destroy faith in the bible… and it is from the Bible that all the essential principles of Libertarian Individual rights and limited government are derived. (eg. Study John Locke). Thus it is my duty as a Lover of Liberty and a believer in The objective reality of Individual rights to expose the fraudulent delusions of Ayn Rand… a wolf in sheep’s cloth. A deceiver of Souls.
Theism escapes this amoral prison because man gets his life and freewill conscience breathed into him from the spirit of God himself. Ie our conscience is not a product of or determined by Matter. And the honest man must admit this view makes far more sense! It can explain why I am free to write this sentence… I could have watched TV instead. My wife was not a Robotic slave to inescapable laws of causation… she does love me! YES! Theism is far more rational than Atheist Materialism! Its explanatory power takes in the full scope of Human experience. We didn’t need to touch on the fact that atheist materialism is also complete at a loss to explain the origin of Life whereas The Bible has a brilliant explanation for that too… completely supported by Science proper! And it is from the Christian scriptures that Libertarianism and the conceptualization of Inalienable rights was born. I shall be expanding upon this assertion in future posts… so stay tuned. …Anyone hear the howling of Wolves?
Tim Wikiriwhi

End note: I take no pleasure in conflict. And as a Libertarian Christian I respect the rights of others such as Objectivists to believe what they like and say whatever they like even if it is against my own personal views. This is what freedom is, and freedom of conscience, freedom of religion is the most fundamental of all freedoms. It would be nice if I did not have to level accusations against ‘Objectivism’. Unnecessary conflict is to be avoided. A cardinal rule put down by the great founder of this Blog is in the side Bar. “ Let no unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen”. The primary goal of this blog is edification and the promotion of toleration, yet it must be remembered that Truth is the highest of values, and that Lies damn men’s souls and prop up tyrannies, and that as such Christians are called to ‘earnestly contend for the faith’. It must also be remembered that in a free society that there will still exist conflicting values and world views locked into a War of Ideas. Yet this is a war of minds not swords. Reason, and the power of persuasion are the weapons. It is in the contexts of Individual rights that makes a free society a more civil and just society having removed violence and political coercion from the Ideological Battlefield. Objectivists wage this war with relentless fanatical zeal in emulation of their Idol… The fanatical Atheist Ayn Rand. Thus it behooves Me to meet this Horde head on, and swing the ‘Sword of the Spirit’ at their conceptual throats and to decapitate their Ideological Queen. Objectivists should expect nothing less.
They give no quarter and none shall be given them.
Tim Wikiriwhi. Soldier for Christ.

Read more on Free will and morality…

Sick Puppies.

Monism: Evolutionary Psychology and the Death of Morality, Reason and Freewill.

Update 4/12: http://blog.eternalvigilance.me/2012/03/what-are-you/#comment-8796