We can distinguish five positions on consciousness: eliminativist, dualist, idealist, panpsychist and mysterianist. Which are you? Readf and explain why you favor your choice.
After reading the article, it is easiest to say that I am a dualist; I believe that matter and consciousness are two different things. I come to this conclusion simply because I would feel foolish agreeing with any other position. It is extremely difficult to believe that we are nothing but free range minds imagining every experience of our lives. If this were the case then what is death? Is it simply another imagined experience as well? In order to die we must be alive first, correct? Meaning we must be biological beings, meaning matter. Going in the other direction, believing everything has a consciousness is a bit farfetched also. Believing a dog or any other highly evolved being has a consciousness isn’t too hard, but believing everything does, down to the smallest particle of matter is just too difficult to think consciousness is everywhere.
As I read through the essay, “All Machine and No Ghost,” I found great difficulty in deciding my opinion on consciousness until reaching mysterianism. I agree with the author, Colt McGinn, when he comments on the other four topics by saying they “suggest an overly simple view of a complex position.” The mind and our consciousness are things unable to be comprehended, and can’t be explained with a straightforward definition with which everyone tries to apply. They are a mystery and shall remain that way. McGinn highlights this point by stating “The more we know of the brain, the less it looks like a device for creating consciousness.” We as humans, try to apply reason to everything when in reality this is unconceivable. There are some topics in which we must surrender our pride of being “all knowing,” capable of understanding everything, and appreciate the mysteries of life. In the essay McGinn emphasizes human’s inability to do this; he describes how we use “mathematics to construct abstract representations of concrete phenomena.” We all must accept the incomprehensible nature of our consciousness and accept the finite aspect of our intelligence. This mysterianism is the only position on consciousness that applies to me. I accept the many mysteries associated with life, and I understand my limited room for understanding as a human being.
It certainly does seem, at least through our own perspective, that we are indeed a machine with no ghost. No matter the reason, we are restricted to the limitations on the human mind and body and we must accept that. I believe that I would fall into the mysterianist category. I concur with Mcginn in the acknowledgment that the human intelligence is “Local, contingent, temporal, practical, and [an] expendable feature of life on earth.” We can claim that we are the most intelligent and most highly evolved creature in the universe, yet there is no definitive way to provide evidence. Our entire existence is a mystery and we have learned to cope with our ignorance by theorizing and philosophizing. There are limits to our understanding of the universe. Our consciousness may be the most “advanced” in our region of the universe but we must admit that we have absolutely no shred of evidence that can prove that there is not a more evolved and enlightened being out among the stars. I believe that our consciousness is indeed the evolved product of a more primitive life.
My view on consciences seems to be closest to that of a mysterianist. Our brains are composed entirely of just cells which are further composed of atoms. Everything in our brains follows the unchangeable laws of nature. Yet somehow we have free will. Somehow we have consciousness. I can sympathize with the eliminativist in his idea of matter only. Mcginn seemed to be too quick to dismiss the idea. Perhaps there only is matter and our consciousness is just an illusion created by the interaction of the cells in our mind. Yet it all seems so real. It is difficult for us to grasp that possibility. The idea that our thoughts our controllable violates the laws of nature, yet the idea that our thoughts are not controllable violates common sense. That is where the mysterianist comes in. Perhaps we have the mental power to develop consciousness but we do not have the mental power to remove the mystery from it. I do not agree with the views of the duelist or the idealist on the grounds that our mind’s perception of matter is governed by what are senses tell it. There is no separate universe created by our consciousness. This idea is fun to think about and fun to make movies about, but it is illogical. Psychists seemed the most ridiculous when I first read the article, but it makes more sense now. If our consciousness can exist within our minds, which are entirely composed of atoms and cells, then why can’t a similar consciousness exist elsewhere?
I am a pampsychist. All things are united and have the potentiality of everything in them. All of this potential is present at the same time. First, in order to understand this, it is essential to accept that there is no time. Time doesn’t exist. It is a figment of our consciousness and is a set of mathematically convenient numbers set to follow the cycles of the sun. Numbers to make it simpler to carry out human activities. If humans did not exist, would time still exist? Certainly not in the way we imagine it. Everything would occur at the same time because there is no consciousness to observe it. In every moment exists the past, present and future. With this we can accept that all things contain their future within them. The potential of being is always there and is present in everything. In the book Siddhartha, the main character Siddhartha explains that the Buddha is always present within the sinner, and that “The sinner is not on the way to a Buddha-like state; he is not evolving, although our thinking cannot conceive things otherwise. No, the potential Buddha already exists in the sinner; his future is already there. The potential hidden Buddha must be recognized in him, in you, in everybody.” All children are potential old men, seeds potential giant trees, the brain a potential mind. Siddhartha explains of a stone, “ This stone is stone; it is also animal, God, and Buddha. I do not respect and love it because it was one thing and will become something else, but because it has already long been everything and will always be everything.” The stone has the potential to be everything- soil, plant, animal, man- and therefore contains all of this potential within it at all times. One of Noam Chomsky’s major linguistic theories is that people are born with the knowledge of language and it must be unlocked. They always have the potential knowledge within themselves. We are not on a constant evolution to greatness but we are great at every moment. We carry within ourselves the potentiality of all things and always have had and always will have that potential.
I find myself suspended between embracing the ideas of dualism and mysterianism. I consider it impossible to eliminate the prospect of dualism simply because I cannot personally identify the connection between consciousness and the physical brain. A connection has yet to be positively determined, but who is to say that some modern-day Copernicus will not come in and shatter every scientific hypothesis, every conclusion, every law that we know; and diagnose the root of these connections? Simply because I cannot dismiss the theory of dualism, I will continue to ponder its plausibility, but I must be critical and methodical before embracing the conjecture. While I struggle to resolve such a difficult problem, I will have to consider also the theory of mysterianism. Mysterianism is simply a manifestation of dualism, with the added postulation that we will, forever, prove incapable of pinpointing the source of the connections between consciousness and the physical human brain. Again, I cannot state with any certainty whatsoever, the impossibilities of the future. For now, I must cling to the concrete evidence: we have found no connection between mind and matter. For now, the connection (if, even, one exists) remains a mystery and must remain as such until some brave soul submits satisfactory evidence to suggest otherwise. Will this ever happen? No one knows, hence my current state of wavering indecision.
Dualism as stated by The Free Online Dictionary as “the view that the world consists of or is explicable as two fundamental entities, such as mind and matter, and that the mind and body function separately, without interchange.” This definition characterizes my personal ideas towards the subject of consciousness. The belief in which nonliving objects such as a small pebble you find on the ground everyday have consciences is much too abstract to fully take in. That’s like saying the tuna fish can being kicked down the road by young children is shedding tears of pain while bouncing off the hard gravel. This is all well and nice, but it beginning to remind me of the talking trashcan in Elmo’s World. Consciousness is not in all things, only bodies in which function to an extent that the mind must be present in some manner. The mind and body function separately. For example, sometimes the body wants something that the mind doesn’t. After a marathon run you are hungry and your body needs to be replenished, but it is nearly impossible to eat as much as your body needs. Your mind simply does not allow it. Dualism separates these two fundamental entities and accepts the fact that there is no conscience in inanimate objects.
The Ghost in the Machine is an excellent metaphor for the consciousness within our mind. I know I have a brain that controls the functions of my physical body but there is also an "invisible someone" that helps me make choices. For this reason, I have a dualist position on the concept of consciousness. All other positions seem impractical. Suppose I was to purchase a double cheeseburger from MacDonald's and the cashier gave me an excess five dollars in change. Would I keep it and go on with my business or inform the employee about their mistake and return the money? Whatever my choice may be, I am without a doubt knowingly talking to my inner self. This is where " there is the physical brain, on the one hand, and the conscious mind, on the other". This is also the point at which I realize that my conscience is located in my mind but like McGinn states " the twain may meet at some point but they remain distinct entities". The physical brain solves problems such as simple math like two plus two equals four while the conscious mind contrarily deciphers questions that require decision making. Although I accept that these two are different, I don't understand " how does the mind affect the brain and the brain the mind?" nor "how did the mind come to exist?". This leaves me baffled. Dualism stated by the author "makes the mind too separate" which actually fits me quite well at most times since I continuously speak to my "ghost in the machine" helping me formulate the right choice.
while reading this article, i was troubled in deciding which opinion i was most closely asociated. Just as McGinn exemplified, the first four options are too simple and vague to be true, therefore i can consider myself a mysterianist. Everything in life is controlled by our consciousness and governs free will. The idea that we have free will opposed to our thoughts, ideas, and choices being governed by an act of nature is perplexing. I dont see how anything could control our thoughts but there is also no evidense, just reasonable thought. So far, at least we have not had any advancements in knowing if mind is over matter or vice versa so i must go with the only logical and sensible answer, the mysterianist view.
I too find myself to be of the mysterian persuasion. Reading about each perception of consciousness, I was unable to adopt any of the others. A dualistic view is the easiest way to view consciousness because it is what we see when we look through our materialistic scope, the only finite means of observing available to us. Dualism just begs for the existence of a higher power who bestowed humans with higher thinking, and that doesn’t exactly appeal to my logic. My view of the the universe is based on the premise that the complexity that baffles us today arose from traceable, natural causes. Pin pointing what exactly caused what is the problem since physical and metaphysical entities seem to be affected by an unimaginable number of factors. And of course the creation story of my own personal mythology is a little fuzzy, but hey, I never said I had all the answers. Anyone who claims to have all the answers can feel good about themselves, but they are missing out on more practical aspects of life, like basing ideas on reality and taking part in the witch hunt for answers. The only way a view of consciousness is going to stick is if it is based on evidence. And we clearly do not have the treasure map yet. If we had enough information in the right context, we would have a somewhat agreeable solution. Maybe future technology will alter our perception of the universe, but with our current one the mind just doesn’t jive well. Who knows; we might never find the answer before our species parishes. If all could know why the mind works and how the mind works, we could achieve super human heights. To think, we have soared in superiority just possessing higher thinking. Imagine if we could utilize every facet of our beautiful mind or even alter it.
When I sit down and really think about dualism seems to fit me the best. I often find myself talking myself into doing something that I don’t want to. There seems to be a voice in side me yet separate from me that tells me to do the right thing. Whether posting and English comment instead of watching a basketball game or going the speed limit instead of speeding there is a constant conflict in side of me. There is a battle over control of my body in every situation I make, to do the right thing, the thing expected from me, or do what I feel like doing at that time. I find myself often thinking of myself abstractly. Because of this seemingly dual personality I think of myself of dualism.
I am most definitely a dualist. I believe that our brain is completely made up of cells and atoms and functions only for the purpose of sustaining the body, but I also believe that we have a conscious mind that makes us aware of our surroundings, controls our thoughts and feelings, and most importantly makes us who we are. They are two completely different entities that don’t cross paths although there is obviously some connection between the two. The mind formed from the interactions within the brain or the mind somehow “made up” the brain and everything else in the universe, I don’t know. I believe I can never, no matter how hard I try, understand the relationship between the brain and the mind. So while accepting this fact I make my choice. “I think, therefore I am” so I know very well that the conscious mind does indeed exist. I also happen to know that every action my body makes is controlled solely by my brain, so I also am certain that the brain made up of solely matter exists as well. My conclusion ends up being dualist. To different entities, that both inarguably exist.
At this particular moment, I'm torn between dualism and mysterianism. Both beliefs have ideas that make a great deal of sense. Consciousness is present only in bodies which function to a certain extent that the mind has no choice but to be present. However, the mind and body function separately. In many cases the mind wants what the body doesn't or the body needs what the mind doesn't think it needs. I've come to know from experience that if your mind absolutely doesn't want to do something, then whatever the thing you needed to do was is ABSOLUTELY not going to happen. I know that inside of my head there's a brain and I also know that it controls the mechanics of my body. However there's also this "invisible someone" inside my head that always has to get involved when I'm making decisions, being a male I obviously don't take his advice too often. Back to the subject, The author says that Dualism "makes the mind too separate" which proves to be true. Many people consult their "ghost in the machine" to help them make the right decision on a matter. When the author says that " there is the physical brain, on the one hand, and the conscious mind, on the other" he substantiates the "ghost in the machine" theory. This also is the point at which I came to the conclusion that a person's conscious is within their mind like McGinn states " the twain may meet at some point but they remain distinct entities". My mysterianist point of view says tells me everything that occurs in our brain is completely natural, but somehow we're still free to do whatever we want and our conscience butts in when appropriate to do so. Mcginn never quite gave this idea a chance. Maybe our consciousness is just a pigment of our imagination. After watching the movie Inception I don't find it hard to believe that we can make all this up. Kolbush said it best, "The idea that our thoughts are controllable violates the laws of nature, yet the idea that our thoughts are not controllable violates common sense ... Perhaps we have the mental power to develop consciousness but we do not have the mental power to remove the mystery from it."
The view on consciences that I agree most with is that of an idealist. That only the mind exists. Everything that is perceived by an individual is merely an illusion that is merely conjured up by a conscience. This idea of a universal dream is appealing to me for a very specific reason. It seems that in the infinite expanse of the universe, chaos would rein supreme. Yet, the entire universe, everything that ever was or will be, strictly follows a set of equations and a series of constants that forms clouds of seemingly endless gas into the stars bringing light into existence or that light is everywhere at all times, as it takes no time or distance for light to travel. Only an organized conscience could conceive of order on such a grand scale. There's no possible way that the existence of such order could come into being at a random roll of the dice. That mathematically it all sort of worked out in the end? A conscience that is simply keeping itself busy by creating a fully functional and orderly universe. Our bodies may die but our consciences will return to what they've been doing since before the universe was imagined. What that is exactly? There is no real way of telling.
Of the different ways to view our conscience,I would say that I agree most with the idealist. I believe that there is a general basic layer of all things in our world that everyone sees equally. But in saying that, I also believe that people all percieve reality in different ways. From the shade of certain colors, to the emotions and feelings that we get from different people and objects in our surroundings. Our brain, like when we are dreaming, pumps images into itself, or little nuances that make our reality, ours. This is all part of the human uniqueness, and mystery.
I would definetly categorize myself as a mysterianist, simply because to me, no matter how far we delve into the secrets of our consciousness, we just seem to get farther and farther away from the truth. I don't think any advances in technology are going to change that fact, or at least any changes in my lifetime. The mind will remain a complete mystery. Religion will remain an abstract cold case file. The universe will remain everchanging and stagnant. Without mystery, i don't think we have the ability to posess a consciousness. Our consciousness itself is formed by are need to solve mysteries in nature, an evolutionary trait given to only the most advanced species. Being human requires mysteries to solve, otherwise we fail to evolve.
I most agree with duelism. The existence of material things and a conciousness seems to concrete to not be be true. Duelism is most appealing to me because it is the most simple view of conciousness. Any peorson who does not look to deeply into anything could come up with this view becaues it is the way that most poele view their conciousness and the world around them. Thought and matter are separate in this view and that is how I view conciousness and matter. Duelism is the only state that can be definitively proven because it is not difficult to notice the separation of thought and matter. Duilism is the most logical theory mentioned in the essay.
After reading through “The Ghosts and The Machine” I have discovered that I believe in the dualistic view on consciousness. The first half of dualism states that our brains, made up of microscopic atoms, control all of the physical functions that our body does every day. We don’t have to think about the way we walk, breath, blink, or swallow because our brains do these everyday bodily functions for us without thought. Furthermore our brain does not do everything automatically, and that is where the second half of consciousness comes into being. Your brain does not tell you to steal another person’s wallet; it is your “inner voice” that guides you to your decision. That voice telling you to “do it” or “don’t do it” is completely separate from the one solving basic everyday math problems without any problem. The brain is separated into two completely different ways of functioning; one for performing basic bodily functions, and another for solving questions through a thought-out decision making process. My opinion that the brain functions in these two different ways gives evidence that I believe in dualism.
After reading the article, it is easiest to say that I am a dualist; I believe that matter and consciousness are two different things. I come to this conclusion simply because I would feel foolish agreeing with any other position. It is extremely difficult to believe that we are nothing but free range minds imagining every experience of our lives. If this were the case then what is death? Is it simply another imagined experience as well? In order to die we must be alive first, correct? Meaning we must be biological beings, meaning matter. Going in the other direction, believing everything has a consciousness is a bit farfetched also. Believing a dog or any other highly evolved being has a consciousness isn’t too hard, but believing everything does, down to the smallest particle of matter is just too difficult to think consciousness is everywhere.
ReplyDeleteAs I read through the essay, “All Machine and No Ghost,” I found great difficulty in deciding my opinion on consciousness until reaching mysterianism. I agree with the author, Colt McGinn, when he comments on the other four topics by saying they “suggest an overly simple view of a complex position.” The mind and our consciousness are things unable to be comprehended, and can’t be explained with a straightforward definition with which everyone tries to apply. They are a mystery and shall remain that way. McGinn highlights this point by stating “The more we know of the brain, the less it looks like a device for creating consciousness.” We as humans, try to apply reason to everything when in reality this is unconceivable. There are some topics in which we must surrender our pride of being “all knowing,” capable of understanding everything, and appreciate the mysteries of life. In the essay McGinn emphasizes human’s inability to do this; he describes how we use “mathematics to construct abstract representations of concrete phenomena.” We all must accept the incomprehensible nature of our consciousness and accept the finite aspect of our intelligence. This mysterianism is the only position on consciousness that applies to me. I accept the many mysteries associated with life, and I understand my limited room for understanding as a human being.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIt certainly does seem, at least through our own perspective, that we are indeed a machine with no ghost. No matter the reason, we are restricted to the limitations on the human mind and body and we must accept that. I believe that I would fall into the mysterianist category. I concur with Mcginn in the acknowledgment that the human intelligence is “Local, contingent, temporal, practical, and [an] expendable feature of life on earth.” We can claim that we are the most intelligent and most highly evolved creature in the universe, yet there is no definitive way to provide evidence. Our entire existence is a mystery and we have learned to cope with our ignorance by theorizing and philosophizing. There are limits to our understanding of the universe. Our consciousness may be the most “advanced” in our region of the universe but we must admit that we have absolutely no shred of evidence that can prove that there is not a more evolved and enlightened being out among the stars. I believe that our consciousness is indeed the evolved product of a more primitive life.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteMy view on consciences seems to be closest to that of a mysterianist. Our brains are composed entirely of just cells which are further composed of atoms. Everything in our brains follows the unchangeable laws of nature. Yet somehow we have free will. Somehow we have consciousness. I can sympathize with the eliminativist in his idea of matter only. Mcginn seemed to be too quick to dismiss the idea. Perhaps there only is matter and our consciousness is just an illusion created by the interaction of the cells in our mind. Yet it all seems so real. It is difficult for us to grasp that possibility. The idea that our thoughts our controllable violates the laws of nature, yet the idea that our thoughts are not controllable violates common sense. That is where the mysterianist comes in. Perhaps we have the mental power to develop consciousness but we do not have the mental power to remove the mystery from it.
ReplyDeleteI do not agree with the views of the duelist or the idealist on the grounds that our mind’s perception of matter is governed by what are senses tell it. There is no separate universe created by our consciousness. This idea is fun to think about and fun to make movies about, but it is illogical. Psychists seemed the most ridiculous when I first read the article, but it makes more sense now. If our consciousness can exist within our minds, which are entirely composed of atoms and cells, then why can’t a similar consciousness exist elsewhere?
I am a pampsychist. All things are united and have the potentiality of everything in them. All of this potential is present at the same time. First, in order to understand this, it is essential to accept that there is no time. Time doesn’t exist. It is a figment of our consciousness and is a set of mathematically convenient numbers set to follow the cycles of the sun. Numbers to make it simpler to carry out human activities. If humans did not exist, would time still exist? Certainly not in the way we imagine it. Everything would occur at the same time because there is no consciousness to observe it. In every moment exists the past, present and future.
ReplyDeleteWith this we can accept that all things contain their future within them. The potential of being is always there and is present in everything. In the book Siddhartha, the main character Siddhartha explains that the Buddha is always present within the sinner, and that “The sinner is not on the way to a Buddha-like state; he is not evolving, although our thinking cannot conceive things otherwise. No, the potential Buddha already exists in the sinner; his future is already there. The potential hidden Buddha must be recognized in him, in you, in everybody.” All children are potential old men, seeds potential giant trees, the brain a potential mind. Siddhartha explains of a stone, “ This stone is stone; it is also animal, God, and Buddha. I do not respect and love it because it was one thing and will become something else, but because it has already long been everything and will always be everything.” The stone has the potential to be everything- soil, plant, animal, man- and therefore contains all of this potential within it at all times. One of Noam Chomsky’s major linguistic theories is that people are born with the knowledge of language and it must be unlocked. They always have the potential knowledge within themselves. We are not on a constant evolution to greatness but we are great at every moment. We carry within ourselves the potentiality of all things and always have had and always will have that potential.
I find myself suspended between embracing the ideas of dualism and mysterianism. I consider it impossible to eliminate the prospect of dualism simply because I cannot personally identify the connection between consciousness and the physical brain. A connection has yet to be positively determined, but who is to say that some modern-day Copernicus will not come in and shatter every scientific hypothesis, every conclusion, every law that we know; and diagnose the root of these connections? Simply because I cannot dismiss the theory of dualism, I will continue to ponder its plausibility, but I must be critical and methodical before embracing the conjecture.
ReplyDeleteWhile I struggle to resolve such a difficult problem, I will have to consider also the theory of mysterianism. Mysterianism is simply a manifestation of dualism, with the added postulation that we will, forever, prove incapable of pinpointing the source of the connections between consciousness and the physical human brain. Again, I cannot state with any certainty whatsoever, the impossibilities of the future. For now, I must cling to the concrete evidence: we have found no connection between mind and matter. For now, the connection (if, even, one exists) remains a mystery and must remain as such until some brave soul submits satisfactory evidence to suggest otherwise. Will this ever happen? No one knows, hence my current state of wavering indecision.
Dualism as stated by The Free Online Dictionary as “the view that the world consists of or is explicable as two fundamental entities, such as mind and matter, and that the mind and body function separately, without interchange.” This definition characterizes my personal ideas towards the subject of consciousness. The belief in which nonliving objects such as a small pebble you find on the ground everyday have consciences is much too abstract to fully take in. That’s like saying the tuna fish can being kicked down the road by young children is shedding tears of pain while bouncing off the hard gravel. This is all well and nice, but it beginning to remind me of the talking trashcan in Elmo’s World. Consciousness is not in all things, only bodies in which function to an extent that the mind must be present in some manner. The mind and body function separately. For example, sometimes the body wants something that the mind doesn’t. After a marathon run you are hungry and your body needs to be replenished, but it is nearly impossible to eat as much as your body needs. Your mind simply does not allow it. Dualism separates these two fundamental entities and accepts the fact that there is no conscience in inanimate objects.
ReplyDeleteThe Ghost in the Machine is an excellent metaphor for the consciousness within our mind. I know I have a brain that controls the functions of my physical body but there is also an "invisible someone" that helps me make choices. For this reason, I have a dualist position on the concept of consciousness. All other positions seem impractical. Suppose I was to purchase a double cheeseburger from MacDonald's and the cashier gave me an excess five dollars in change. Would I keep it and go on with my business or inform the employee about their mistake and return the money? Whatever my choice may be, I am without a doubt knowingly talking to my inner self. This is where " there is the physical brain, on the one hand, and the conscious mind, on the other". This is also the point at which I realize that my conscience is located in my mind but like McGinn states " the twain may meet at some point but they remain distinct entities".
ReplyDeleteThe physical brain solves problems such as simple math like two plus two equals four while the conscious mind contrarily deciphers questions that require decision making. Although I accept that these two are different, I don't understand " how does the mind affect the brain and the brain the mind?" nor "how did the mind come to exist?". This leaves me baffled. Dualism stated by the author "makes the mind too separate" which actually fits me quite well at most times since I continuously speak to my "ghost in the machine" helping me formulate the right choice.
while reading this article, i was troubled in deciding which opinion i was most closely asociated. Just as McGinn exemplified, the first four options are too simple and vague to be true, therefore i can consider myself a mysterianist. Everything in life is controlled by our consciousness and governs free will. The idea that we have free will opposed to our thoughts, ideas, and choices being governed by an act of nature is perplexing. I dont see how anything could control our thoughts but there is also no evidense, just reasonable thought. So far, at least we have not had any advancements in knowing if mind is over matter or vice versa so i must go with the only logical and sensible answer, the mysterianist view.
ReplyDeleteI too find myself to be of the mysterian persuasion. Reading about each perception of consciousness, I was unable to adopt any of the others. A dualistic view is the easiest way to view consciousness because it is what we see when we look through our materialistic scope, the only finite means of observing available to us. Dualism just begs for the existence of a higher power who bestowed humans with higher thinking, and that doesn’t exactly appeal to my logic. My view of the the universe is based on the premise that the complexity that baffles us today arose from traceable, natural causes. Pin pointing what exactly caused what is the problem since physical and metaphysical entities seem to be affected by an unimaginable number of factors. And of course the creation story of my own personal mythology is a little fuzzy, but hey, I never said I had all the answers. Anyone who claims to have all the answers can feel good about themselves, but they are missing out on more practical aspects of life, like basing ideas on reality and taking part in the witch hunt for answers.
ReplyDeleteThe only way a view of consciousness is going to stick is if it is based on evidence. And we clearly do not have the treasure map yet. If we had enough information in the right context, we would have a somewhat agreeable solution. Maybe future technology will alter our perception of the universe, but with our current one the mind just doesn’t jive well. Who knows; we might never find the answer before our species parishes. If all could know why the mind works and how the mind works, we could achieve super human heights. To think, we have soared in superiority just possessing higher thinking. Imagine if we could utilize every facet of our beautiful mind or even alter it.
When I sit down and really think about dualism seems to fit me the best. I often find myself talking myself into doing something that I don’t want to. There seems to be a voice in side me yet separate from me that tells me to do the right thing. Whether posting and English comment instead of watching a basketball game or going the speed limit instead of speeding there is a constant conflict in side of me. There is a battle over control of my body in every situation I make, to do the right thing, the thing expected from me, or do what I feel like doing at that time. I find myself often thinking of myself abstractly. Because of this seemingly dual personality I think of myself of dualism.
ReplyDeleteI am most definitely a dualist. I believe that our brain is completely made up of cells and atoms and functions only for the purpose of sustaining the body, but I also believe that we have a conscious mind that makes us aware of our surroundings, controls our thoughts and feelings, and most importantly makes us who we are. They are two completely different entities that don’t cross paths although there is obviously some connection between the two. The mind formed from the interactions within the brain or the mind somehow “made up” the brain and everything else in the universe, I don’t know. I believe I can never, no matter how hard I try, understand the relationship between the brain and the mind. So while accepting this fact I make my choice. “I think, therefore I am” so I know very well that the conscious mind does indeed exist. I also happen to know that every action my body makes is controlled solely by my brain, so I also am certain that the brain made up of solely matter exists as well. My conclusion ends up being dualist. To different entities, that both inarguably exist.
ReplyDeleteAt this particular moment, I'm torn between dualism and mysterianism. Both beliefs have ideas that make a great deal of sense. Consciousness is present only in bodies which function to a certain extent that the mind has no choice but to be present. However, the mind and body function separately. In many cases the mind wants what the body doesn't or the body needs what the mind doesn't think it needs. I've come to know from experience that if your mind absolutely doesn't want to do something, then whatever the thing you needed to do was is ABSOLUTELY not going to happen. I know that inside of my head there's a brain and I also know that it controls the mechanics of my body. However there's also this "invisible someone" inside my head that always has to get involved when I'm making decisions, being a male I obviously don't take his advice too often. Back to the subject, The author says that Dualism "makes the mind too separate" which proves to be true. Many people consult their "ghost in the machine" to help them make the right decision on a matter. When the author says that " there is the physical brain, on the one hand, and the conscious mind, on the other" he substantiates the "ghost in the machine" theory. This also is the point at which I came to the conclusion that a person's conscious is within their mind like McGinn states " the twain may meet at some point but they remain distinct entities".
ReplyDeleteMy mysterianist point of view says tells me everything that occurs in our brain is completely natural, but somehow we're still free to do whatever we want and our conscience butts in when appropriate to do so. Mcginn never quite gave this idea a chance. Maybe our consciousness is just a pigment of our imagination. After watching the movie Inception I don't find it hard to believe that we can make all this up. Kolbush said it best, "The idea that our thoughts are controllable violates the laws of nature, yet the idea that our thoughts are not controllable violates common sense ... Perhaps we have the mental power to develop consciousness but we do not have the mental power to remove the mystery from it."
The view on consciences that I agree most with is that of an idealist. That only the mind exists. Everything that is perceived by an individual is merely an illusion that is merely conjured up by a conscience. This idea of a universal dream is appealing to me for a very specific reason. It seems that in the infinite expanse of the universe, chaos would rein supreme. Yet, the entire universe, everything that ever was or will be, strictly follows a set of equations and a series of constants that forms clouds of seemingly endless gas into the stars bringing light into existence or that light is everywhere at all times, as it takes no time or distance for light to travel. Only an organized conscience could conceive of order on such a grand scale. There's no possible way that the existence of such order could come into being at a random roll of the dice. That mathematically it all sort of worked out in the end? A conscience that is simply keeping itself busy by creating a fully functional and orderly universe. Our bodies may die but our consciences will return to what they've been doing since before the universe was imagined. What that is exactly? There is no real way of telling.
ReplyDeleteOf the different ways to view our conscience,I would say that I agree most with the idealist. I believe that there is a general basic layer of all things in our world that everyone sees equally. But in saying that, I also believe that people all percieve reality in different ways. From the shade of certain colors, to the emotions and feelings that we get from different people and objects in our surroundings. Our brain, like when we are dreaming, pumps images into itself, or little nuances that make our reality, ours. This is all part of the human uniqueness, and mystery.
ReplyDeleteI would definetly categorize myself as a mysterianist, simply because to me, no matter how far we delve into the secrets of our consciousness, we just seem to get farther and farther away from the truth. I don't think any advances in technology are going to change that fact, or at least any changes in my lifetime. The mind will remain a complete mystery. Religion will remain an abstract cold case file. The universe will remain everchanging and stagnant. Without mystery, i don't think we have the ability to posess a consciousness. Our consciousness itself is formed by are need to solve mysteries in nature, an evolutionary trait given to only the most advanced species. Being human requires mysteries to solve, otherwise we fail to evolve.
ReplyDeleteI most agree with duelism. The existence of material things and a conciousness seems to concrete to not be be true. Duelism is most appealing to me because it is the most simple view of conciousness. Any peorson who does not look to deeply into anything could come up with this view becaues it is the way that most poele view their conciousness and the world around them. Thought and matter are separate in this view and that is how I view conciousness and matter. Duelism is the only state that can be definitively proven because it is not difficult to notice the separation of thought and matter. Duilism is the most logical theory mentioned in the essay.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading through “The Ghosts and The Machine” I have discovered that I believe in the dualistic view on consciousness. The first half of dualism states that our brains, made up of microscopic atoms, control all of the physical functions that our body does every day. We don’t have to think about the way we walk, breath, blink, or swallow because our brains do these everyday bodily functions for us without thought. Furthermore our brain does not do everything automatically, and that is where the second half of consciousness comes into being. Your brain does not tell you to steal another person’s wallet; it is your “inner voice” that guides you to your decision. That voice telling you to “do it” or “don’t do it” is completely separate from the one solving basic everyday math problems without any problem. The brain is separated into two completely different ways of functioning; one for performing basic bodily functions, and another for solving questions through a thought-out decision making process. My opinion that the brain functions in these two different ways gives evidence that I believe in dualism.
ReplyDelete