I would like to hear Mr. Shorto’s POV on recent findings in science (including psychology - e.g., specifically the work of Paul Bloom at Yale and/or Marc Hauser at Harvard) that contradict Descartes’ dualism, namely that since both thought and mind are a function of our biological brain we are predisposed (somewhat, at least) to behaviors - including thought - by virtue of our inherited genetic makeup. Thanks.

Poor Descartes would not accept that exactly the reverse is true: He thought only because he was. Being precedes all becoming.

It was only because the historic enemies of the Church were looking for a new narrative with which to counter the true reason (alla St. Thomas Aquinas, et al) that such nonsense became common currency. But it’s no more true today than it was then.

Looking at the events of the last ten years or so, my friend Peter exclaimed,

“Who knew the Enlightenment would be so short-lived?!”

Why do you think there has been such a resurgence of totalitarian religion?

How man Awakenings can we survive?

My understanding of modern neuroscience is that that the mind is a system with the Brain, but not the same thing. As we change how we use our mind it will change the microscopic structure of the brain. The dualism of: Structure Determines Function and Function Shapes Structure. The mind must be more than its underlying structure or it could not change this base architecture.

“I think, therefore I am.”

Would the opposite be true?

“I don’t think, therefore I do not exist.”

What happens when people stop thinking for themselves? What is the effect?

If we consider the Chinese ethos of community and negation of self in favor of the community, what is the anti-Decartes ideal at work there?

(I’m also indulging in the idea that many people in our country are not truly thinking for themselves.)

Tom,

It is really sad when NPR hosts so much content that is robbing humans of their basic capacity to reason - especially when talking about Descartes. How do you pick these guys? When the caller from Ithaca, NY states that there is a mind-body disconnect and you ask “Well what happens at the end of the road.. ?” Think about it… how can you set up anyone for such a question, without realizing that you are inviting the crazies to call in. Put another way: What happens when an animal dies or you shut down your computer? Lights out and there is no awareness because… tadah “you’re dead!”

Anyone trying to allude to anything else (George Carlin is my favorite: “The invisible man in the sky” (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeSSwKffj9o ) is only doing ALL OF HUMANITY a great disservice - this is all you got kids, make the best of it…and don’t waste time on Oogie Boogie…

Tom.. your show needs to screen better, as does NPR with the “Speaking of Faith” type shows…While tolerance is an American virtue, celebrating the crazy only limits your audience and further fans the flames of human misery by boosting the spirits of emotionally charged conversation which puts you in a fairly weak crowd. (O’Reilly et al.)

Would love to say some nice things, but I am just surprised that a show like yours would facilitate such thinking, which has been proven to only prolong & amplify human suffering i.e. religion, the church, spirituality etc — very toxic stuff.

The impact, contributions, and limitations of the Cartesian view–as it amplified the Scientific Revolution which holds court today–is discussed in an interesting lecture given by Seyyed Hossein Nasr (a philosophy professor and physicist trained at MIT and Harvard University), “In the Beginning of Creation Was Consciousness.” Professor Nasr also notes that Descartes’s ideas were prefigured a thousand years earlier in the ideas of a Persian philosopher.

The question of whether thinking/knowing/measuring changes reality (that is, does observing something actually change it or an outcome? does requiring an observer to “know” and interpret what is supposedly being seen alter its “truth” and/or state of “being”?) is something still debated in quantum physics, as in Erwin Schrödinger’s cat thought-experiment, the “multiple universes” interpretation of Everett, and many other viewpoints and experiments. The overlap of these scientific ideas with the idea of an Oversoul, a Consciousness, Atman, Incipient Consciousness, Holder of All Multiple Universes in the Space-Time Continuum(s), or whatever you want to call it, is fascinating in suggesting that religion and science ultimately may BOTH rely on a kind of faith and a kind of ultimate knowing/verification that are flip sides of the same coin, as it were. One cannot see the other side from where one stands–only an Outside Observer/Mind “knows” the reality of both and sees the edge where both meet.

Interesting show. Thanks!

http://www.hds.harvard.edu/news/bulletin/articles/nasr.html

Just to clarify, during Descartes’ time nearly all of the established knowledge was being questioned.

So Descartes wondered how could we possibly establish any knowledge given that nearly everything he and his contemporaries were taught to believe was being questioned and overturned? Hence his method of doubt, start with doubting all knowledge, taking nothing we have been taught to believe as true.

The question becomes, are there concepts which we cannot doubt, concepts or arguments that by their very structure lead to contradictions if doubted? There is one: I think therefore I am [exist]. This cannot be doubted for if it is false, and you don’t exist, then how can you think?

This is where modern Western thought began.

“If a man will begin in certainties he shall end in doubts; but if he will be content to begin in doubts he shall end in certainties.” - Sir Francis Bacon

“I think, therefore I am.” - is not such a well thought out statement by a supposedly great philosopher.

If you do not exist first, then you do not think.

And neither saying, “I think” nor “I am” guarantees free will. Interaction involves unpredictability and response. If you cannot fully predeterimine your own stimuli or know all possible ways to respond to all stimuli, then you are not totally in control of the situation nor able to act (or think) outside of your own tendencies.

“If you do not exist first, then you do not think.” This is exactly what Descartes was saying!!

Use the logical operation of contraposition: ‘If P then Q’ is equivalent to ‘If not Q then not P.’

“If you think, then you exist first” exactly (in concept)to what Descartes was saying.

I agree with your free will argument though. Without knowledge as to how to respond, then free will is difficult.

Our minds are a function of our brains, however, our minds can change our brains, because we can learn.

Biology plays a role, but biology consists of TWO factors: our genetic makeup and our physical environment (food, exercise, toxins, etc.). Also genetics is not strictly Mendelian. Two sets of genes join to make something totally unique, not a just a mixture of the two. This is one of the major mechanisms of evolution. It’s nature AND nurture. It’s body AND mind.

And maybe mind is not brain but rather the sensation of its functioning. Something like the morning star and the evening star, both are Venus but they don’t mean the same thing, because they’re perceived differently. (Thanks to Gottlob Frege)

To paraphrase GE Moore: You cannot prove to me that I do not exist (or that there is no external world), because in order to do so, you would have to assume that I exist.

This is was one of the most juvenile shows I have ever heard on NPR.

Descartes surely deserves better. If not, why bother with a show about his thought at all?

“If P then Q is equivalent to If not Q then not P.
“If you think, then you exist first” exactly (in concept)to what Descartes was saying.”

My reply/ (Matthew’s reply):

“If P, then Q”
is not necessarily equivalent to
“If Q, then P.”

Therefore, “If not Q, then not P” is not necessarily true as Q can be either a subset of P (which can exist without Q) OR Q may not be entirely encompassed by P. Think Venn diagrams.

While it’s true that you need to exist, first, before you can think, second, existence does not require your awareness of it, your awareness of its true nature, nor even thought or awareness itself.

What is “I” or “you” supposed to mean? These can be very presumptuous, egotistical pronouns. What Descartes refers to as the “I” may be perhaps more subtle than even Descartes realized. He does not adequately define “I.”

If you read Descartes’ treatise on this, you’ll see that he assumes that consciousness, perception, & thought can exist without physical form, independent of physical existence, and thus independent of physical interaction, which circularly leads to Descartes’ conclusion:
“I think (first), therefore I am (second); where the latter is dependent on the former because consciousness, perception, & thought can precede physicality according to Descartes. This ultimately implies free will (which I argue against.)

We are defined by our material existence and experience. Strip us of that, and we are not even a Freudian Id which is still quite material, indeed, but also thoughtless, as well, in contrast to Descartes’ presumption.

And so it goes, you cannot have some-thing out of no-thing.

I wonder what Descartes would think about the refrigerator light? Does it really go off when I shut the door?

It depends on what the meaning of, “am,” is.

“Would love to say some nice things, but I am just surprised that a show like yours would facilitate such thinking, which has been proven to only prolong & amplify human suffering i.e. religion, the church, spirituality etc — very toxic stuff.”

This is complete nonsense. Christians, for example, time and time again have tried to help alleviate human suffering in this life. At the same time we teach that people are not just walking batches of chemicals that will cease to exist after death, but that we have intrinsic worth, since we are partially made up of souls that are created in the image of God and will outlive our bodies.

BTW- if you read better Christian thinkers of the past and current day, you will realize that not all religious folk are “crazies.”

I thought the show was good and particularly liked Descartes’ theory of the differentiation between the body and mind or dualism.
I notice many posts here stressing the point that the mind is the brain and therefore is the body.
On the contrary, the mind is the place where thought and memory reside. There has never been a scientific proof showing how the brain can record all of the memory that one has. The mind is really a bundle of facsimiles of the physical universe, along with the thoughts, conclusions and imaginings. How can chemicals and grey matter bring about a memory of a loved one?
The current fad of the brain is the mind is propagated by a science that is paid for by pharmaceutical companies.