The Ark of Philosophy can be like The Tower of Babel at times. It may also be because in the information age there is so much to access and put together from different times and cultures. In the issue of 'Philosophy Now' from which I read the article on postmodernism and science, there is also another relevant one, 'Bricolage: Natural Epistemology. The term was looked at by Claude Levi Strauss, as meaning '"to tinker' as a way of putting things together creatively. In a way, it can be seen as reconstruction as opposed to the process of deconstruction in postmodernism.

The line which you queried with the words, 'is reason a quest for reason' was actually a typo in my outpost. It should have read as 'is philosophy a quest for reason', so I will alter it when I look at the thread a little later today.

You also seem to prefer the concept relativism in favour of pluralism. The reason why I choose pluralism, which is similar because it is more about competing 'truths' rather than these simply being simply relative. The idea of competing truths was the way pluralist was used by William James in, 'The Pluralistic Universe'.

I have probably been through a lot of postmodern mazes. In particular, I found Foucault's ideas on sexuality very helpful, especially in conjunction with questioning religious beliefs.

It does seem that there is a lot of confusion about who is in charge or control as roles in social life have become more and more fuzzy. Power shifts a lot, especially as people change organisational roles. It is likely that this effects the way people hold beliefs and values as they shift within different structures and cultures of knowledge and ideologies.

I went to meditation this evening in Camden Town. Sometimes if I go to a group meditation I feel unable to switch off. However, what happened today was that I had been really stressed out earlier but became calm on the way so I was able to meditate fairly easy. I think that what happened was that I had worn out my 'monkey brain' so much that I was able to not have its intrusive chatter getting in the way too much.

Going back to its origins, philosophy involved the quest for self-knowledge and, as philosophy has become increasingly about analysis of concepts and understanding science, the aspect of self-knowledge may get lost at times. In some ways, the emphasis on self-knowledge may fall into the domain of psychology. However, even that may be more focused on the outer forms of behaviour and thinking about oneself.

However, I am not suggesting that self-knowledge is mere introspection, because self-knowledge is about feedback from others and self-knowledge. Therapies, including the cognitive behavioral therapies may help, and there is an overlap on questioning assumptions behind feelings. There is also an overlap between CBT and Stoicism.

You are definitely right that technological advances mean that people are becoming more robotic, less inclined to looking within themselves. As far as whether people change focus may vary. Jung saw the second half of life as more about inner growth, but if people have not been encouraged to think about their inner lives in the first place, this will not happen necessarily. Also, his understanding of introversion and extraversion is important. That is because often in popular thinking the terms are used to describe stereotypes of people who are sociable or withdrawn. Jung, who actually, as far as I am aware, invented the terms, was speaking more of the way people are oriented towards the inner or outer. Of course, it is not simple because everyone lives in both categories of experience. Nevertheless, there is an increasing move in technological society to the exterior. For example, even the value of the arts may be often flattened into the fast culture of entertainment.

As I am extremely influenced by Jung, I have thought about his understanding of consciousness a lot in relation to various thread discussions. It appears to me that there are ambiguities in his writings, which mean that his perspective can be interpreted in various ways. For example, recently I was reading, 'Philosophy: 100 Thinkers', by Philip Stokes, who listed Jung in the section on the materialists. However, in the discussion, Stokes acknowledged the way in which Jung incorporated a form of mysticism going back to the Greeks.

Part of the complexity of his perspective is that he starts from the assumptions of psychoanalysis drawn from Freud, which emerge from humanism and naturalism but he blends in so much from the various writers he has read. In a way, he rejects the supernatural by speaking of the collective unconscious as a natural source, but he does, at the same time, delve into metaphysics, including Kant. He sees archetypes as imminent in nature, but there is some parallel with the ideas of Plato. In doing so, he does come up with an understanding of mind which leans towards idealism, especially as he draws upon ideas in Eastern philosophy.

It is indeed interesting that Spinoza's ideas were suppressed, while Descartes ideas were mainstream. I wonder if it has a political aspect with Descartes' dualism being more compatible in the way in which life after death could be backed up according to Cartesian dualism.

Thanks for your thoughts on information and it does lead me to think of systems theory. I can remember how when I was studying biology, it made so much sense of everything by seeing the integral links. This did involve the connections between the mind and body, such as how the vague nerve, in response to stress leads to an increase in blood pressure, as well as the whole process of homeostasis in the body. The whole processes of minds or minds also make sense in the cybernetic theory of Gregory Bateson.

I had a read of your debate with Hanover. It showed how intricate the distinction is between substance dualism and property dualism. I think that it may be because the various historical figures, Spinoza, Schopenhauer and Wittgenstein had different underlying frames of reference. At least, in the twentieth first century there is at least a common frames of the neuroscience of the brain which gives some underlying basis for clarity about the nature of 'mind'.

I believe that I read something by Damascio, but not sure if it was the one you mentioned. I will look out for the one on Descartes, especially as Descartes' shaped so much of current thinking of the mind body/relationship. I had a friend who told me that Pink Floyd's,'The Division Bell', concept is based on the mind/body connection, but I don't know if this is true, or whether it was my friend's personal interpretation.

Yes, I may have mixed up various post discussions which I have had with you. However, I do believe that the philosophy of Spinoza has been particularly influential in your thinking, and thought that was in connection with substance dualism. I did read some of the thread on substance dualism about a year or two ago. It is interesting and, at some point, I would like to read further on the topic of substance dualism, as it may be important in connection with the materialism vs idealism spectrum.

I didn't think that you would reduce consciousness to information, but there are probably some people who do.

Yes, Skinner's perspective is complex, because although he did deny reflective consciousness, he did come up with potential modifications for life, in, 'Beyond Freedom and Dignity'.

The article which you provided a link to is a good overview. I certainly don't dismiss neuroscience as it does provide such a useful perspective. The article does bring in varying approaches because it is likely that these may be all useful. I am actually fairly interested in neurolinguistic programming because it may not explain consciousness itself but my help work with the subliminal aspects which affect the experiences of consciousness.

I know that you think that Spinoza's understanding of substance dualism is important. However, you seemed to agree with me that his writing is not the best place for this. So, which authors do you think offer a good overview of his approach?

I haven't read Yglotsky but I did begin reading Skinner's philosophy while I was studying psychology 'A' level. If anything, it seemed that he underplayed the role of inner experience, especially reflective self-awareness. We can question our own motives and look at these, which makes the whole issue relevant to that of free will. Behaviorism may be compatible with determinism, and it may come down to the actual reflective moment of choice. In some ways, the reflective element could be seen as connected to previously learned responses. On the other hand, it may depend on the level of self creation in the process of intentionality.

I had never thought of it as information until I read a couple of threads on this site on consciousness and information. To some extent, that perspective works, but what seems to be missing is both sentience and narrative identity in the construction of an autobiographical sense of self identity.

I come from the perspective of reading Dennett's ideas, which are so different from my own and that is why I think about it a lot. When I had a few out of body experiences on the borderline of sleep and on the two occasions when I took LSD I definitely had the sense of a separation between body and mind. This may have been a chemically induced illusion but it was certainly what I experienced.

Apart from the actual experiences the reason why I took acid a second time was I did feel that I had not got back into my body properly. At the time, I was starting my nursing training and others did notice my coordination difficulties. Also, I have always felt a little out of my body and it is as if I have to get into my body in order to do tasks. A couple of managers' queried my slightly delayed reaction times at times and it was extremely difficult to try to explain that I had to get into my body properly!

The fact that we all view everything with our own minds is a central aspect of philosophy. Mind is inherent in all thought and I believe that Thomas Nagel argued this in, 'A View From Nowhere'. It makes the issue of objectivity itself problematic.

I guess that I am interested in questioning the various perspectives on the mind and body question, as it is such a perplexing philosophical issue. I am not sure that I completely agree with his approach on introspection but I can see that he presents a valid argument. Self-knowledge through introspection is limited and open to doubt. I am sure that others' views of me are probably different from my own thoughts. Others' perspectives may be important as there are so many others, although those viewpoints would probably not be identical. But, with self-knowledge although it may be useful to know others' perceptions, including one's own blindspots, I have more time to devote to knowing myself. For that reason, I like to, as far as possible, be my own therapist.

I definitely see links between Ryle's understanding of the link between mind and matter and the nature of embodiment. In the last few months I read a few works in the phenomenological tradition and embodiment as expressed here does seem to be about such a fusion. I guess the other side of the issue is whether there is any possible separation, which goes back to Descartes' own thinking. Of course, a dead body is a dead body but I have heard anecdotal stories of people sensing a spirit leaving the body, but what that represents is open to question.

I replied to your second post and see that, in the first, you describe how you have read Ryle's work and found it frustrating. I am finding it more helpful than not, mainly because so many writers I have read, such as Dennett, Pinker and B F Skinner seemed to dismiss introspection entirely. I came across Skinner during 'A' level psychology and have felt that so many psychologists dismiss introspection, which may be the fundamental seat of self-awareness and self-knowledge.

Funnily enough, I don't think that I reflected on the term consciousness that much until I began using this forum about 2 years ago. But, I was probably a dualist, and have questioned this, for better or worse. It can lead to tangents but I am hoping that reflection of such matters also leads to greater self-awareness, even though that idea may be open to philosophical speculation in it's own right.

At the moment, I am finding the ideas of Ryle very helpful, and I am happy to share with you and anyone else who is interested. I nearly put the ideas onto the one on the poll on materialism, idealism and realism, but as it such a popular one, even though it started as a poll, I decided that the ideas of Ryle would probably get lost there entirely. My own reading of Ryle is that it raises the question of what is 'mind' in a fundamental way and the conception of consciousness itself.

Ryle traces the emergence of the idea of consciousness. He says,
'When the epistemologists' concept of consciousness first became popular, it seems to have been in part a transformed application of the Protestant notion of conscience...When Galileo and Descartes' representations of the mechanical world seemed to require that minds should be solved from mechanism by being represented as constituting a duplicate world, the need was felt to explain how the ghostly world could be ascertained, again without sensory perception.'
Ryle goes on to speak of how Locke understood inner states, and called this,
'supposed inner perception "reflection"(our introspection), borrowing the word "reflection" from the the familiar optical phenomenon of the reflections of faces in mirrors. The mind can "see" or look at it's own operations in the light given by themselves. The myth of consciousness is a piece of para-optics'.

In this way, Ryle is calling into question the idea of consciousness itself, especially in relation to what inner experience means and its significance in understanding the nature of 'reality', with the division of inner and outer being an important interface. He is questioning the nature of knowledge and how it connects to self-knowledge, which is such a crucial link in the interplay between subjective and objective understanding.

It may be that many see the entire idea of the 'ghost in the machine' as absurd in the context of neuroscience. However, on the other hand, there is the question as to what extent the nature of the senses is reliable, because it is open to question of altered perceptions, especially psychedelic experiences. These may be attributed to chemicals alone, or may raise the question of deeper states of 'mind.

In some ways the whole phenomenon of experiences of altered states of consciousness, including psychedelic experiences, could throw back the understanding of mind in the direction of idealism, such as Bergson's idea of -'mind at large', or the brain as a 'filter of consciousness', which may also be relevant in thinking of the nature of mind.

It can be asked to what extent is the brain and the conventional experiences of sensory reality the most 'real' and underlying perspective of reality, or the possibilities of any others. It may relate to the nature of concepts and the nature of reality, conceptually and metaphysically. In some ways, it may come down to what is the fundamental nature of reality? Is the idea of the 'ghost in the machine' one which is to be abandoned completely?

I just hope that he is okay. I know that you say that there are many social clubs, but today I tried to join art groups in the local library where I have moved to and, I was turned away because they were oversubscribed. All, I could do after joining the library, was get out books and found myself looking at the philosophy section, as if I don't have enough books. So, many of us are thrown back alone, with nothing more than online interaction. I am sure that Agent Smith would not wish for a lengthy postmortem on his future, but l just hope that he doesn't just see this banning as 'failure' and finds new openings for his expression of ideas, online, or in real life. It is likely that many here will remember his presence and I certainly valued his contributions.

I do agree with you, but it probably also remains an issue for the site in general, where many write such short posts, with one line remarks and emoticons. It isn't an academic site, but, sometimes, there seems to be so much which is shallow and lacking in philosophical depth in discussion. It is so complex on a site which is neither a chit chat one or one of formal academic philosophy, and Agent Smith's contributions may draw attention to this dilemma.

I do think that his banning will probably be more of a loss to the site than anything. Of course,I am sure that he had his bad moments, as we all do and wrote posts which are not one's best. Standards are important, but it does depend how they are seen and whether it is simply measured according to academic ones.

As it is, many users on the site are alone in rooms, reaching out to other people, so I do wonder if this needs to be taken into consideration rather than the site emphasising quality in every single post. As it was, it may be that Agent Smith did write many posts and threads which were of quality and it seems sad that such a significant contributor Is excluded forever more. I am sure that some of his posts were a challenge for moderators, but it may be that only keeping those who conform to the norms and standards are about maintaining the bland and status quo in philosophy, rather than being open to innovation and creative expression and juxtaposition of ideas.

I find your area of questioning interesting as I first began finding books in the philosophy section when I was about 12 or 13. I can remember getting a book out on 'The Mind' when I was 12 and I think it was probably as much connected to the issues of the philosophy of mind as much as the psychology. I can also remember engaging school friends in conversation about the nature of time and the existence of God. I think part of it came from being an only child and spending more time by myself and not liking playing sports.

My reading life grew through adolescence, especially when I became depressed in sixth form, and by the time I left school reading philosophy and related areas was an integral part of my life. It was partly sparked by the tension between religion and science too.

Generally, from interacting with others, it seems that it is those who for some reason need to question life in a slightly deeper way who are most drawn to philosophy. I have come across some interesting people in philosophy sections of libraries, often a bit 'on the edge'. However, that doesn't mean that all people who are interested in are 'troubled souls', but they usually have some reason to go beyond conventional common sense understanding. I have also come across a couple of people who did begin studying philosophy, who dropped out, because they didn't like all the questioning which it involved.

I will miss him too, because he was distinct and unique. I think that he probably just got carried away at times, probably as a result of not having enough outlets to express himself.

Philosophy and psychology have such an important relationship. In the beginning of the last century they overlapped and it was the movements of behaviorism, psychodynamic theory, psychiatry and cognitive psychology which changed all of that. In some ways, philosophy became the forgotten twin. This is rather unfortunate because it the essential partner in thinking about 'mind', especially as all psychological rest upon philosophical assumptions, including ideas about human nature.

I would agree that people often make too many assumptions about other's psychological experiences. That is why I specify the importance of listening. Of course, our listening to others is filtered by our own cognitive biases too. So, the models we make of other people's inner experiences are only working models and like most other aspects of everything in life knowledge is partial, with an underlying uncertainty.

Of course, we have subjective experiences. Your experience of listening to The Doors is unique to you and mine to me. However, they are not so subjective that there are not any common grounds. That would be bordering onto solipticism. It may not be objective but intersubjective. We can make some guess at others' minds on the basis of both behaviour and their own testimonies, in addition to our own experiences. Without this, there would be no empathy. Of course, people may make mistakes about others' inner experiences if they simply base their assumptions on their own, which is why listening to others is of vital importance.

We know that other people have inner experiences because we are able to talk about them in a comparative way. For example, we can talk about our experiences of music or dreams. With knowing about what it means for others to think about what it means to think of one having a soul, mind, spirit or self. The term spirit is the most complicated because it may involve relationships beyond the physical world and it gets into the realm of metaphysics. But, to compare soul is about thinking of the depths of experience of being, mind probably as reflective consciousness and self as what it means to have a centre in the phenomenological and social fabric of reality. It is likely that we would not even be able to engage in this discussion of inner experiences if we were not able to look inside ourselves introspectively and identify common aspects of such experience.

My perspective is that the various terms of mind, soul, spirit and self overlap and probably capture partial aspects of the inner experiences of human beings. Self is definitely the most popular at the present time, especially as the others suggested some kind of disembodied form. Spirit may be the the most complicated because it captures some kind of transcendent reality and this may not be ruled out entirely but it is entirely speculative and fits most easily into spiritual worldviews.

My personal favourite term of the group may be mind because, unless one is a dualist, is not separate from the body. The difficulty with it may be that it is often associated with the brain most clearly and consciousness may be not entirely reduced to the body. In some ways, self enables a more expansive view but it may be too focused on the social negotiation of the person's core of being. Of course, every person exists in a social context as recognised in the social sciences. The issue may be that the idea of the self may be too socially reductive and not allow for the unique and separate consciousness of the person to be valid in it's own right.

However, I would not wish to use the idea of mind and reject all the others because, as discussed in the earliest discussion on the thread it does all depend on the context of the usage of the terms, especially as all philosophy has a linguistic aspect. It may be that it is simply worth thinking of our own favoured use of the four terms, as well as others, such as the ego, in the way in which the subtle differences point to underlying approaches to in understanding the nature of consciousness and what it means to be a human being.

I have not read Lacan at present, but your reflection on his thinking is important, especially in the dialogue between psychoanalysis and philosophy.

Yes, the vocabulary of thinking changes so much. I guess the reason why I set up this thread was in order to think about the interplay of such concepts, and how these impact on philosophical thinking. The 'self' is definitely the one of consistent importance of the twentieth century, and I am not opposed to the preference. The issue which I am trying to think about is how these concepts emerged and inform thinking, especially in relation to human consciousness.

The ideas of souls and spirits are more complicated than the self, especially as there is often a belief in some kind of disembodied form of consciousness. Spirits first developed in animism and I do wonder to what extent is the idea of panpsychism a return to the ideas of animism, with matter itself being seen as having some form of spirit.

I did go through a period of reading in the theosophical tradition. In that tradition there are believed to be different subtleties of souls and spirit beyond this. It is all a bit complicated. One idea which I came across in that tradition was the notion of aspects breaking down prior to death and afterwards. In particular, the idea of ghosts was not as the actual 'soul' of a person but as an aspect of a prior person affecting the energy fields. This would mean that those who witness ghosts or take part in seances experience this. I have never seen a ghost but I know many who claim to have done. When the ward where I worked on in the psychiatric hospital was temporarily moved to another one, a number of staff members claimed to sense the presence of a ghost of a baby in one particular room, to the point where some staff members felt uncomfortable going down one corridor.

Of course, in theosophy and some other spiritual traditions there is a belief that the soul goes through a period of purification, prior to rebirth, or reincarnation. This is the process described in 'The Tibetan Book of the Dead', and some people maintain that this is the beginning process of what some people encounter in the the descriptions of near death experiences.

I had a look at your post on the idea of a 'future self' which is in itself an interesting concept and the nature of temporality of the self is important. That is because the sense of self develops in childhood with an important aspect considered to be the sense of separation from the mother. However, that is the internalised concept of self as a conscious process but there may a rudimentary self beginning in the womb. Memory itself may be the basic brain aspect of this, in the form of ego consciousness. Even during dreams the sense of ego differentiates and self is in a state of becoming.

The self does appear to be about narrative identity and although embodied I wonder to what extent it is subject to linear time strictly. That is about potential becoming is a goal which determines its earliest course. In other words, does future self exist from the beginning as a blueprint? Also ego consciousness may end at death, and in some cases, especially in the form of dementia, the ego and sense of self may fragment. This may also happen in forms of psychosis, possibly as if the fragility of the self has been broken down, even if as only a temporary development.

Your reply is interesting, in regard to the divisions in the self, mind and matter. The emergent perspective does break down potential divisions, especially problematic in dualist perspectives. The idea of the self as an 'avatar' may make sense because it is like a unity, especially in the formation of autobiographical identity, which leads to an underlying continuity of identity. For example, I can remember my first day at school and the thoughts which I had, as well the essential experiences of my life in the construction of my sense of 'self'.

Those who have dissociative experiences may have disruptions but, on the whole it leads to inner experiences, as David Hume argued, as being more than 'a bundle of experiences. I wonder to what extent such continuity may have been what led Descartes and others the idea of the soul. The problem with the soul may not be how it works as a construct for thinking about the seat of consciousness, but the way in which certain thinkers, especially those within religious traditions, turned it into a mystical or supernatural construct, especially as a disembodied entity independent from embodied experiences in life.