Mind and Body (the age old dichotomy)

Discussion in 'Philosophy' started by 2000PoundsofReggie, Oct 30, 2014.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. 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").        

  2. Totally boats.
  3. #3 pickledpie, Oct 30, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 30, 2014
    Your use of commas is... disturbing... Lol

    I can totally bet a hundred bucks this is boats.
  4. How many of these same threads are gonna come up every week. You've done nothing but provide empty words to back up your own view points. Why can't a thought be a three dimensional thing. Because it doesn't feel like it. What are you basing this on except your personal subjective feelings. Do you really have any more proof to back up your side than materialists have to back up theirs? Just seems to me like neither side really has definitive proof.
  5. Boats has a lot of weird ideas. Like space being an actual physical membrane like on tv

  6. #6 2000PoundsofReggie, Oct 30, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 31, 2014
    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.
  7. <div> 
    Commas are an essential element of proper grammar; but maybe a guy (or girl?) named pickled pie, wouldn't get that?  :huh:

  8. Lol we don't need this boats. Just be a little sincere brother.
    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.
  10. You're as transparent as a glass bottom boat, my friend. I know you're boats because you write in such a fucked up way, I expect most people to just not bother with it. Why not be a little honest? Spreading your ideas of mind-body dichotomy won't give you even one tenth the merit honesty would.
    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.
  12. LOL. K.
  13. #13 yurigadaisukida, Oct 31, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 31, 2014
    he keeps saying boats because a user named boats stopped posting

    Then some new account with identical beliefs and typing/speaking styles started posting

    Pretty suspicious

    There aren't actually that many routinely active members here, and that number is even lower for specific sub forums

    The number of active posters in the philosophy forum is probly under 20

  14. *fart noises*
  15. I don't know, it makes sense to me. I understand the comma usage as well. It encourages run-on ideas :p
    I think in the future thoughts will be defined as neurological reactions. There's equipment now where one person can control another's movement just with their brain. The technology is still relatively new, but I don't think it's a far reach to say one of the next steps will be transmitting/receiving thoughts. If they follow the same track they're on and send thoughts that way, we'll have a way to measure what a thought is composed of, instead of philosophizing about it. Wouldn't that be something?
  16. No the philosopher would still say that is not proof. Sending/receiving thoughts is only proof that there is a physical connection between the body and mind. That's one of my biggest problems with dualism. They won't accept any piece of physical evidence to argue any thing. So basically there's no way you can prove dualism right or wrong,
  17. #17 2000PoundsofReggie, Nov 1, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 1, 2014
    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
  18. This style of writing seems awfully familiar.The condescending tone and the way it finishes off with a quote, it must be that thing huckle berry and finn rode was on.
  19. I was referring to the poster before me who mentioned being able to potentially read people's thoughts in the future. I was saying that for you, it seems, that being able to read someone's mind through physical means wouldn't be proof of dualism. It would merely prove that a link between the mind and body exists. I'm just guessing this is how you would feel about this based on your previous posts. If reading people's minds would convince you of the merit of dualism then forget what I am about to say

    I get a little annoyed at the dualist position because it's taking a stance that can't be possibly be proven or disproven. No matter what physical evidence, however compelling it is, you can always fall back on the argument that you can't talk about non physical in terms of physical things. Well you're making the assumption that non physical things even exist. Can you prove that non physical things can exist?
    What if the thoughts are recordable as certain identifiable reactions, and are subsequently predictable? Manipulation of thoughts sent/received?
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page