4.3 Introduction to Cartesian Dualism

A series of lectures delivered by Peter Millican to first-year philosophy students at the University of Oxford. The lectures comprise the 8-week General Philosophy course and were delivered in late 2009.
Slides for all his lectures can be found here:
podcasts.ox.ac.uk/people/peter...
Learn more about Oxford:
www.ox.ac.uk

[@BadMoe99]

Peter Milican is an excellent speaker.

[@otakurocklee]

I love what he says about the causal closure principle. He's absolutely right. It's not like anyone has experimented on neurons in the brains to give evidence they are physically/causally closed. Due to the success of causal closure in most physical systems, scientists are assuming that conscious systems will also exhibit causal closure. Also, physical events causing other physical events is no less problematic than mental events causing physical events.

[@MaRie8303]

Great stuff!

[@Joke9972]

"As soon as a concept is 'conceptuated' it genetically lives on in the spirit of the ones who are 'unaware' of its conceivement", That was exactly what was meant, but I am no longer sure... until my thinking dictates it to be 'true', than my spirit has to move on doubting in being. Eventually it drives you mad. The essence is to accept that, but try to lose your concentration on the focus of the moment. It is a trained equilibrance in which you need a pension plan when you feel obselete.

[@beau921023]

Oxford covers philosophy of mind to their first year students....

[@Lightasafeather507]

Descartes's Dualism and Cartesian Dualism are the same. Descartes is the name of the philosopher whose theory of dualism is introduced here. 'Cartesian' is derived from his name and used to describe something which is his. It's like Lacan's mirror stage being the same as 'the Lacanian mirror stage'.

[@philippecolin151]

Perhaps you might want to revisit Descartes duality theory, it sounds like a Victorian lecture

[@nancymohass4891]

what if your body get hit by something that causes pain, so the mind feels the pain or the body ? , we can not know because we can not experience our mind or soul, without our body !!

[@davidwilkie9551]

To define "substance" requires the substantiation process, matching or tuning observations to identity by some measurement that is part of processing, and is therefore a resonant empathic involvement. Therefore the substantiated identities are in some proportion of certainty, a resonant component of the whole. It's literally a "matter" of categorical coordination from a point at the implied relative ratios of zero to infinity. The dualistic purpose of identification and response is an optimization in proportion to the intensity of the observed event. "Cartesian" is automatically to do with a "quantity in quality" proportionate probability valuation and coordination, to the current world's students, so the kind of superficial labeling and judgement of philosophy done by Descartes contemporaries has been analyzed and formalized. But apparently not everyone is aware of the development. (?) A good fashionable fallacy wrapped up in slogans, it's the core of culture. Do you want to tell the Russians the Venera probes were hoaxes? The study of how and why reasoning developed at historic vertices is not unlike the clarification of processes that comes with Feynman diagrams. It's important to know what philosophy is for much the same reasons.

[@RPGescpae]

The only problem that I surmise from this is that his argument pertains of things seen. Like with his example of Venus at morning and evening. The mind, or at least the essence of its action, cannot be accurately observed. And the part that does the thinking (the brain) is arguably already part of the the body and carries out the essence but is not the essence. I've been reading some of the meditations and would love some input on this. Preferably from another viewpoint than mine.

[@tRipleRdharma]

I am one too ! Hey Descarte and Cartesian are the same? Because the second video has the title Descartes's Dualism

[@MsSus007]

There's a link in the info to the slides

[@10minutegameplays30]

His argument about Phophorus and Hesperus being one and the same thing (Venus) is actually not related to dualism. The difference is that Phosphorus and Hesperus never appear in the night sky at the same time. As such, it is possible, that they are the same object, just viewed at different times. I could make the same argument about Superman: Clark Kent and Superman are one and the same person, but for all I know, they could be different people. The main difference between this and the mind body problem is; that the mind and the body seem to coexist, in the same space, and at the same time, but still seem to have radically different properties.

[@selfincurred]

If everything is accounted for by objects how can we be aware of the problem at all? The concept of reality, as extended object, seems to posit a lack of completion. He doesn't consider an indexical or contextual notion of relations as non-material essence, but pretends mind could only be transcendence (in regard to the Darwin comments); for example, Descartes speaks of a connection, a tangential entry into the dimension of mind; this could be understood as the apperception the deictic field.

[@Leibo07]

Actually, acc to Descartes there are t h r e e substances; the third being god. Strictly, he wasn't a dualist.

[@selfincurred]

What fallacy? He just presupposes 'mind independent' matter. Is consciousness a problem alongside others or do we need it for all problems, even when the data comes first from an apparatus? Why don't questions concerning qualia shew a dualism or is the essence of qualia extension too? The fallacy is dependent on occupying a hermeneutical circle, but since the exterior is still intelligible why stand wholly in the circle as if dumb to the exterior?

[@MonisticIdealism]

Dualism is false as noted by the mind-body problem. But since mind and body do interact this implies they're the same substance. However this substance cannot be the same substance physicalists speak of because mind cannot be eliminated or reduced (see The Hard Problem of Consciousness). So we seem to land right into Monistic Idealism.

[@MonisticIdealism]

***** As noted in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's entry on Neutral Monism section 9.4: "The view with which neutral monism is most often compared or identified is the dual aspect theory. The dual aspect theory takes many forms. Its relationship to neutral monism is therefore difficult to discern. All versions of the theory appear to be committed to the view that there are certain substances-god or nature (Spinoza 1677), persons (Strawson 1959), body or brain (Thomas Nagel, 1986), information (a view explored by David Chalmers 1996)-that are intrinsically neither material nor mental. Nevertheless these substances can present themselves under the aspect of the mental and the aspect of the physical." The problem here, as noted in the same entry section 7.1: "The type of objection most frequently raised against neutral monism expresses the suspicion that it is a mental, not a neutral, monism. The allegedly neutral elements are taken to be either wholly or partially mental. This concern is stated in different ways. It is said, for example, that neutral monism is a form of (Berkeleian) idealism, of phenomenalism, or of panpsychism. [...] It seems, then, that sympathizers and critics of neutral monism agree that there is nothing neutral about neutral monism. The neutrality label only hides that fact that the monism in question is a mentalistic one. The mentalism suspicion has two (connected) sources. The alleged neutrality of the elements is questioned, first, because it is thought that the elements cannot exist outside of minds; second, because it is thought that they are intrinsically mental. The labels the neutral monists chose for their elements-“appearance,” “sensation,” “percept,” “pure experience”-do nothing to defuse these concerns. And many of the things they have said about their neutral base of elements do suggest that the mentality suspicion is justified." In the face of this it seems we've just lapsed into Monistic Idealism. A dual aspect theory would not be neutral, it would be mental and monistic.

[@aaronhill5963]

His argument goes, it's fallacious to conclude that "hesperus is not phosphorus because you doubt that phosphorus is hesperus but not that phosphorus is phosphorus" because your doubt of something is not a characteristic of that something, but rather a characteristic of you. In other words, the masked man fallacy. If we apply this reasoning to Descarte's argument, then there are only two possibilities. 1 - If you are not your body, then Descarte is right. 2 - If you are your body, then your doubt of your body is a characteristic of your body, and Descarte's argument is right, thus you cannot be your body. Therefore, the conclusion that you are not your body produces a contradiction -- if we accept Peter's reasoning -- and Descrate's argument is a tautology (a proper application of Liebnitz' law).

[@gorgolyt]

@alifeofreason because spinoza is even less important than the other historical oddities like nietzsche and co.

[@cheapspellcheque]

@alifeofreason Spinoza isn't well thought of. his ideas are seen as problematic and contradictory (I don't think much of him myself TBH), Besides, if youy can only spend 20 or so minutes on duelism Spinoza isn't the guy you talk about. He is more influencial in religious debates and theology nowadays.

[@artsoncom]

I think D. was wrong in thinking dualism follows from his cogito ergo sum. The sceptic can think his head or brain is completely different than it seems to be, but it's nearly or really 'impossible' to think, there is nothing like a brain at all that thinks. Fact., this is what gives his ergo SUM its convincibility. Something that is human and limited exists, and is evident with this existence in its own thoughts. As implicit, this material substance of D.'s own thought is not really different.

[@FranciscoMartinez-bt3bv]

Cognitive Cannibals... GO!

[@kaitsith3081]

19

[@irlupe]

Somebody get those students some cough drops.

[@tatsmoi]

Cognitive Cannibals present :)

[@allenmorgan4309]

How can a person doubt that their body exists? Sounds like Descartes was a lunatic to me.

[@wildeirishpoet]

the lectures are getting worse and worse... and so are the students coughs and cold. Oxford is a rip off!

[@dongdestroyer6077]

dualism is magical religious nonsense