Mind and Body (the age old dichotomy)

Mind and body are no more the same than are a circle and a square; all of this confusion, this confusion which entails, or allows, people to unify mind and body as "one substance", arises because of people's misusage of the word "thing" - or res - or substance. As Descartes himself stated, a thing is understood to be a "thing", because of its properties, meaning, if there is a property, the "thing" or the "res" is necessarily given. Understanding this, it's easy to see why, and how, most tend to butcher the cogency of Cartesian principles; I mean, for one, almost everyone insists on committing to the validity of the "masked man" fallacy as a refutation, and yet, it, the supposed fallacy itself, presupposes the existence of a fundamental body, that is to say, in such examples, people are not speaking of a "thing's" properties, but of a "thing's" ACCIDENTS.

For example, one puts a mask on a manikin, now, are we to say that the manikin's, or that thing's, properties change? No, for that thing's properties did not change, the manikin is still the same manikin with the same properties, but that an ACCIDENT is added to the thing (in other words, add or subtract the "accident", i.e., the mask, the manikin itself will remain that same thing). Therefore, the "masked man" fallacy cannot apply to the cogito without presupposing that the body fundamentally exists, and is ultimately real, thus negating the cogito's methodology of doubt from the onset.

Now, with that cleared up, we can go on to conclude that mind and body are not the same "thing" (as a circle and a square do not have the same properties, and are not to be considered as the same "thing"); but again, to be clear, Descartes, and, we should mention, Leibniz, asserts that a thing is a thing, and not another thing, because of its PROPERTIES, so, for any and every thing there is an essential property that makes that thing that thing, and not another, and if one thing is to have the same properties as another, those things, with the same properties, are not to be considered as substantively different. Thus, thinking is a property, and extension is a property, THINKING and EXTENSION are not the same property, for a thought is not three dimensionally extended, and a body cannot be destitute of three dimensional extension. Therefore, 'res cogitans' (a thinking "thing"), and 'res extensa' (an extended "thing"), cannot be the same 'res' (the same "thing"); for the former's properties are by no means tantamount with the latter's (as the properties of a circle are by no means tantamount with properties of a square; thus rendering them different "things").        

 

 
Do you have any idea what of you speak, man? My words are not empty, but replete with meaning; that is, if one is to un-pack them with due attention.
 
Do not be so distant from the words you greet; after all, it's not the word which one must focus and concentrate on, but the meaning (or logical content) contained within the word(s); I mean, there's a reason that people, such as myself and yourself, can discourse about the nature of various things - without actually manipulating the things we are speaking of and about (like we can discourse about, "atoms","fermions", "photons", etc., and their behavior and structure, without actually handling such objects of our intellect; that is to say, even if, "atom", "fermion", "photon", may just be words, it's what the word entails, within a given discussion, that matters, and not the word itself at face value).
 
Clearing that up... we can assuredly say, the OP is totally coherent and cogent.
 
Why can't a thought be a three dimensional thing?
 
I don't know, why can't a toaster be a koala? Is asking one -retarded- question what you consider to be a refutation of the OP? And you dare say that my words are supposedly empty? Sike.
 
Lol, show me a three dimensionally extended thought, or concept, and then, no, never mind, you'd still be wrong, speaking non-sense, and wasting your breath.

 

<div> 

 
Commas are an essential element of proper grammar; but maybe a guy (or girl?) named pickled pie, wouldn't get that? 


</div>

 

 
Tf do you keep saying boats for? Either contribute to this thread with a coherent and relevant response, that is, say something intellectually noteworthy, or shut the fck up.

 

 
Are you going to actually respond, and contribute, to this thread with anything insightful or observant, or are you going to just keep on talking out of your ass? If the latter, then please don't respond to this post; you're just looking for a kind of childish attention.

 

 
A mind can send a thought to the body...? What are you talking about? Are you talking about the electro-chemicals that contract and actuate certain parts of the body? Discerptible, and local, electro-chemicals are not the same "thing" as thoughts/concepts/ideas (nor are the latter an *ACCIDENT of the former).
 
... you should digest that by now (seeing as you've read the OP).
 
"But if subsequently we wished to strip this same *substance of the attributes on the basis of which we know it, we would destroy all our knowledge of it; and in that case we would certainly utter various words about it, but we would not clearly and distinctly perceive the meaning of these words." - Cartesius