1. Perception of an object was the only way of knowing anything about it, one couldn’t really know anything about it’s actual existence or its being. One couldn’t know anything outside their perception.
2. When referring to any real or material object one was really only referring to the one object they themselves perceived first-hand.
3. A person experiences another person by what is communicated to them, which is an act independent of oneself, then one could conclude in the existence of others.
4. If one person’s perception is consistent with another persons perception then one can conclude the existence of a similar reality.
5. That all experiences are actively caused by God and God’s mind is within
his own, and that God also exists outside his mind as an infinite mind. The existence og God is necessary because there needs to be an ultimate perceiver in order for anything to exist at all.
6. Johnson refuted Berkeley by kicking a stone and saying “ I refute it thus” in an attempt to prove the reality of it’s existence but he failed because an argument could be pit forth of his perception of that stone only existeing in his mind.
7. Primary qualities are properties of a thing that exist independent of any observer –objective and secondary qualities are properties dependent on an observer - subjective.
8. By putting one hand in cold water and one in hot water then both in lukewarm water to show that heat what not a primary quality but a secondary quality.
9. He extends it by showing size and shape are not primary qualities either.
10. Maybe, if God is the ultimate perceiver than he can perceive himself.
11. I would suppose they couldn’t. There would need to be an objective reality … whatever that is and whomever holding it together.
Friday, May 29, 2009
Mind - Body
1. Cartesian dualism is meant to explain that the isn’t one kind of thing that exists in the world (physicalism) but rather two kinds of things ( physical & non-physical). This would prove that “the mind” exists and it is separate from the body. His argument distinguishes the essence of each – the mind: thoughts and the body: extension. Then he also differentiated the properties of each and concluded that the contrasting properties had nothing in common so the two entities: mind / body exist separately and independent of one another. This lead to the mid-body problem because Descartes at first describes the mind/body as being connected to one another such and one can affect the other but they are totally separate, this seemed to be a direct contradiction because interaction would typically require the existence of similar properties and Descartes argument relies on mutually exclusive properties. The problem is how something non-physical could affect physical and vis – versa, the claim is Descartes hasn’t proved this is possible.
2. Descartes solution was to claim he had found the specific place where the mind and the body communicated which was the pineal gland. As if there was some sort of mediator for the two separate entities to interact. I think this response wasn’t that successful because it seems to be a long shot.
3. Materialism is the concept that only matter existed, when science evolved into discovering energy and other non-material things that concept transformed into physicalism. Physicalism would describe anything that exists that follows somesort of law. In the provided reading I could not find a clear argument for physicalism or materialism. From what I gathered each had just made the claim that only _____ existed based on whatever scientific evidence was available. So because there is no clear guidelines to explaining reality or what can possibly exist this argument will continue to evolve as science evolves to discover and prove new things – it will then make room for whatever else. To me this is as weak as a no – nothing little brother agreeing with everything his big brother says; puffing up and making assertions when really he knows nothing but is just repeating what he here’s his brother saying. Basically there is no independent foundation to these claims it’s leaning on science and relying on science to prove reality which seems legit but I would say there are some things science has yet to explain. So there doesn’t seem to be an argument formed for physicalism to prove without a doubt only one type of stuff exists.
On the other hand dualism makes the claim that there is some other type of stuff we don’t know about yet. This does seem way for out and everyone is pounding they’re desks screaming “ There’s no proof your stuff exists– We have proof our stuff exists!” Basically dualism compares some non-physical / physical properties and essences to show there are two contrasting kinds of stuff. This argument can’t be convincing because there is no science to back it up.
Personally I don’t think either argument makes a compelling case for either “one kind” or “two kinds.” The one kind argument is seemingly stronger because it has science on its side as the big brother who is going to beat everybody up. But in my mind I want to look at from the point of view that does not rely on science. Science is a useful tool to discover the world around us but it did not create the laws, we found them; same with math and logic. So if these concepts or whatever they are existed before us discovering them, then in my opinion there must be something else out there non-physical. Concepts such as scientific laws/ numbers/ mathematical theories/ language/ thoughts/ emotions /logic/ ……all of these things can become embodied within something physical or applied to something physical but they don’t seem to have any physical properties themselves. Color? Weight? Nothing sensory. My own experience would tell me that these things are in a different category of “stuff” compared and contrasted with the physical realm. Although science can’t explain this yet that doesn’t mean that itself is a reason for its non-existence. There were a lot of things that existed despite whether or not science had found out about it yet, ie. when matter was thought to be the only thing they didn’t know energy existed at that time. It would have been credible to say “only matter exists” at that time with the information at hand but that couldn’t have made it true. We might be at that point in time where science hasn’t evolved enough, it might be able to eventually show or prove there is another kind of stuff. Point is, we don’t know yet neither side has convinced me yet.
* sorry this is so long- I got a lil more into it than I expected to : /
2. Descartes solution was to claim he had found the specific place where the mind and the body communicated which was the pineal gland. As if there was some sort of mediator for the two separate entities to interact. I think this response wasn’t that successful because it seems to be a long shot.
3. Materialism is the concept that only matter existed, when science evolved into discovering energy and other non-material things that concept transformed into physicalism. Physicalism would describe anything that exists that follows somesort of law. In the provided reading I could not find a clear argument for physicalism or materialism. From what I gathered each had just made the claim that only _____ existed based on whatever scientific evidence was available. So because there is no clear guidelines to explaining reality or what can possibly exist this argument will continue to evolve as science evolves to discover and prove new things – it will then make room for whatever else. To me this is as weak as a no – nothing little brother agreeing with everything his big brother says; puffing up and making assertions when really he knows nothing but is just repeating what he here’s his brother saying. Basically there is no independent foundation to these claims it’s leaning on science and relying on science to prove reality which seems legit but I would say there are some things science has yet to explain. So there doesn’t seem to be an argument formed for physicalism to prove without a doubt only one type of stuff exists.
On the other hand dualism makes the claim that there is some other type of stuff we don’t know about yet. This does seem way for out and everyone is pounding they’re desks screaming “ There’s no proof your stuff exists– We have proof our stuff exists!” Basically dualism compares some non-physical / physical properties and essences to show there are two contrasting kinds of stuff. This argument can’t be convincing because there is no science to back it up.
Personally I don’t think either argument makes a compelling case for either “one kind” or “two kinds.” The one kind argument is seemingly stronger because it has science on its side as the big brother who is going to beat everybody up. But in my mind I want to look at from the point of view that does not rely on science. Science is a useful tool to discover the world around us but it did not create the laws, we found them; same with math and logic. So if these concepts or whatever they are existed before us discovering them, then in my opinion there must be something else out there non-physical. Concepts such as scientific laws/ numbers/ mathematical theories/ language/ thoughts/ emotions /logic/ ……all of these things can become embodied within something physical or applied to something physical but they don’t seem to have any physical properties themselves. Color? Weight? Nothing sensory. My own experience would tell me that these things are in a different category of “stuff” compared and contrasted with the physical realm. Although science can’t explain this yet that doesn’t mean that itself is a reason for its non-existence. There were a lot of things that existed despite whether or not science had found out about it yet, ie. when matter was thought to be the only thing they didn’t know energy existed at that time. It would have been credible to say “only matter exists” at that time with the information at hand but that couldn’t have made it true. We might be at that point in time where science hasn’t evolved enough, it might be able to eventually show or prove there is another kind of stuff. Point is, we don’t know yet neither side has convinced me yet.
* sorry this is so long- I got a lil more into it than I expected to : /
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Descartes P2
11. Basically Descartes method is to doubt everything until he finds an absolute truth, his justification for this method is that few things can be absolutely known to be positively true or a reliable source for knowledge. One can’t depend on senses, what if you’re dreaming, what if there’s an evil genius tricking us? etc. He couldn’t depend on the knowledge that came before him because he didn’t think it was credible or had a strong foundation for knowledge. He used math as a model to guide him because it’s structure of reasoning was credible enough but not quite to the level of his satisfaction because most things were assumed, then proven. But he did use the same basic form which was step by step reasoning and deduction. He wanted to find an absolute truth that everything else could then stem from forming some foundational structure of knowledge. I don’t think Descartes believes in some things being so obviously true and to not worry about them because he doesn’t take anything for granted and he questions everything. In order for Descartes to produce what he would consider real knowledge he would have to find the most basic and simplest truth that cannot be doubted and base everything else on that.
12. For Descartes our senses were unreliable sources of information because there are times we can misinterpret information through our senses and in a way be tricked by them. Like when you look at a straw in a glass of water it looks crooked or cut in half when in reality it’s straight. If his method is to doubt everything until something cannot be doubted then the senses would fall under the category of things doubtable which means it cannot be used as a source for knowledge.
13. Mathematics derives knowledge based on first principles that can be used to deduce new formulas. This form of knowledge is based on logic and reasoning. But in some forms of mathematics such as geometry the first principles or propositions everything else is based on are just assumed, they haven’t actually been proven. I do not think the truth or falsity of mathematics depends on a particular kind of world because these ideas can still be conceived of within the mind if nothing else existed externally. There are many mathematical formulas with huge numbers that would be impossible to observe all at once through the senses and adequately decipher them first hand but we can intellectually conceive of them without our senses, so in my opinion mathematics is based on logic and can be used to explain the world around and help us understand it. I do not think logic can be doubted in the same degree that senses can be doubted, it is more dependable but Descarte still couldn’t use math as his foundation because there was still room for doubt. He wanted something one couldn’t doubt.
14. His “Cogito ergo sum” came about by Descartes first doubting everything and assuming that he knew nothing. To go even further he presented a hypothetical situation where some evil being was deceiving him in every possible way so because of this he had to question the truth / validity of everything he knew, he took nothing for granted. After examining everything he came across he finally concluded that there was one known fact that could not be a deception and so he could not possibly doubt – that his very thoughts existed and he himself was a thinking thing: “I think therefore I am. “
15. Descartes attempts to show that innate ideas exist. Innate ideas are formed based on internal knowing as the source rather that anything external from sensory information. He explains how this type of knowledge could come about by describing a piece of solid wax through sensory information, then as the wax melts in heat its form changes. Now he can no longer rely on sensory information to know that it is in fact the same piece of wax. It seems the only way to know this without depending on sensory information would be if it was an intrinsic source or innate idea.
16. Descartes “concept of perfection” comes from realizing that there exists some notion of perfection and wonders where it comes from. He rules out the senses as a source because he considers nothing in the world to be perfect. He rules out himself because he doesn’t consider himself perfect due to the fact that he has doubts or in other words he doesn’t know everything. He comes to the conclusion that the concept of perfection must have come from the existence of some perfect being i.e. God with all the perfect God-like qualities. He then uses the existence of God to rule out any such evil deceptive being that could twist our perceptions.
17. Descartes argument for the existence of the external / physical world is based on the previous propositions. If there is an all perfect being then he would not create people with unreliable senses, so our senses our reliable because God is not a deceiver. If the external world did not exist then that would mean our senses were unreliable, and so there could not exist an all perfect being, and so forth the tower falls. So he goes back to the first point of his concept of perfection, if this can be known for certain then everything else should logically follow leading to the existence of the external world based on the reliability of our senses.
This whole thing was very interesting and I did a little extra research on the side to get a better more well rounded understanding of Descartes argument and I think the most interesting thing was his process and how he approached each thing before analyzing it. The wax argument was a little confusing so I attempted to ponder another example of a caterpillar turning into a butterfly. The cocoon would be a safe way to ensure any trickery or deception unless the cocoon was tampered with. Even though the creature has completely changed we are quite certain it is the same entity, and it doesn’t seem to be based on sensory information. Hmm even if it was I still can’t help but wonder if Descartes was right about innate knowledge because of how processes such as logic / reasoning exist at all in the first place as dependable sources for knowledge in math, science, etc. Logic is a tool many people have used in philosophy and there are rules and forms that enable us to reason and discover truth/knowledge. It does not seem to depend on the external world because you could have a very logical argument about unicorns when they don’t even exist, but the form is valid. So what does reason or logic depend on or what is it based on? Does logic itself show there must be some objective truth or innate knowings? If logic does not gain knowledge through the senses than how do we know logic?
12. For Descartes our senses were unreliable sources of information because there are times we can misinterpret information through our senses and in a way be tricked by them. Like when you look at a straw in a glass of water it looks crooked or cut in half when in reality it’s straight. If his method is to doubt everything until something cannot be doubted then the senses would fall under the category of things doubtable which means it cannot be used as a source for knowledge.
13. Mathematics derives knowledge based on first principles that can be used to deduce new formulas. This form of knowledge is based on logic and reasoning. But in some forms of mathematics such as geometry the first principles or propositions everything else is based on are just assumed, they haven’t actually been proven. I do not think the truth or falsity of mathematics depends on a particular kind of world because these ideas can still be conceived of within the mind if nothing else existed externally. There are many mathematical formulas with huge numbers that would be impossible to observe all at once through the senses and adequately decipher them first hand but we can intellectually conceive of them without our senses, so in my opinion mathematics is based on logic and can be used to explain the world around and help us understand it. I do not think logic can be doubted in the same degree that senses can be doubted, it is more dependable but Descarte still couldn’t use math as his foundation because there was still room for doubt. He wanted something one couldn’t doubt.
14. His “Cogito ergo sum” came about by Descartes first doubting everything and assuming that he knew nothing. To go even further he presented a hypothetical situation where some evil being was deceiving him in every possible way so because of this he had to question the truth / validity of everything he knew, he took nothing for granted. After examining everything he came across he finally concluded that there was one known fact that could not be a deception and so he could not possibly doubt – that his very thoughts existed and he himself was a thinking thing: “I think therefore I am. “
15. Descartes attempts to show that innate ideas exist. Innate ideas are formed based on internal knowing as the source rather that anything external from sensory information. He explains how this type of knowledge could come about by describing a piece of solid wax through sensory information, then as the wax melts in heat its form changes. Now he can no longer rely on sensory information to know that it is in fact the same piece of wax. It seems the only way to know this without depending on sensory information would be if it was an intrinsic source or innate idea.
16. Descartes “concept of perfection” comes from realizing that there exists some notion of perfection and wonders where it comes from. He rules out the senses as a source because he considers nothing in the world to be perfect. He rules out himself because he doesn’t consider himself perfect due to the fact that he has doubts or in other words he doesn’t know everything. He comes to the conclusion that the concept of perfection must have come from the existence of some perfect being i.e. God with all the perfect God-like qualities. He then uses the existence of God to rule out any such evil deceptive being that could twist our perceptions.
17. Descartes argument for the existence of the external / physical world is based on the previous propositions. If there is an all perfect being then he would not create people with unreliable senses, so our senses our reliable because God is not a deceiver. If the external world did not exist then that would mean our senses were unreliable, and so there could not exist an all perfect being, and so forth the tower falls. So he goes back to the first point of his concept of perfection, if this can be known for certain then everything else should logically follow leading to the existence of the external world based on the reliability of our senses.
This whole thing was very interesting and I did a little extra research on the side to get a better more well rounded understanding of Descartes argument and I think the most interesting thing was his process and how he approached each thing before analyzing it. The wax argument was a little confusing so I attempted to ponder another example of a caterpillar turning into a butterfly. The cocoon would be a safe way to ensure any trickery or deception unless the cocoon was tampered with. Even though the creature has completely changed we are quite certain it is the same entity, and it doesn’t seem to be based on sensory information. Hmm even if it was I still can’t help but wonder if Descartes was right about innate knowledge because of how processes such as logic / reasoning exist at all in the first place as dependable sources for knowledge in math, science, etc. Logic is a tool many people have used in philosophy and there are rules and forms that enable us to reason and discover truth/knowledge. It does not seem to depend on the external world because you could have a very logical argument about unicorns when they don’t even exist, but the form is valid. So what does reason or logic depend on or what is it based on? Does logic itself show there must be some objective truth or innate knowings? If logic does not gain knowledge through the senses than how do we know logic?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)