Father in law. I wish I were young enough for him to be my grandfather.
No
Ouch! coberst get’s slammed!
I find this all to be quite funny. It’s like we’re debating Mr. Barnard in room 12A, just along the corridor.
I’m a bit confused, though. The OP is a philosophical position, no?
A great deal of philosophy is about the relationship between thought and reality; I suggest you look into it. Are there any existing ideas on this subject you wish to argue for or against? Aristotle? Descarte? Royce?
Since Karl Popper is mentioned in your quote, I suggest also you look up his ideas regarding the philosophy of science (Blake touched upon some of it) because your position has little to do with science.
Philosophy professor here. Were I your academic advisor, I would recommend that you not major in philosophy. Popper would back me up on this.
The OP is both a philosophical and a cognitive science position. Basically it is a proposition that becomes a problem that affects life in most all of its complexities.
I suggest that a good part of the confusion of the general population regarding this matter begins with Descartes.
I was educated in engineering but also had some interest in philosophy. My first philosophy course was Descartes’ “Meditations on First Philosophy”. I suspect this is an introductory course for most students studying philosophy. Descartes has left Western tradition with a gigantic legacy that only now is this legacy being undermined by cognitive science.
Descartes goes through a sequence of analysis in an effort to find an absolute truth upon which to build his philosophy. He settled on “Cogito, ergo sum”. “I think therefore I am”. The conclusions of this series of analysis by Descartes have set the course, more or less, of Western philosophy. What are the fateful conclusions derived from the work of Descartes?
“I am, I exist, that is certain. But how often? Just when I think; for it might possibly be the case if I ceased entirely to think, that I should likewise cease altogether to exist…But what then am I? A thing that thinks.”
The Folk Theory of Essences
Every kind of thing has an essence that makes it the kind of thing it is.
The way each thing naturally behaves is a consequence of its essence.
Descartes knows he exists because he thinks. Because he exists he has an essence. He assumes nothing else causes his thinking but his essence. Conclusion: thinking must be at least a part of the human essence.
**“Just because I know certainly that I exist, and that meanwhile I do not remark that any other thing necessarily pertains to my nature or essence, excepting that I am a thinking thing, I rightly conclude that my essence consists solely in the fact that I am a thinking thing.”
“It is certain that this I [that is to say, my soul by which I am what I am], is entirely, and absolutely distinct from my body and can exist without it.”**
To have reached that last conclusion Descartes must assume an additional:
The Folk Theory of Substance and Attributes
A substance is that which exists in itself and does not depend for its existence on any other thing.
Each substance has one and only one primary attribute that defines what its essence is.
The following is what his introspection has made him “see”:
There are two kinds of substance, one bodily and the other mental.
The attribute of bodily substance is extension in space.
The attribute of mental substance is thought.
Descartes was wrong. This is news?
I’m not arguing for or against the notion that scientifically-observable microscopic processes are behind thought. It is entirely concievable that nothing one can observe could exist without oneself observing it, to the point of thinking even the physical brain, itself, could be a figment of one’s imagination. However, such a notion nearly preculdes any further thinking on the matter of independantly-existing substance. This could be detrimental, because this substantial world is the one we have to live in and deal with, even if it is just a dream.
At that point you have to assume the real world actualy exists. Lacking another observable realm to place the origin of the mind, it must originate in this same world. In the end, you’re left with a mind that originates its existance in the real world, but in observing that world, its perception alters its view of what reality is.
Duuuuuude. That’s so quantum.
Realy, I’m very interested in cognitive science. I believe that understanding the nature of how we observe the universe on a deeper level than our senses, down to the very core of how our brains create thought and keep track of information, will give us great insight into the way the universe works. I’m especially intrigued by the hypothesis that some brain activity may be at the subatomic level.
I am not familiar with that notion.
See what you can learn from reading my posts.
Perhaps you missed the part of my post where I said “This is news?” I realized at least 25 years ago that Cartesian dualism was a bad explanation for how the mind functions.
Your insights may seem revolutionary to you, but some of us made the journey you’re making long ago. Maybe if you spent as much time listening as you do talking, we could ALL learn more.