In the previous lecture, I told you about my observation, that some 45 years ago I thought the Mind-Body Identity Theory was the way a materialist would deal with the human condition.
But in the current literature, I studied. I had to learn that the current trend is, that the concept of Supervenience the better philosophical answer is. Is this really the case? Does it offer a better explanation of the relation between mental states and brain states, between Mind and Matter?
You can imagine that this is a challenging question for me. Have I become a philosophical fossil, adhering to outdated philosophical theories about mind and matter?
I rolled up my sleeves and thought....Ok...let's find out. I'll try to go step by step from zero till I have arrived at supervenience and a conclusion about whether the Identity Theory is surpassed by this concept indeed.
In this project, I introduced you to my conviction, that materialism, the ontological point of view, that the reality we live in consists of matter. What is meant by matter, we have already discussed enough.
We, as conscious beings, are part of this material world. We are material ourselves and nothing but material like all living creatures, which all have a certain kind of awareness of their existence.
That homo sapiens is a social animal is not a unique quality. There are many kinds of social animals. The fact that we can communicate with each other is not a unique feature either. Many living beings have signals to inform each other of food sources or imminent danger.
What makes us unique is our self-awareness, related to the knowledge of time: past, present, and future, and in particular that we are capable of using meaningful language to talk about past, present, and future.
For homo sapiens, the quintessence of existence is communication, language, the unique tool to exchange all aspects of ourselves, the memories, the present knowledge, and the expectations, for instance.
To get back to the materialist point of view that is our starting point, one of the quintessential statements is: "Attention, please! ..... X exists". And our response could be that we look around to see if this is the care.
We have a language for that. We ask the question: "Is it TRUE?". Lazy as I am, I asked ChatGPT for the conditions that could establish the truth value of this claim.
ChatGPT reported: The conditions that make the statement "X exists" true can vary depending on the context and the nature of X. However, in general, there are a few fundamental conditions that need to be met for something to be considered to exist:
Objective existence: For X to exist, it must have a physical or abstract form that is independent of subjective perception. It means that X is not merely a figment of someone's imagination or a subjective belief.
Observable or detectable: X should be observable or detectable in some way, either directly or indirectly. This can involve using our senses (e.g., seeing, hearing, touching), employing scientific instruments, or relying on logical deductions.
Consistency with reality: The existence of X should be consistent with the laws, principles, and observations of the natural world or the relevant domain of inquiry. It should not contradict well-established facts or lead to logical contradictions.
Empirical evidence: There should be empirical evidence supporting the existence of X. This evidence can come from scientific experiments, observations, measurements, or other reliable sources of information.
Verification or confirmation: The existence of X should be verifiable or confirmable by independent means or multiple sources. This helps to ensure that it is not an isolated or unrepeatable occurrence, reducing the possibility of error or deception.
Contextual relevance: The existence of X should be meaningful or relevant within a given context or framework of understanding. The context can be scientific, philosophical, cultural, or any other relevant domain where the concept of X is being considered.
ChatGPT has spoken........
To be honest, I couldn't have done it better. From a materialist point of view, this is an interesting set of conditions, which excludes "merely a figment of someone's imagination or a subjective belief".
So far so good. On to the next step...see you next Tuesday....
Thank you all again for your attention.
Main Sources:
MacMillan The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2nd edition
TABLE OF CONTENT -----------------------------------------------------------------
1 - 100 Philosophers 9 May 2009 Start of
2 - 25+ Women Philosophers 10 May 2009 this blog
3 - 25 Adventures in Thinking 10 May 2009
4 - Modern Theories of Ethics 29 Oct 2009
5 - The Ideal State 24 Febr 2010 / 234
6 - The Mystery of the Brain 3 Sept 2010 / 266
7 - The Utopia of the Free Market 16 Febr 2012 / 383
8. - The Aftermath of Neo-liberalism 5 Sept 2012 / 413
9. - The Art Not to Be an Egoist 6 Nov 2012 / 426
10 - Non-Western Philosophy 29 May 2013 / 477
11 - Why Science is Right 2 Sept 2014 / 534
12 - A Philosopher looks at Atheism 1 Jan 2015 / 557
13 - EVIL, a philosophical investigation 17 Apr 2015 / 580
14 - Existentialism and Free Will 2 Sept 2015 / 586
15 - Spinoza 2 Sept 2016 / 615
16 - The Meaning of Life 13 Febr 2017 / 637
17 - In Search of my Self 6 Sept 2017 / 670
18 - The 20th Century Revisited 3 Apr 2018 / 706
19 - The Pessimist 11 Jan 2020 / 819
20 - The Optimist 9 Febr 2020 / 824
21 - Awakening from a Neoliberal Dream 8 Oct 2020 / 872
22 - A World Full of Patterns 1 Apr 2021 / 912
23 - The Concept of Freedom 8 Jan 2022 / 965
24 - Materialism 7 Sept 2022 / 1011
The Discussion
[13:20] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): Thank you Herman
[13:21] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ㋡
[13:21] herman Bergson: Next lecture we'll discuss what really exists
[13:21] herman Bergson: You know the conditions now
[13:22] herman Bergson: Tuesday we'll discuss what it means to say that the mind exists.
[13:22] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ah
[13:22] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): i hope Gemma and Oola will be here
[13:23] herman Bergson: yes...
[13:23] herman Bergson: and as a teaser and spoiler I already will reveal to you that the mind does not exist :-))
[13:23] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): o ?
[13:24] herman Bergson: Right , Beertje ^_^
[13:24] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): ツ
[13:24] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): its just a term we put on our self awareness i guess
[13:24] herman Bergson: I say nothing Bejiita..nice try :-))
[13:25] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ㋡
[13:25] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): leaving us with wonder....
[13:25] herman Bergson: What is more important today is the question: when is a statement true
[13:26] herman Bergson: That is the meaning of the series of conditions that ChatGPT came up with...
[13:27] herman Bergson: You can apply them to any stement to test the truth of the statement
[13:27] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): wel that thing was right for sure there
[13:27] herman Bergson: They do not apply to statements from politicians
[13:27] herman Bergson: they don't apply there
[13:28] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): for obvious reasons
[13:28] herman Bergson: yes :-)
[13:29] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): so we have to wait for Tuesday to get some answers?
[13:29] herman Bergson: At least the statement This was an easy lecture" is true today :-))
[13:29] herman Bergson: statement
[13:30] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): is the word easy true in this case?
[13:30] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): well my head is not spinning like LHC so
[13:30] herman Bergson: That was my hope, Beertje :-))
[13:30] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ㋡
[13:30] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): interesting nontheless
[13:31] herman Bergson: Well....
[13:31] herman Bergson: then I suggest you take a good rest during the weekend sothat you'll be ready for next Tuesday :-)
[13:31] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ㋡
[13:32] herman Bergson: Class dismissed......^_^
[13:32] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): :))
No comments:
Post a Comment