Mind a no-brainer?

damscot at my-deja.com damscot at my-deja.com
Mon Jan 3 19:26:56 EST 2000


In article <m7k8lrb3qf.fsf at skaggs.bns.pitt.edu>,
  Bill Skaggs <skaggs at bns.pitt.edu> wrote:
> damscot at my-deja.com writes:
>
> > According to most Monist researchers, it seems, all mental
perception
> > of objective reality and conception occurs within the "brain". But I
> > say they are wrong! My thoughts, like a Cartesian Dualist, go like
this:
> > If Monists were right, then any brain would then be both objective
to
> > and functionally generative of its own subjective mind, if it had
one.
> > That is, the brain itself would have to directly perceive and yet
> > subsume itself as mind, and thus be both subjective/superior and
> > objective/inferior at the same time - which seems obviously
> > contradictory - and therefore, impossible.
> >
> > Hence, it would seem that no subjective mind has, owns, or depends
> > upon, a corresponding objective brain (or any physical material)
*for
> > its existence*. More profoundly, if this be true, then minds, being
non-
> > physical, are indeed incorruptible, and thus immortal.
> >
> > Don
>
> Most of the terms you use in your argument are capable of multiple
> definitions, so it's difficult to follow the details of the chain of
> logic.  In particular, though, I wonder just what you mean by stating
> that the brain "directly perceives itself as mind".  Can you clarify?
>
> 	-- Bill
> I'll try. First, I don't believe that "the brain " in any way
perceives itself as mind" at all. I did not state that it does. On the
contrary, I said: "If it did ..., then ..." a contradiction results.

Lets try again. Let's say the brain does generate the mind; and that
mind then correctly perceives the brain which creates it.

If this were true, then the brain would actually perceive itself (via
the mind which it generates.) This is what I mean by (directly). But,
again (if Kant is right), the mind would not know the truth about its
own brain which it perceives. Thus, in this sense, the mind must view
itself to be independent of it's brain. But we (our minds) already said
that it depends upon the brain for its very existance. Thus, it appears
we have some sort of inherent contradiction.

I hope this helps. But, perhaps my views are still not well expressed.

Don


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.




More information about the Neur-sci mailing list