About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Page 6Page 7Page 8Page 9Page 12Page 2


Post 240

Sunday, May 14, 2006 - 12:26amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Bill, thank you for your insight once again. I don't think I could ever put that as eloquently or as clearly as you can. Man, I wish you were my professor in college :)


Post 241

Sunday, May 14, 2006 - 12:27amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hence property (not substance) dualism.

Ed


Post 242

Sunday, May 14, 2006 - 1:48amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Thanks Ed and John for the compliments. I needed those after being so thoroughly castigated by Mr. Hardesty on the Crime thread. :-) And thanks also, John, for replying to him with the very apt pot and kettle observation. I was going to say something, but I couldn't bring myself to address his ridiculous litany of insults and ad hominems. The poisoned pen letters of his which I received almost 30 years ago were so awful they simply took my breath away. I think I still have them, as they're real collectors items. And, as you might imagine, I wasn't the only one to receive them. Mike has quite a reputation as an equal opportunity vilifier. And, apparently, he hasn't changed. Unfortunately, he now has the internet to ply his craft. Lovely! :-/

Btw, I've edited Post 239 with an additional paragraph, if you haven't seen it, although I should probably have written another post.

- Bill

Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 243

Monday, May 15, 2006 - 2:21pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
For the sake of clarification, I'd like to expand further on Post 239. As I indicated, Branden posits the view that the mind interacts with the body and that there is a reciprocal influence of mind and matter. What this would have to mean is that the mind interacts with the brain and that there is a reciprocal influence of the mind and the brain, with the mind influencing the brain, and the brain, in turn, influencing the mind, a view which implies that the mind and brain are separate and distinct entities that exist independently of each other.

The fallacy in this view becomes clear when one recognizes that, far from the brain's existing independently of the mind - independently of thought - and therefore being influenced by it, it is the brain that is the organ of thought - the means by which one engages in a process of thought - just as it is the physical senses that are the organs of perception and the means by which one perceives reality. One thinks with the brain, just as one perceives with one's senses. In other words, the material brain is the organ through which thinking takes place, just as the physical senses are the organs through which perception takes place. There can no more be a "reciprocal influence" of the mind and the brain (or of mind and matter) than there can be a reciprocal influence of perception and the organs of perception.

To be sure, the condition of one's brain can influence how well on thinks, just as the condition of one's physical senses can influence how well one perceives reality. But it makes no sense to say that one's thinking has a reciprocal influence on one's brain, any more than it makes sense to say that one's perception has a reciprocal influence on one's organs of perception. The brain is the vehicle through which one thinks about reality, just as one's sense organs are the vehicles through which one perceives reality.

I hope the foregoing provides a little clearer explanation of what I think is wrong with the interactionist view of mind and body as expressed by Branden in his book The Art of Living Consciously. Interestingly, I don't recall Rand's ever having stated a clear position on this issue, although in his book, Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand, Peikoff presents the following view, which he attributes to Rand:

"There is no basis for the suggestion that consciousness is separable from matter, let alone opposed to it, no hint of immortality, no kinship to any alleged transcendent realm." (p. 34)

This particular view, which is mine as well, is sometimes equated with materialism, which denies the reality of consciousness altogether. But to reject the reality of a disembodied consciousness is not thereby to adopt materialism; nor does the acceptance of a material or embodied consciousness imply Cartesian dualism. As Peikoff puts it,

"A philosophy that rejects the monism of idealism or materialism does not thereby become 'dualist.' This term is associated with a Platonic or Cartesian metaphysics; it suggests the belief in two realities, in the mind-body opposition, and in the soul's independence of the body - all of which Ayn Rand denies." (p. 35)

- Bill
(Edited by William Dwyer
on 5/15, 2:24pm)

Edited for grammar

(Edited by William Dwyer
on 5/15, 10:41pm)


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 244

Monday, May 15, 2006 - 4:15pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Do you mean there is no interaction between the thoughts I have right now and the typing I am doing?  No interaction between thinking I'll reach for a glass of water and actually reaching for the glass of water?


 Mr. Dwyer what model you work from instead, if no interaction is presupposed.

 
;-)





Post 245

Tuesday, May 16, 2006 - 7:02amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Bill, don't leave me now!

Post 246

Tuesday, May 16, 2006 - 8:04amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
But it makes no sense to say that one's thinking has a reciprocal influence on one's brain, any more than it makes sense to say that one's perception has a reciprocal influence on one's organs of perception.
Bravo.  How silly it would be to argue that a large hand experiences texture diffently than a small hand.


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 247

Tuesday, May 16, 2006 - 7:33amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Re: naturalistic fallacy.  I'm coming way late and haven't even read the discussions to know if everything's been covered by now, but I've done a bit of doodling on this point.  Just a bit; doesn't even pretend to say a whole lot on the subject.

As far as mind-body "interaction" goes, I've recently taken to thinking that the whole issue is cleared up real quick by an appeal to Aristotelian form-matter unity.  Mind and body form one composite substance, which is metaphysically an individual entity.  Mind is a formal principle of the body.  Asking how mind is supposed to "interact" with matter is like asking how form "interacts" with matter.  It's a silly question from the philosopher's point of view.  And we should well be aware by now not to confuse empirical science or psychology in answering any "how's" as to interaction, with the (Aristotelian) philosophical answer to the question (i.e., that the question is confused).  Philosophically, there should be no such thing as a "mind-body problem" to begin with.  Haven't y'all learned anything from Sciabarran dialectics? :-)


Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Post 248

Tuesday, May 16, 2006 - 9:21amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I won't leave you, Ciro, you can be sure of that - not on a subject like this, at any rate! ;-) You wrote,
Do you mean there is no interaction between the thoughts I have right now and the typing I am doing? No interaction between thinking I'll reach for a glass of water and actually reaching for the glass of water?
Your thinking can be said to determine these actions, but only in virtue of the action of the brain and central nervous system. So the next question is: Does your thinking interact with your brain and central nervous system? Clearly not, because your thinking does not exist independently of the brain and central nervous system, which it would have to in order to interact with it. Your thinking is a process that is performed by the brain. Well, if your thinking doesn't interact with your brain, because it is performed by your brain, then how can it interact with your physical behavior, like typing and reaching for a glass of water?

I hope this explanation makes more sense. If not, don't hesitate to let me know! :)

- Bill





Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 249

Tuesday, May 16, 2006 - 7:39pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ciro, let me add a further clarification: One's thinking determines one's physical behavior, like typing or reaching for a glass of water, but it does so only through the action of the brain and central nervous system. The mistake that interactionists like Branden make is to assume that thinking or mind as pure immaterial or disembodied consciousness must somehow be interacting with matter, an assumption which then prompts them to ask how indeed it could do this, if mind is so radically different from matter. As I indicated earlier, the following comments from Branden reflect this view:

Metaphysically, mind and matter are different. But if they are different in every respect, the problem of explaining their interaction appears insuperable. How can mind influence matter and matter influence mind if they have absolutely nothing in common? And yet, that such reciprocal influence exists seems inescapable. This dilemma played a role in the attempt to reduce one of these two to the other.

Without going into details, I will suggest a possible way out. There is nothing inherently illogical -- nothing that contradicts the rest of our knowledge -- in positing some underlying reality of which both matter and consciousness are manifestations. The advantage of such a hypothesis is that it provides a means to resolve a problem that has troubled philosophers for centuries -- "the mind-body problem," the problem of accounting for the interaction of consciousness and physical reality. If they have a common source, then they do have a point of commonality that makes their ability to interact less puzzling.


As Rand would say, check your premises. There is no need to find "a way out" of this alleged dilemma, if one understands that mind does not and cannot influence matter except through the action of already existing material organs - the brain and central nervous system - for the simple reason that mind or consciousness cannot exist without these material organs. The flawed premise of interactionism is the assumption that consciousness can exist independently of matter. Once this premise is granted, the problem arises as to how consciousness could then influence matter or affect it in any way. The attempt to solve this "problem" led Descartes to assert that the "interaction" between mind and body occurs in the pineal gland, located between the two hemispheres of the brain. Had he recognized the fallacy in interactionism to begin with and rejected its underlying premise, he would not have been led to this kind of deus ex machina.

It is surprising to find Branden embracing Cartesian dualism and then seeking a solution to it in a manner reminiscent of Descartes' when, according to Peikoff, Rand herself denies the dual substance theory of Cartesian metaphysics. (OPAR, p. 35)

- Bill
(Edited by William Dwyer
on 5/16, 8:58pm)


Post 250

Tuesday, May 16, 2006 - 8:23pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Thanks, for your help Bill!

Post 251

Wednesday, May 17, 2006 - 9:36amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Chris, I liked your "doodle" it made a lot of sense out of a subject that tends to get a lot of twisting.

Post 252

Wednesday, May 17, 2006 - 10:33amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Just a note, not a charge -- but when I clicked Chris C's link, my PC protection alarm went off (a trojan was caught and, how should I say this ... 'dealt with') ...

Just reporting ...

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 5/17, 10:34am)


Post 253

Wednesday, May 17, 2006 - 7:55pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ed and anyone else--
I'm not well-versed in the technical aspects of web-page building, so I really haven't any idea how a trojan would come up from visiting my website.  I'm doing some pretty basic plain HTML stuff using the web-page editing fields built into the Yahoo!/Geocities website.  I haven't a clue how a trojan gets into the works that way.
Chris


Post 254

Wednesday, May 17, 2006 - 11:18pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Like I said, Chris -- I'm not charging you with anything.

Curiosity, have you written anything that would unsettle the political sensitivities of powerful institutions?

I have.

;-)

Ed  <-------------- enemy of the state


Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 255

Wednesday, July 24, 2013 - 5:26amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Saying how "things ought to be" makes no sense, if taken literally. "Ought" statements prescribe what choices one ought to make, not how "things" ought to "be." Things don't make choices, nor is "being" is an action which is chosen by a moral agent.

If the "things" are people, or things created by people, then "how things ought to be" does make sense. Man-made things can be morally evaluated.

Post 256

Saturday, July 27, 2013 - 11:28pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hi Michael,

The quote you cited was mine in Post 31. The answer to your reply is that, yes, you can say it the way you did and it would be meaningful, but only insofar as your statement can be reduced to choices that people ought to make or ought to have made. Absent that kind of meaningful reduction, the statement that things ought "to be" a certain way is nonsensical.



Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Page 6Page 7Page 8Page 9Page 12Page 2


User ID Password or create a free account.