(Untitled)

[thefacade]

Helping friends you deeply love with the process of moving is the most melancholy event one can experience, especially when you know despite what is said between you, that you won't see each other again

Comments

descartes

[ktl]

Hmmm . . . interesting post. . . . I think the difference is that if you try to explain subjectivity by reducing it to some set of physical phenomena, no matter how complex the factors involved, you lose the very aspect of subjectivity that you were trying to explain to begin with. If I say "I am a series of processes in Jeff's Brain" then I should be able to substitute "I" with "the processes in Jeff's Brain" in any sentence with the same meaning, and vice-versa. Yet

Re: descartes

[thefacade]

Well first off, I don't believe Descartes ever implied that body and mind were completely separate to the point where there is no contact between the two. The reason why every introduction to psychology class begins with the discussion of him is because he created the concept of 'interactive dualism', meaning that they do interact on a fundamental level

Re: descartes

[ktl]

Okay, granted, Descartes did theorize that the mind and body were able to interact somehow through the pineal gland. But the point of his Meditations was that Mind and Body were such radically different substances that any interaction between them could only happen if there were a God who wouldn't let us be decieved, and who would guarantee that if we (mentally) perceived that we were wearing pants, there was a bodily world in which we were wearing pants (and vice-versa). Whereas I think it's possible to be an "interactive dualist" without necessarily believing that Mind exists in some separate substance of its own

Re: descartes

[thefacade]

Scientists know that life is merely a state in which matter is organized in a particular manner and gains the ability to replicate itself and carry on particular biological functions. Therefore, science now has the ability to explain the fundamental properties of life in terms of purely physical scientific processes. Therefore, is it so far outside the realm of possibility that it will someday be the case for mental processes as well? What I do not understand in conversations like these is why individuals cannot seem to comprehend the possibility that they are nothing more than the sum of cells reacting to the environment.The fundamental definition of life is merely a continued reaction to change, and human life is no different. It seems to me that the only difference between human existence and the existence of animals is the amount of information that humans can use when priming memories. Ask yourself if there is any difference between your memory and your imagination, your brain doesn't know the difference. Is it really so outside