»Scepticism - appearance and reality«

Ok there have been tons of forums about symbolism in the matrix and that is all about theology. There have also been tons of conversations which seem quite seperate from existing philosophy. I would like to suggest that we get back to good old Cartesian philosophy.

Why did no one do this already?

I have heard several people misunderstanding Descartes on the forum so I thought I'd give a quick synopsis on Descartes 'meditations'. (the 'discourse on the method' is Descartes answering questions on the meditations)

Descartes realises that everything around him could be illusion. He is often mistaken about things around him. He realises that since he could be wrong about the world on any one occaision it follows that he could be wrong on EVERY occaision.

He considers that an evil demon could be fooling him about the world around him. It could be fooling his even when he tries to reason and if it wanted could make him believe that 2+2=5.

Obviously in order to continue his argument Descartes must presume that his reasoning is not being affected so he does not deal with this problem (as it would be pointless). Descartes decides that there is one thing that the demon cannot fool him about. This one thing is that he exists. If he did not exist then there would no entity to be deceived. Therefore: "I do not exist" is necessarily false.

This is where Descartes comes up with "the cogito". Cogito Ergo Sum - I think therefore I am.

This is not, however, where the argument ends. However, the rest of the argument is normally dismissed by philosophers.

Before I finish the argument I should explain Cartesian Dualism. This is the belief that we consist of a physical body and an incorporeal mind. The mind is like the soul and, though intrinsically linked with the body during life, it is our self and persists after our death. Descartes saw the mind and the brain as seperate. The brain, like the body is intrinsically linked to the mind. The mind is seen to be the human consciousness (A more modern argument has claimed that computers are only physical and as such cannot possess consciousness no matter how much we develop AI)

Continuing Descartes argument against scepticism. Realising that so far he has conceded to the sceptic that nothing exists but his 'self' or 'mind' he then must work out his next argument a priori (through reason alone without looking to experience). He uses an a priori argument in order to prove the existence of God.

In layman's terms the existence of God proof is like this. God is defined as supremely perfect. In order to be perfect God must lack nothing. Therfore God could not be defined as supremely perfect if he did not exist. (it's an awful argument isn't it?)

Having proved that God exists and that the God which exists is perfect Descartes concludes that a good God would not allow him to be deceived about the world around him to the point of not having reasonable understanding of it.

So Descartes lived happily ever after. The End!

No one gonna comment on this? No one see the similarity between cartesian dualism and Neo's separation of mind from body in M3?

I mean the dualism between mind and body. And the problem with matrix is that we don´t know the connection between body and mind (as in the real world).
Apparently, the mind must be somehow free inside the matrix (just consider the time delay, if the signal have to go from body in the ship somewhere to the matrix then back to the brain and if Neo is so quick in doing so ...), but there must also be some connection between the mind and body:
If the body dies, mind dies too - just see the characters unplugged by Cypher. But concerning Neo, his mind can wake up as a reply to the kiss from Trinity and to the impulse from the Deus Ex Machina (if I have seen it right). Neo is also able to resurrect Trinity after her death - he just reestablish the connection between her body and mind (he convince her mind that the body is alive, which is truth already )
So the connection really matters. It seem that you live while you keep alive the connection between mind and body, which seems somehow reasonable.

You may ask then, how is it connected to Descartes. I haven´t read him, so I don't know wheter he speaks about the connection, which blame him a bit: he is good in analysing (putting into pieses), but where is the synthetis? Where is the connection? In matrix connections matters a lot - just hear Ramachandra: love is a connection ... and connection is life (child) it sound similarly: love / life ).

That's the thing in the matrix isn't it. While there is no obvious connection between Neo's body and mind in M3 but they are still communicating.

Strangely enough this one of the criticisms of Descartes was that such a bizarre link between body and mind seemed ridiculous. I think it was Malebranche who argued that if God has created a world with various things interacting within it why should he still leave it so that He must pass information from our minds to our bodies as we think of them.

In other words it seemed to Malebranche that Descartes was saying that God is what connects the mind and the body. So when we think "I want to move my left arm" God makes our left arm move. However, (f I remember correctly) it does appear that this is what Descartes believed.

The way I see Cartesian dualism as relevant is that many people are disinclined to believe that Neo is alive even though we have already seen that he can exist without his body AND the oracle has said that we might see him again. They simply cannot imagine that after breaking the connection with his body entirely he might be able to continue living.

Where was Neo without a connection to his body? You mean the scene at Mobil Ave? Yes, it seemed that his body is in coma, in a different way than in 'normal' plug into matrix and his mind is trapped at train station. But how did he get into that 'coma'? Maybe it had something to do with his previous visit to Architect and the Source (anyway, I do not understant that part) and in was pretty similar to the scenes, when Neo & Trinity got into the Machine City (Neo was somehow connected to the matrix without the plug in his head)

I was maybe more thinking about the Neuromancer, where the conception of matrix (it was called cyberspace there) was different (it was a representation of data, not pure construct as in The Matrix) but Case (character similar to Neo) several times also entered a space very similar to the matrix in The Matrix and at that time, he lost the connection to his body (and experienced that as a clinical death), but his mind was still able to live. But if he would be dead too long, he cannot return to his body because his body would be irreversably dead (those scenes from Neuromancer vere pretty similar to the scene at the end of The Matrix, where Neo is shot by Smith and then is resurrected by Trinity).

Btw. Neuromancer in Gibson's book means the same as matrix in the movie (as for I understand it). So that is the reason I interpret these two brilliant science fictions similarly.

And one more thing, idea of cyberspace in Neuromancer reminds me the reddish thing that Neo sees when he gets blind, because in both cases have the main character greater influence over it (e.g. destroy sentinels). The reason is this: it is a representation of data, of real structures, unlike the matrix, which is more like computer game.

Neuromancer is indeed a good book. I read the book before I saw the Matrix movies, and I was impressed by the similarities between the two.

I haven't read Neuromancer but, from the sounds of it, it is closer to philosophy on appearance and reality than the matrix is. I'll have to check it out when I get a chance.

have u considered an uploaded conciousness? of course technically it sounds like BS but it would explain a lot of ur queries abt neo's strange relationship with his body.

here's a twist to cartesian dualism - the body is a berkelian idea too. the duo in this dualism is the mind and the world-idea/construct.

I can't think that THAT is true!

As far as I can tell Berkeley doesn't talk about the link between mind and body (wheras Descartes claimed that the mind linked to the brain through the perennial gland). Berkeley claims that all that exists is minds and ideas (the appearance of the body being simply another 'idea') Confused yet?

Basically Berkeley was criticising Locke. Locke claimed that some aspects of the world around us are only as we perceive them (he called them the 'powers' of the object). For example we see the things around us through light waves. Thus, blue is not in real life what it is to our senses. He considered colour to be a secondary property while things like shape are primary because the real object is represented in our minds as it truly is.

This is called indirect realism. To a scientist this would not really sound too bad. To sum up quickly:

Example: Red hot poker
Primary properties: properties of the object in the real world that we can see as they truly are such as shape - um... long and pointy?
Secondary properties: powers of the object to instill ideas in us such as an idea of colour - red
Tertiary properties - powers of the object over other objects (as opposed to our minds) - power to burn/melt things

Locke also believed that supporting the object and unifying all these properties as one object is the 'substratum'.

Berkeley didn't like ANY of Locke's view AT ALL.

Berkeley points out that ALL things are secondary:
Size - if I am further away from something it will look smaller
Shape - If I am far enough away from something the shape will distort (has been seen particularly obviously in some sattelite photos, but it is noticable occaisionally in everyday life too)
Temperature - If I put a cold hand and a hot hand in warm water that water will appear hot and cold at the same time

Berkeley points out that all that is ever experienced is experiences. All that is ever perceived is perception This means we cannot ever say what the object is 'truly like' because everything we know about the object is the experiences. However, interestingly enough, Berkeley says that nothing exists other than experiences (or 'ideas' as he calls them)

He claims that all that exists is our perceptions. Just ideas and minds. While Locke was considering the differences between appearance and reality Berkeley denies the whole issue. He claims that some of our ideas are sense and others are imagination (like dreams). He tries to dodge scepticism by claiming that imaginary ideas are less 'lively' than the ideas of sense.

The problem comes when he has to explain why continuity exists in the world when objects are not always perceived. If perceptions rely on perceivers for their existence then why is your sandwich still in the lunchbox when you open it later? Berkeley answers this by claiming that God is perceiving everything. All things are ideas and minds and all these are in turn inside the mind of God.

Sorry I don't think there is any mention of mind and body dualism since the body is only an idea inside a mind. Feel free to correct me though if there is something I have missed.

but on what exactly did u disagree with me on?

do u mean the pineal gland? anyway, dont u think that there is something flawed in the assumption that one organ of the body is an interface to the mind? is that really necessary? the reason we look for an interface is because we beleive that the mind and body are of different substance. if so, how can an organ of the same substance be an interface to the mind. then which part of this body-substanced gland would interface with the mind? and which part of that part? an infinite regression?

i didnt attribute those ideas(i dont mean Ideas ) berkeley. i didnt mean a dualism between mind and body, i meant a dualism between mind and ideas, or as i like to say, mind and sensation. since the body is part of the world, we may say it is part of the world idea or construct, right?

locke sounds like a nut. COMMANDER LOCK! could that be a referrence to Locke? do we know for sure that its Lock not Locke?

Quote:

Berkeley points out that all that is ever experienced is experiences. All that is ever perceived is perception This means we cannot ever say what the object is 'truly like' because everything we know about the object is the experiences. However, interestingly enough, Berkeley says that nothing exists other than experiences (or 'ideas' as he calls them)

i fully agree with the first part. its what i was trying to say in that thread i started. but i dont think that sensations have to be everything. maybe the sensation-creating mechanism can exist independently of the creator and the created minds. they may not be directly given to the minds by the creator.

regarding problems like these, isnt the conclusion totally left to the opinion of individuals, since we have absolutely nothing to tell us whether the world-idea is independent of its creator? so should we beleive in definite conclusions regarding such matters? u mentioned panentheism. do we know anything abt what the statement 'god is in everything' means? isnt it just an arbitrary statement?

here's something i just read and thought was marvellous -
'reality is the aggregrate of sensor states'

Descartes idea that the mind is connected to the brain via the pinneal gland is rubbish i'll accept. However, more rationally it has been pointed out that a computer cannot be conscious because it is only physical and has no incorporeal mind.

This is illustrated by Searle's analogy of a man in a room passing messages in chinese. The man has no idea how to speak chinese but has a book of responses to chinese questions which he picks from little pigeon holes. While the man gets better and better at quickly finding the right responses in chinese he needs no knowledge of chinese to do so; only the book of responses.

In the same way a computer has no need to be conscious in order to talk like it has a mind. However, this does not seem to me to suggest that we have incorporeal minds.

Berkeley claims that there need not be anything supporting our perceptions because of what is known as Ockham's razor. This is the rule of philosophy where we should not add to theories unecessarily. Berkeley claims that there is no reason for any concept of an 'underlying reality' or 'substratum' and as a result any concept of such a thing should be refuted. God is quite adequate as a cause of our perceptions. He is seen as upholding things and for Berkeley this is perfectly adequate.

Hume takes Berkeley's view and instead claims that we can never know about the causes of our perceptions (Hume was certainly not going to accept God as a solution). Instead of denying that there IS such a thing as external objects Hume simply says we cannot know anything about them, including whether they exist. (Hume denies that all things need a cause because that is simply an inductive inference - hence we do not need causes for our perceptions necessarily)

Kant claims that we can know that external objects exist even though we do not directly experience them. He claims there are aspects of objects we will never know about which he calls the noumena. However, Kant's philosophy is infinitely complex, annoying badly written almost to the point of being completely incomprehensible.

Oooooh this thread really isn't popular is it?

Oh come on - is nobody interested in philosophy?

sorry for the delay, i have revision of my own too. yes, it seems few people are interested in philosophy. its also annoying how people mistake new age mysticism etc for philosophy.

i am aware of the ai debate between turing and co. but that was abt half a century ago, wasnt it? now there something called substrate independence.
it postulates that the (cybernetic?) properties of an ai are independent of the matter on which it is based. this means that a carbon-based human brain and a silicon-based simulation will be functionally indistinguishable. but of course, this assumes that the mind is something purely material. ah this is one of my favourite topics, the confluence of philosophy and cybernetics. have you ever visited the principia cybernetica web? highly recommended.

speaking of incorporeal minds, people always seem to assume the existence of a material/physical reality or 'substrate'(as you would have it?) and then consider whether the mind is something incorporeal and independent of it. shouldnt it be the other way round?

all of our conclusions are based on our sensations. but the first thing that follows from the fact that we have perceptions is that the 'mind' is something that can perceive or sense. but how does it follow from there that this mind is part of whatever causes the sensations(ie corporeal or material)? or even that whatever causes these sensations is not another mind rather than a 'physical reality'(whatever that means)? then why do people always assume the inverse? or do you mean something entirely different abt the incorporeal mind?

by noumena, does kant mean physical properties not perceivable by the five senses? then isnt he a scientific visionary? he must have had a vision of the wave mechanical model. ok i was kidding. i have abt 7 books by kant sitting in my reading list. abt ethics and metaphysics and critiques of something other do u think they're worth reading?

u still havent answered me about panentheism. its seems as puzzling and vague as the concept 'physical/material reality'

can occam's razor be used as the sole reason for selecting one theory over another? then we would have to assume that its a universal law. but didnt he also have a clause 'when not necessary'? doesnt that exclude theories which are incomplete or abt which we have inadequate information?

btw why is it occam's razor shouldnt it be william's razor

To tell you the truth I don't know much about Ockams razor. I have only been told about it in lectures. It is just saying that you should not multiply things beyond necessity.

Kant is not worth reading. Not until you have some idea of what you are going to find in those books ie. read some books ABOUT Kant first. However, you can use Critique of pure reason for a drinking game

Open the page randomly and drink a shot for every time the words "a priori" appear. If you want, you can then select another random page, however the chances are that you will already be wasted after the first page (Maybe I shouldn't be suggested drinking games to a young impressionable lad!)

I think that whatever my brain is made up of is the same thing that my mind is made up of. In scientific terms I would say the mind was electrical signals in the brain.

If I look back at scepticism I must say that I don't really see things Berkeley's way. The impressions I have are from an unknown cause and though there may be many things about the world which I cannot ever know through my senses there must be something causing those sensations. To say it is a spirit or will which causes my sensations rather than an external world, although it is no better or worse, does not strike me as rational.

In the end I don't talk about what I believe when I talk about philosophy since philosophy is always questioning what we believe rather than stating it. If you stick to your guns on a topic you are likely to be shot down.

I have never heard of the "principia cybernetica web"

Panentheism is based on the idea that God is omnipresent. God is everywhere and in all things, but he is not those things. He is in the ocean but he is not a sea God. He is in the light and the sun, but he not a sun god. He is in the trees and the forests, but he is not just some forest spirit. God is everywhere and is present in his creation, but even so he is seperate from this world because it is a fallen world. That is the concept of panentheism - but it has little to do with philosophy.

No more discussion, Fatty?