Is this boring enough Matt?
This is dedicated to my philosophising buddies at home: the mel and the robert. You guys are going to be world famous once I hand in my Philosophy assessment with your names on it.
Melodie: If we were to take Descartes’ evidence for the existence of self: ‘I think therefore I am’, all that can be concluded is that there is insufficient evidence to prove that other minds truly exist
Robert: Does this extend to objects as well as just other minds?
Melodie: Of course. All we can possibly know with certainty is the contents of our own minds. Life is essentially a first person experience and supposing that no one else can ever know my experiences, this eliminates all but myself, ideas and a sequence of thoughts which occurs within our own mind.
Robert: Then how does one explain death?
Melodie: Well the entire premise is based on a few accepted truths, one being that there is no logical or necessary link between the mind and the body. Even so, I have not died and so death is not a first-person experience. Therefore, I cannot claim that death is anything other than one of my ideas.
Robert: So if I accept your premise, this leads to the conclusion that you created the universe for want of something to do.
Melodie: This is correct
Robert: This is sounding very similar to various religious beliefs, especially those based around an Abrahamic tradition. A mind creates a universe however the universe only exists with that single mind.
Melodie: This is the argument.
Robert: And so presumably, if your mind created the universe, then your mind is omnipotent, yes?
Melodie: Of course.
Robert: So then why can’t you do things by simply willing it? If I asked you to move the chair you are sitting on with only your mind, it could simply not be done.
Melodie: But you are presuming a connection between mind and body. If we have accepted the presupposition above, then there is no reason to assume that my body exists at all. It is simply an extension on my mind, what I use to interact with the so-called external world.
Robert: About this external world, are we separating the conscious mind and the unconscious mind? Otherwise you would be claiming that you consciously created the universe and I do not suppose that you would.
Melodie: If it is necessary we can assume that they are different.
Robert: So there are two parts of the same thing that act independently of one another, the conscious and the unconscious mind. The conscious mind works deliberately, performing actions and thinking while it is aware that it is doing these things. The unconscious mind, you have no power over. Actions such as those above occur obliviously. You would agree with these interpretations?
Melodie: I would.
Robert: Events that occur as a part of the unconscious mind we have no control over, just as if it had happened in the external world. By that, it could be said that the unconscious mind and the external world are actually the same thing. Therefore, it cannot be said that nothing else exists except the self.
Melodie: But if oneself is the entire universe, it makes no difference whether one’s body and the universe are the same thing or if the unconscious mind and the conscious mind are parts of the same entity. The words used to describe them: conscious and unconscious mind suggest that they are in fact halves of the same whole.
Robert: So we can say that the problem of whether other minds such as my own truly exist does not just limit itself to that we cannot know what their thoughts and feelings are but also if their thoughts and feelings exist in the first place.
Melodie: That is true
Robert: So it follows that any knowledge you have of other minds, assuming that you believe they exist is analogical.
Melodie: It would have to be indirect and inferred, I agree
Robert: So if you react to a certain stimulus such as pain, or pleasure and another similar body reacts in a similar way to the same stimulus, surely it can be said that the other body has a similar mind.
Melodie: This premise is relying far too much on causation. Just because the stimulus is there and the ‘reaction’ is there does not mean that there is any link, direct or otherwise, between them. It could simply be coincidence.
Robert: So you are saying that if we repeated this experiment several times on the same person, or even on different people, then the reactions would be different each time or maybe even not occur. We both know that this would not be so. It is not a coincidence.
Melodie: It is again assuming that there is a logical connection between mind and body. Just because my mind is in a human body at this time, there is no reason to suppose that my body could not exist in that of a tree or any other body fundamentally different from our own.
Robert: But if we are to accept this, there is no logical possible way to assume any analogical connections between your mind and others. Everything can only ever apply to you.
Melodie: Exactly. My concept of pain can only be interpreted by myself as ‘my pain’. As such, other beings experiencing pain must be completely inconceivable.
Robert: Yet we know that this is not so. You see another person experiencing the same reaction as one that you are familiar with, and you assume that they are having the same feelings as you had in a similar situation. This applies even to bodies that are not so similar such as that of animals.
Melodie: That is a part of learnt behaviour. I have taught myself that a person, or animal, in pain behaves in this way and so I assume that they are in pain. But what pain means for me and what pain means for this supposed other being is not necessarily the same thing. It would be impossible for me to know this however as I cannot have their experiences. Even if I were telepathic, I would be experiencing their ‘pain’ as me rather than as them. Personal experience is incomparable.
Robert: So what can be concluded from this?
Melodie: Only that we have not proved anything. With our level of scientific knowledge about the nature of minds, it is impossible to prove that other minds exist and equally that it is impossible to prove that other minds do not exist. All we have are a few truisms: that all we can ever know is own experiences, thoughts and beliefs, these experiences are private to ourselves and that there is no logical reason to suppose that there is a connection between mind and body.
Melodie: If we were to take Descartes’ evidence for the existence of self: ‘I think therefore I am’, all that can be concluded is that there is insufficient evidence to prove that other minds truly exist
Robert: Does this extend to objects as well as just other minds?
Melodie: Of course. All we can possibly know with certainty is the contents of our own minds. Life is essentially a first person experience and supposing that no one else can ever know my experiences, this eliminates all but myself, ideas and a sequence of thoughts which occurs within our own mind.
Robert: Then how does one explain death?
Melodie: Well the entire premise is based on a few accepted truths, one being that there is no logical or necessary link between the mind and the body. Even so, I have not died and so death is not a first-person experience. Therefore, I cannot claim that death is anything other than one of my ideas.
Robert: So if I accept your premise, this leads to the conclusion that you created the universe for want of something to do.
Melodie: This is correct
Robert: This is sounding very similar to various religious beliefs, especially those based around an Abrahamic tradition. A mind creates a universe however the universe only exists with that single mind.
Melodie: This is the argument.
Robert: And so presumably, if your mind created the universe, then your mind is omnipotent, yes?
Melodie: Of course.
Robert: So then why can’t you do things by simply willing it? If I asked you to move the chair you are sitting on with only your mind, it could simply not be done.
Melodie: But you are presuming a connection between mind and body. If we have accepted the presupposition above, then there is no reason to assume that my body exists at all. It is simply an extension on my mind, what I use to interact with the so-called external world.
Robert: About this external world, are we separating the conscious mind and the unconscious mind? Otherwise you would be claiming that you consciously created the universe and I do not suppose that you would.
Melodie: If it is necessary we can assume that they are different.
Robert: So there are two parts of the same thing that act independently of one another, the conscious and the unconscious mind. The conscious mind works deliberately, performing actions and thinking while it is aware that it is doing these things. The unconscious mind, you have no power over. Actions such as those above occur obliviously. You would agree with these interpretations?
Melodie: I would.
Robert: Events that occur as a part of the unconscious mind we have no control over, just as if it had happened in the external world. By that, it could be said that the unconscious mind and the external world are actually the same thing. Therefore, it cannot be said that nothing else exists except the self.
Melodie: But if oneself is the entire universe, it makes no difference whether one’s body and the universe are the same thing or if the unconscious mind and the conscious mind are parts of the same entity. The words used to describe them: conscious and unconscious mind suggest that they are in fact halves of the same whole.
Robert: So we can say that the problem of whether other minds such as my own truly exist does not just limit itself to that we cannot know what their thoughts and feelings are but also if their thoughts and feelings exist in the first place.
Melodie: That is true
Robert: So it follows that any knowledge you have of other minds, assuming that you believe they exist is analogical.
Melodie: It would have to be indirect and inferred, I agree
Robert: So if you react to a certain stimulus such as pain, or pleasure and another similar body reacts in a similar way to the same stimulus, surely it can be said that the other body has a similar mind.
Melodie: This premise is relying far too much on causation. Just because the stimulus is there and the ‘reaction’ is there does not mean that there is any link, direct or otherwise, between them. It could simply be coincidence.
Robert: So you are saying that if we repeated this experiment several times on the same person, or even on different people, then the reactions would be different each time or maybe even not occur. We both know that this would not be so. It is not a coincidence.
Melodie: It is again assuming that there is a logical connection between mind and body. Just because my mind is in a human body at this time, there is no reason to suppose that my body could not exist in that of a tree or any other body fundamentally different from our own.
Robert: But if we are to accept this, there is no logical possible way to assume any analogical connections between your mind and others. Everything can only ever apply to you.
Melodie: Exactly. My concept of pain can only be interpreted by myself as ‘my pain’. As such, other beings experiencing pain must be completely inconceivable.
Robert: Yet we know that this is not so. You see another person experiencing the same reaction as one that you are familiar with, and you assume that they are having the same feelings as you had in a similar situation. This applies even to bodies that are not so similar such as that of animals.
Melodie: That is a part of learnt behaviour. I have taught myself that a person, or animal, in pain behaves in this way and so I assume that they are in pain. But what pain means for me and what pain means for this supposed other being is not necessarily the same thing. It would be impossible for me to know this however as I cannot have their experiences. Even if I were telepathic, I would be experiencing their ‘pain’ as me rather than as them. Personal experience is incomparable.
Robert: So what can be concluded from this?
Melodie: Only that we have not proved anything. With our level of scientific knowledge about the nature of minds, it is impossible to prove that other minds exist and equally that it is impossible to prove that other minds do not exist. All we have are a few truisms: that all we can ever know is own experiences, thoughts and beliefs, these experiences are private to ourselves and that there is no logical reason to suppose that there is a connection between mind and body.