-
TheMadFool
13.8kI have what seems to be an interesting chapter in the story of mind-body dualism, Descartes famous res cogitans (mind) and res extensa (matter).
I know death isathe problem that not only humanity but all life has to face. It's the mother of all killjoys and robs every living creature of any chance of a meaningful existence, meaning herein meant as associated with deathlessness/immortality. That immortality is what gives meaning to life, ours included, and ergo a desideratum is not an open and shut case but this is outside the scope of this discussion. Assume, if only for the sake of argument, that being immortal or not having to die, ever, is the be all and the end all of ontology (existence).
Now, there's absolutely no good reason to object to the reality of bodily death - the billions of decaying corpses in the countless cemeteries around the world is unquestionable proof.
What's interesting though, living under the everpresent specter of Thanatos, is that our thoughts (ideas) seem to be immune to physical death. The wise words of Socrates, his thoughts, still reverbate across the halls of the departments of philosophy around the world even 2 millennia since he drank Hemlock in the company of his friends cum disciples.
The point? Thoughts are, let's just say, immortal, they survive the Grim Reaper's menacing scythe. The inference that I want to make here should be obvious at this point. The mind produces thoughts and if what the mind produces (thoughts) can outlive in a manner of speaking physical death, there must be, there has to be, something special about the mind - it's nonphysical just as thoughts are (?) and it may be...just may be able to continue on even after physical death just as thoughts do (?).
A short argument as a synopsis:
1. If physicalism is true then ideas are physical [premise]
2. If ideas are physical then ideas can't survive death [premise]
3. Ideas can survive death [ideas from long-dead people are still in circulation]
Ergo,
4. Ideas are not physical [2, 3 MT]
Hence,
5. Physicalism is false [1, 4 MT]
Be gentle with me, reader! -
khaled
3.5kEither 2 or 3 is false. 2 is true if you're referring to actual thoughts but false if you're referring to ideas. 3 is true if you're referring to ideas but false if you're referring to actual thoughts.
In short: The use of "thoughts" in 2 is different from the use of "thoughts" in 3. -
TheMadFool
13.8kNow premise 2 is just false. — khaled
So, ideas are physical AND ideas can survive death?
I agree to one conjunct but not the other. Which one you already know and I'm curious to know how you would defend your position. -
khaled
3.5kWhat about ideas makes you think they don't survive death? I don't see why it needs defending in the first place.
-
TheMadFool
13.8kWhat about ideas makes you think they don't survive death? I don't see why it needs defending in the first place. — khaled
Well, Socrates is physically nonexistent but here's an idea of his that exists,
I know that I know nothing — Socrates -
khaled
3.5kWhat about ideas makes you think they can't survive after death? Saying "socrates died and his ideas survived" isn't an answer to that question.
-
TheMadFool
13.8kWhat about ideas makes you think they can't survive after death? Saying "socrates died and his ideas survived" isn't an answer to that question. — khaled
I'm afraid it is. You made a boo-boo, thoughts, ideas to be specific, survive physical death! -
khaled
3.5kthoughts, ideas to be specific — TheMadFool
Thought =/= idea. Thoughts don't survive after death, heck, most of them don't survive for 5 minutes. You conflate thoughts and ideas.
I'm afraid it is. — TheMadFool
I asked what about ideas makes you think they shouldn't survive after death. You gave an example of an idea that survived after death. That does not answer the question. -
TheMadFool
13.8kThought =/= idea. Thoughts don't survive after death, heck, most of them don't survive for 5 minutes. You conflate thoughts and ideas. — khaled
We crossed that bridge. We're on the same page although it's still debatable whether ideas are thoughts or not.
what about ideas makes you think they shouldn't survive after death. — khaled
They (ideas) survive death. That's the whole point! Your question suggests you missed it. -
khaled
3.5kThey (ideas) survive death. — TheMadFool
Right but you think if they're physical they shouldn't. What makes you think that? -
TheMadFool
13.8kRight but you think if they're physical they shouldn't. What makes you think that? — khaled
Good question! For starters, physical/bodily death is considered final in the sense if I were to die today, that would be the end of TheMadFool and nothing about the TheMadFool exists beyond today (the date of my demise). That's the physicalist take on humans. We're entirely matter & energy in some configuration and when that ceases to be, we cease to be as well.
My point is no, that isn't the truth at all, at least it's not the whole truth if you know what I mean. Socrates, for instance, is dead and gone, even his skeleton must've turned to dust, assuming he was interred and not cremated i.e. nothing physical (configuration also included) that can be identified as Socrates exists as of 2021 and yet his idea that, to be wise is simply to realize one's own abject ignorance (I know that I know nothing) exists still, alive and well I might add in, truth be told, 2021.
Conclusion: Socrates' idea(s) has/have, in a way, cheated physical death - Something (ideas) about Socrates managed to successfuly extend its existence beyond, to be precise, his brain death, an impossibility if everything about Socrates were physical.
To cut to the chase, physical death in physicalist circles is the final chapter in a person's life and beyond that nothing of that person can continue in any shape and form; yet, contrary to that "thought" ( :wink: ) Socrates "lives" as an idea and will probably continue to do so for many generations to come. -
khaled
3.5knothing physical (configuration also included) that can be identified as Socrates exists as of 2021 — TheMadFool
Right.
yet his idea that, to be wise is simply to realize one's own abject ignorance (I know that I know nothing) exists still, alive and well I might add in, truth be told, 2021. — TheMadFool
Where's the inconsistency here? No configuration that can be identified as Socrates remains. However a configuration that can be identified as the thought "I know I know nothing" persists.
Socrates "lives" as an idea and will probably continue to do so for many generations to come. — TheMadFool
"I know I know nothing" is not Socrates specific. The thought is a pattern that can arise in anyone. The first guy to point it out died, and the pattern then arose in others at later times, is how a materialist would explain it. I still don't see what inconsistency you're pointing to. -
TheMadFool
13.8kWhere's the inconsistency here? No configuration that can be identified as Socrates remains. However a configuration that can be identified as the thought "I know I know nothing" persists. — khaled
Where's the inconsistency? Hmmmm...Lemme think about it.
Let's start with the definition of physicalism: everything is matter and energy.
Secondly, Socrates is physical i.e. Socrates is all matter and energy. Socrates died in 399 BC. If Socrates is all physical, 399 BC would've been the full stop if his life was a "sentence" ( :wink: ). In other words, Socrates, were all physical, he literally ends in 399 BC i.e. nothing about him should exist beyond the fateful day he drank Hemlock in 399 BC. Right?
Now, go to Socratic Paradox. Remind yourself this is 2021, roughly 2,500 years after Socrates was executed for impiety and corrupting the youth of dear Athens. An idea of Socrates has survived his physical death.
Does this not make you :brow: ?
"I know I know nothing" is not Socrates specific. The thought is a pattern that can arise in anyone. The first guy to point it out died, and the pattern then arose in others at later times, is how a materialist would explain it. I still don't see what inconsistency you're pointing to. — khaled
Red Herring! If it isn't then think of something Socrates specific. You seem to know more than me. I'm sure you can give TheMadFool the succor he's much in need of. -
khaled
3.5kDoes this not make you :brow: ? — TheMadFool
No it doesn’t because the Socratic paradox isn’t a Socrates exclusive idea just for having Socrates in the name. The Socratic paradox is not a part of Socrates. So there is no contradiction between Socrates dying and the Socratic paradox living on. There is as much contradiction in that as me dying and my car continuing to work. My car’s not a part of me. Why did you expect me dying to affect it in any way?
That’s what I meant when I said “Not Socrates specific”. I don’t know how to explain it more. I don’t get what you’re :brow: ing over. -
TheMadFool
13.8kNo it doesn’t because the Socratic paradox isn’t a Socrates exclusive idea just for having Socrates in the name. The Socratic paradox is not a part of Socrates. That’s what I meant when I said “Not Socrates specific”. I don’t know how to explain it more. I don’t get what you’re :brow: ing over. — khaled
-
charles ferraro
369
Empirical verification of a mortal's ability to experience the existence of immortal ideas would require prior empirical verification of that mortal's ability to experience the existence of an immortal mind, or minds.
As far as I am aware, this has never been accomplished.
Question: Is immortality an unending spatio-temporal existence, or is it existing completely outside of a spatio-temporal context? -
Jack Cummins
5.1k
I am not sure that it would require an immortal mind to transmit immortal ideas. That is because it is easier to transfer ideas to other minds than it is to transfer the individual mind itself. Ideas are exchanged through education, books and electronic means. It is so much simpler for ideas to have life after death than human beings. Kant, Kierkergaard, Sartre and so many others live on in the world, almost like real individuals, on the basis of their written words. Their ideas are recorded, and passed on, for so many generations. Also, the nature of some deaths, like Elvis, John Lennon and Jim Morrison contribute to the work of certain minds of musicians or writers being immortalized as legends. -
Joshs
5.2kThoughts are, let's just say, immortal, they survive the Grim Reaper's menacing scythe. — TheMadFool
This is the issue that Derrida went on and on about.
Spoken and written language, and all other sorts of gestures and markings which intend meaning, exemplify bound idealities.Even as it is designed to be immortal, repeatable as the same apart from any actual occurrences made at some point, the SENSE of a spoken or inscribed utterance, what it means or desires to say, is always tied to the contingencies of empirical circumstance. Language is designed to transmit intact the pure meaning of a thought. But it is also the nature of language that it be expressed. And because it must be expressed it must expose itself to interpretation and new context. -
TheMadFool
13.8kEmpirical verification of a mortal's ability to experience the existence of immortal ideas would require prior empirical verification of that mortal's ability to experience the existence of an immortal mind, or minds. — charles ferraro
You're on the right track but you need to work on it a more but only if I'm correct of course. I'm not really claiming that ideas are immortal - what happens to them, for example, when all living organisms capable of thinking about them die?
What I find intriguing is that there's something, (an) idea(s) to be precise, that survives a person's physical death and it appears, unfortunately for most of us including myself, this idea has to be unique to the individual as Khaled was kind enough to point out. If an idea that's, let's just say, the intellectual property of a person can continue on even after that person has met his end physically then, we're warranted to conclude that the idea is nonphysical; after all the person in question is physically nonexistent. If so, there's a strong possibility that the mind, since it deals with nonphysical ideas, could also be nonphysical. Common sense is often unreliable and, luckily or unluckily, in this case it seems to be telling me/us that just like if a certain machine churns out triangles, there's something triangular about that machine, a mind that continuously produces nonphysical ideas, must also itself be in some way nonphysical. -
Jack Cummins
5.1k
I think that Ouspensky suggested that certain minds would be able to survive if they were developed in such a way to be distinct. Of course, Ouspensky's ideas were based on those of Guirjieff, and focused on the concept of waking up beyond robot consciousness. However, I was not really sure what to make of the view that certain minds might exist beyond death, but not all, and it is so different from the idea of the eternal soul, or spirit. -
TheMadFool
13.8kI think that Ouspensky suggested that certain minds would be able to survive if they were developed in such a way to be distinct. Of course, Ouspensky's ideas were based on the ideas of Guirjieff, and focused on the idea of waking up beyond robot consciousness. However, I was not really sure what to make of the ideas that certain minds might exist beyond death, but not all, and it is so different from the idea of the eternal soul, or spirit — Jack Cummins
Now that I think of it, the distinct/unique ideas, attributable to single individuals, as indicative of but not necessarily ironclad proof of the nonphysical nature of mind has universal scope. For instance, Socrates has survived death because we have an idea [Socratic Paradox] unique to him but, here's where it gets interesting, a person who's never had an original idea in faer life can think of, ponder upon, mull over the Socratic Paradox. In short, what Socrates can do anyone can do too and for that reason, all our minds are identical. If then Socrates' mind can survive death like it does, anyone's can too in spite of that anyone never having an idea that it could call its own. :chin:
This is the issue that Derrida went on and on about.
Spoken and written language, and all other sorts of gestures and markings which intend meaning, exemplify bound idealities.Even as it is designed to be immortal, repeatable as the same apart from any actual occurrences made at some point, the SENSE of a spoken or inscribed utterance, what it means or desires to say, is always tied to the contingencies of empirical circumstance. Language is designed to transmit intact the pure meaning of a thought. But it is also the nature of language that it be expressed. And because it must be expressed it must expose itself to interpretation and new context. — Joshs
I don't know what you're on about but I believe language is simply a way of capturing sensory data (5 senses) and/or superimposing data sets so obtained and averaging them as it were to extract patterns from them. In both cases, words, nothing more than auditory/visual/tactile symbols, are assinged either to individual sense datum or to the pattern observed in them. I guess what I'm trying to say that language ain't that important - it's there for some reason (convenience probably) but it isn't something that deserves the amount of attention you/we are giving it. What am I saying?! I might have to eat my words. -
Joshs
5.2k
t I believe language is simply a way of capturing sensory data (5 senses) and/or superimposing data sets so obtained and averaging them as it were to extract patterns from them. In both cases, words, nothing more than auditory/visual/tactile symbols, are assinged either to individual sense datum or to the pattern observed in them — TheMadFool
This is an adequate model if youre programming a computer , because computers don’t have to understand what is programmed into them. We do. What you described is merely computation . Computers aren’t capable of affective, goal-oriented relevance, which is essential to the understanding of language. -
TheMadFool
13.8kThis is an adequate model if youre programming a computer , because computers don’t have to understand what is programmed into them. We do. What you described is merely computation . Computers aren’t capable of affective, goal-oriented relevance, which is essential to the understanding of language. — Joshs
Ok but what's understanding? Is there a good, working definition of it? Last I read about it, there are multiple definitions, all of them only half-true as it were. This video seems relevant:
Replace "consciousness" with "understanding" and you'll get the idea.
To cut to the chase, we don't understand what understanding is. -
charles ferraro
369
You wrote: "Thoughts are, let's just say, immortal ... ", didn't you???
You are, in fact, equating, or confusing, the non-physicality of thoughts/ideas with their alleged immortality. Why should this be the case? Thoughts/ideas may be non-physical, but they are not immortal, because they do require the existence of a mortal mind, or minds, to think about them and to comprehend their meaning. Without the latter, they are absolutely useless.
Thoughts/ideas have an ersatz immortality only, because they are preserved in the written works of human beings.
And, by the way, you never clarified your understanding of the meaning of the term immortality. -
Joshs
5.2kTo cut to the chase, we don't understand what understanding is. — TheMadFool
The video errs in claiming that we don’t know what such things as understanding or consciousness or language are. We do know, but according to a large variety of often conflicting schemes. Physics , psychology and philosophy are very different fields of study, but not because physics is more ‘certain’. Just because it uses a vocabulary of mathematical certainty and natural law doesn’t mean that its ‘certainties’ don’t change their sense along with the presuppositions underlying the theories. The various theories of consciousness are all useful in their own way, but serve different purposes. The ones that are usedul for researchers in a.i. or neuroscience may not be useful for clinical psychologists or philosophers of mind.
That’s not to say that there cannot be an overarching theory of language or consciousness to address the various concerns of subdisciplines, but such a theory should never be expected to be ‘certain’ any more
than Newtonian physics simply remains frozen and unchanged over time.
I think the accounts of consciousness, language and emotion that I prefer can account for what computers do as well as tell us why they can’t do what humans and other animals do. -
TheMadFool
13.8kWe do know — Joshs
Ok. So, what's understanding? Your entire post contains nothing about what understanding is despite beating around the bush for two paragraphs. :smile:
You are, in fact, equating, or confusing, the non-physicality of thoughts/ideas with their alleged immortality. Why should this be the case? Thoughts/ideas may be non-physical, but they are not immortal, because they do require the existence of a mortal mind, or minds, to think about them and to comprehend their meaning. Without the latter, they are absolutely useless.
Thoughts/ideas have an ersatz immortality only, because they are preserved in the written works of human beings.
And, by the way, you never clarified your understanding of the meaning of the term immortality. — charles ferraro
I merely posited the possibility of immortality but never claimed it to be so.
I'm not really claiming that ideas are immortal — TheMadFool -
Jack Cummins
5.1k
One thought that I had in relation to your question is whether certain ideas had to be given birth to, and that specific individuals had to live for that reason. Where would evolution of culture and thinking be if Kant, Darwin and Freud had not lived? Would other individuals have arrived at their views, and would the philosophies have been a bit different? Of course, Plato speaks of ideas as Forms, but this is different from the realisations of specific philosophical systems.
I have really turned your question of the immortality of ideas round to the life before birth of ideas. However, I do wonder if specific life purpose of the importance thinkers was partly connected to bringing forth certain ideas, because the ideas were so closely interlinked with the lives which they lead. -
Joshs
5.2kOk. So, what's understanding? Your entire post contains nothing about what understanding is despite beating around the bush for two paragraphs. :smile: — TheMadFool
I’ve spent the past two years writing about the ideas of five phenomenologists, each of which has their own account of understanding. But if I were to pick out what each of these accounts has in common, I would say that they all reject the notion that truth is correspondence with an independent reality. Instead, they agree
that the world never doubles back on itself, it is a process of incessant change. Since events are unique , only occur once and never double back on themselves , the world would be a ceaseless chaos if we weren’t able to discern ongoing pattens, themes and consistencies in this incessant flow. What the subject brings to experience is a way of anticipating events that replicate , (but never duplicate) , what has previously been experienced. This is what awareness does from the most primordial
level of perception on up to the most complex cognitions.
Understanding , then , is the meeting of our system of expectations with a new event that is successfully recognized on certain dimensions of similarity with respect to our anticipatory apparatus. This is different from understanding as representation because the event that we successfully construe has no independent existence apart from this meeting or intersection between anticipation and what appears to it. Even what invalidates out anticipations radically belongs to the scheme we bring to bear in interpreting it.
Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.
Categories
- Guest category
- The Lounge
- General Philosophy
- Metaphysics & Epistemology
- Philosophy of Mind
- Ethics
- Political Philosophy
- Philosophy of Art
- Logic & Philosophy of Mathematics
- Philosophy of Religion
- Philosophy of Science
- Philosophy of Language
- Interesting Stuff
- Politics and Current Affairs
- Humanities and Social Sciences
- Science and Technology
- Learning Centre
- Resources
- Books and Papers
- Reading groups
- Questions
- Guest Speakers
- David Pearce
- Massimo Pigliucci
- Debates
- Debate Proposals
- Debate Discussion
- Feedback
- Article submissions
- About TPF
- Help
More Discussions
- Other sites we like
- Social media
- Terms of Service
- Sign In
- Created with PlushForums
- © 2024 The Philosophy Forum