Identity of Reference and Identity of Properties - By Martin Prior

Identity of Reference and Identity of Properties

It is perhaps self-evident that if p and q have identity of reference then they will have the same properties.

Question: if p and q have identity of properties do they have identity of reference?

This issue is important across time, when there must be a sufficiency of identity of properties for p now and p earlier to be the same thing, but there must also be difference in properties for there to be change and without change, time cannot exist. 

What about identity across possible worlds?

By Martin Prior

The Philosophy Takeaway 'Identity' Issue 37

Identity - By Perry Smith

Identity

Identity; identity is something you're born with. You are born to be your father's son. You are born to be such and such a social class. You are born to be privy to certain experiences and not others; in essence, you are born to live a certain life. Identity is not who you are, but what others have made you; this is why we qualify ourselves in terms of our relationships to others: on our family, on our friends, and also on what we do for a living (of how we spend our time, no matter how trivial this is).

We are also a product of our material circumstances. Freedom, for me, has always, as a definition, been at odds with itself (the same of which, I feel, can be said of autonomy). This is what I would ultimately argue. You are everything that others remember about you. Even momentary lapses in your past, others will use to construct the identity of you. There would be no personal continuity in this sense, otherwise. How you feel one day is entirely different, and non-comparable to how you felt the previous day; hence is the transient nature of experience.

Though, I am not denying, here, the continuance of certain feelings brought on by physiological considerations,but would say, that are experiencing of them can be differentiated - on an immeasurable, moment-by-moment, basis. You may say that you hold, generally, certain moral principles. And yet, seemingly, when you fall from these, this is what people will remember; never mind the intention you held before, during and after. Also, the very fact you can be deterred from being such and such a way, proves that it was not, necessarily, an integral part of what you are. Thus, a distinction must be held, personally, between identity as objective, of how others see you, and identity as subjective, of what you believe yourself to be - though this, I would argue, is 'fluid', always in flux, rather than 'fixed' (which is what others try to make of us, due to some, seemingly, indescribable quirk of human nature - if there is such a group as humans, there must be something common to all of them, to group them as such), regardless of rational, outward deductions, by others, based upon previous inductive 'evidence' to the contrary. And this is instrumental in maintaining individual wellbeing, also, though I acceot others' judgements can also be positive. Identity, itself, I believe, already presumes the existence of others. And in the true deciding of the self, how is this tenable? In conclusion (and this may seem somewhat anti-climactic), we are what we are; and what this is, may not, necessarily, be known by the individual. All I am certain of, however, is that the need for organisation and understanding seem to be prerequisites of whatever condition we seem to suffer from, and focus much of our attention on, for some unbeknownst reason. Here, as in most things, I find myself wanting to cite the idea of human constructs, and the true ineffability one finds themselves under when trying to rationalise any such things.

By Perry Smith

 
The Philosophy Takeaway 'Identity' Issue 37

Art - By Rachel Berry

This weeks artist was Rachael Berry - http://www.facebook.com/RachaelBerryArt?fref=ts


The Philosophy Takeaway 'Human Nature' Issue 36

Aren’t we grand. - By George Dunn

Aren’t we grand.

We are animals, first and foremost- we want to survive, to reproduce, to eat and sleep and be alive for the sake of it because that's what our body tells us to do. But it seems that we have an extra thing tacked onto us, a thing that many call a mind, and this thing seems to give us the power to override what we might consider our more natural desires, our instincts. This power has immense potential.

Where many (if not all) other animals are slaves to their desires, we can break free;  and so when our body tells us to eat, to sleep, to mate, to run or to stand our ground we are not obliged to agree, no, we can deny them. We can stay up all night despite of our fatigue, or sleep when we are already well rested; eat nothing when our belly rumbles, or eat more when we are full; stand up to threat or run from that which is harmless. As humans, it seems, we have a nature that can transcend nature... Are we not then God's?

There are many, I'm sure, that would love to subscribe to this notion: the human as God, with the divine power to do as He wishes! To act for reasons that exist outside of His body, to ignore His natural inclinations and act instead in the name of some perceived absolute Good. It is this sort of thought that has led religions past and present to brand the desires of the body as lesser, immoral, evil. It allows humans to stand upon a pedestal of egotism, and to look down upon all else and to genuinely believe that this power to ignore ones instinct makes them better.

Well, then, does it? Is our capacity to negate nature enough to stamp our superiority upon the world of living things? There is the argument that this ability makes us free, which in turn makes us capable of moral decisions: we humans, the moral animal- free to do that which is Good! And so, freedom is part of human nature, and surely it is better to be free than not?

Perhaps.

But if we are free because we can choose not to follow our instincts, then it can be said that we are free in so far as that we are not inclined to do one thing over another. The less inclined we are, the more free we are. And so it must follow that he who has no inclination towards either good or bad is more free than he who is inclined towards that which is good... and then surely he who only does what is good is even less free than he who is only inclined towards that which is good. And so we have it, that the most free is the one who acts with complete indifference! The one who only does good is a slave, just like the other animals, unable to negate his desires: he just desires that which is good. Is it really better to be free?

It appears that any freedom that pertains to human nature is not so clearly a hallmark of our superiority, but evidence of an immense capacity that should be treated with caution. Yes, it is the capacity to act well, to be good, and perhaps this is the way that we are inclined (although I see no evidence that this is the case), but it is equally the capacity to do wrong, to be evil. We have a power, as I have said, to negate whatever inclination we have, natural or otherwise, and therefore we have the capacity to act terribly, negating all that our intuition tells us. And, in doing so, we will likely pat ourselves on the back, raise our glasses and cheer as we and only we could have done this! We, humans, free to negate nature, free to destroy and annihilate, to create and nurture... whatever we do, it will be grand, as it could have only been us. Maybe we are superior, insofar as we are more powerful, but better? The ego to make such a claim could only be human.

By George Dunn

The Philosophy Takeaway 'Human Nature' Issue 36

Human nature is make-believe - By Selim 'Selim' Talat

Human nature is make-believe

I -

I will try and understand human nature in relation with nature as a whole. I do not believe it possible to separate human nature, from nature. Nature is one great undivided thing, that cannot be understood in terms of meaning or concepts (for it has none). To "know" nature is to be part of it, and that is where true human nature lies, back in our past. It is not good, or evil or anything - all of these moral ideas come much later. Human nature is part of nature, and nature is meaningless...

II -

Every act of language is false. Or at least, it is inaccurate. As we have no absolute definition of anything, when we use language we are using a tool that cannot provide absolute answers. It is always subject to interpretation, always received with our own personal bias, always filtered through our own particular world view. There is no escaping language, it is drilled into us before we have a chance to resist it. This means that we can only experience reality through the lens of a language-using entity.

  The 'problem' then is this: Our language does not describe the world as it is. It never truly reaches the essence of what it is we are trying to describe. This means that all of our concepts are incapable of connecting us with the thing we are trying to describe. What we are left with is probability and guesswork, when it comes to understanding one another, or even ourselves!

  It gets worse! For this complex world of language exists entirely in our heads and we can take it anywhere we wish, mixing all sorts of fantasies into our realm of probabilities. Our ability to grasp 'reality' or 'nature' with language is in great peril indeed. To summarize: Not only do we not have any total understanding about the things that we are talking about, but the concept of those things only occurs inside our heads - we impose our concepts outwards onto reality.

These are the creative creatures that will rediscover the meaning of human nature? It is not seeming too likely.

III -

We have no hard facts about reality and this makes it subject to human imagination. 'What about 2+2=4? This is absolute knowledge, always testable, always proveable'. I do not think this is so. The entire sum finds its origin inside the mind. There is no two, there is no other two, there is no plus, there is no equals and there is no four, out in the real world. If you see two mobile telephones and you add them to the other two mobile telephones, you get four mobile telephones. However, it is your mind that divided the mobile telephones into two sets of two in the first place. In reality there were four mobile telephones there all along - in fact, no there weren't! There were material things there which we then classified in such and such a way. As such, the sum occurs inside our heads, it is make believe, and can only be proven to work in a realm of make believe - nature does not divide things up into such parts.

IV -

Human nature is now oozing in language, and language is make-believe; the creation of a world projected outwards from the mind and normalized into a 'real world'. We only need to look at the history of civilization, and within our own imaginations, to see a near-infinite array of ideas, deities, mythologies and creativity.

I do not think that this will lead us to relativism (the idea that every viewpoint is equally valuable and/or possible). Just because the fabric of our world - morality being the big one - is imagined and is imprecise, it does not mean that we cannot come to some agreement about what is and is not important. We can still have experts and novices, creatives and technicals, and so on, there just is no absolute certainty involved in any of it.

 

V -

In terms of natural experiences, these may still be reachable. We still have similar physical bodies to our ancestors, with all of our impulses and instincts intact, for the most part. The feeling of hunger has a certain rawness and earthiness to it. To paraphrase a good friend of mine: 'Sexual excitement is a connection to the cosmos, man.'  A return to nature which transcends our make believe creation! These feelings make us pre-historic, taking us back in time for a brief instant. Language has not completely removed us completely from our nature, it has just reduced it to lesser role.

  If this is the case, then 'human being' is just a guess, and so is ones own nature. There being a 'nature' for anything is itself a human concept. The only conclusion from this - What is natural is that we do not have a word for. By discussing human nature we have failed to reach it, except in informing ourselves of what we cannot know. Even if we could 'feel it', how would we know we have felt it and not just imagined it?

Pure imagination is the new human nature, defying the reality before us. 'Live in the real world' they say - no, we defy the real world by utilizing language, and so do you sir! Our vessel of communication is not just our natural body, it is this accidental mutation that has learnt to see itself and complicate everything with brilliant abstract flair.

  If acting within human nature were our nature, how could we become removed from it? Is being removed from our nature part of human nature?

No. We are the greatest joke this cosmos ever played.

By Selim 'Selim' Talat

 
The Philosophy Takeaway 'Human Nature' Issue 36

The Myth of Psychological Creationism - By Lloyd Duddridge

A rebuttal from Lloyd Duddridge to an article from Mark Tannett

The Myth of Psychological Creationism

Followers of Philosophy takeaway around the world, it has fallen to me to attempt to refute Mr Tannett’s contentions on human nature. So let’s begin, for a start for something to be considered innate and thus part of a ‘human nature’, it must meet two criteria. The first is this, that any behaviour or ability must have been with us from birth, that this ability is not reliant on exposure to culture or societal forces. In essence we are saying that which is natural requires no shaping from external forces. Basically the behaviour is in the ‘genes’. The second is this, for something to be considered innate in human nature, the behaviour or talent needs to be found universally. If behaviours are found only in certain cultures and environments and not in others, than it can be argued that this ability or behaviour is not an innate human ability but is the product of a specific environment. I will argue that  all of Mr Tannett’s arguments fail to meet one of these criterion and often both.

            Let’s look at the argument about responding to stimuli. The major word here is stimuli. A stimulus seems to suggest something outside of ourselves. This is exactly the point that we who doubt an in-built nature want to make. Everything requires a response to stimuli. Stimuli are a product of environment. Thus responding to stimuli is being shaped by your environment. Mr Tannett argues that we respond to these stimuli in such a seemingly conditioned way, that we must have been innately conditioned to respond in this way.  However regularity is not enough to prove innateness. Let’s saying I am trying to get to my massage appointment in the morning, I am walking along the road to get a bus, I see the bus already pulling into the stop, and I know if I miss it, I will be late for that massage I desperately need. Now most people in this situation of missing the bus would feel either angry or frustrated. Do we then have to argue that the body is innately conditioned to be frustrated when missing buses? No we respond to these stimuli is certain ways, as a response to environmental and cultural pressures. After all it is unlikely that a three year old feels frustrated missing a bus in the same way, as a seventeen year old. This is because for one set, the three year old, the pressures are not the same as the seventeen year old.Mr Tannett argues that babies born with big eyes we innately respond to with empathy. This seemingly universal innate function has not stopped infant neglect. It would appear that a better technique is needed. Mr Tannett quotes babies crying in a pitch that gains a response from a mother. This is hardly surprising; any sane being will act in a way that elicits the response that they want. When a player shoots at goal,he shoots in a way that will elicit the response he desires, namely a goal. What we consider innate in the baby, we do not consider innate in the teenager shouting ‘mum, get the dinner on. ‘These are exactly the same actions. Plus if this supposed innate capacity was so useful in babies, why is it that parents can often not decipher what the baby wants when they are crying?
            I think we have seen that Mr Tannetts’s first line of rationale fails. Responding to a stimulus is just that. Responding to an environment. Also the attributes of the body can be explained in a non-innate framework. Mr Tannett has provided us with physical regularities, but has not shown us how they must be innate.
            Mr Tannett then mentions language but never really talks about it. This is a shame. However he does mention the seeming will for survival as innate. In addition to the obvious rejoinder that if this was the case, there would be no suicide or people marching into battle. There is no reason to think that the need in the majority for survival is innate. Again it is a choice made in light of the environment we find ourselves in. Thus in the main the obvious desire is to continue with life. However we only have to look back to the attack on the Twin Towers in New York to see how quickly this desire for survival at all costs can be lost. Met with a choice between a few hours of life or a less painful death, many chose the latter option. Now how under Mr Tannett’s innateness argument would this make any sense? Makes far more sense to think that in a positive environment that more people will want to continue with their life than end it. In a horribly negative environment the decision can often be reversed. 
            Then we are met with a genetic argument for talented people. Now if this was the case that creative talent is genetic, and that we accept that genes are passed on, then would it not make sense to see more and more familiar names crop up in say Nobel Prize winners, or World Cup winning footballers? Out of 555 Nobel Prizes awarded only 9 have been given to genetic members of the same family. The % is even smaller when we look at World Cup winners. At another point, Mr Tannett argues that innate talent is nothing on its own, that it requires nurture. Again evidence that innateness is a hindsight theory. That we see someone talented and then work backwards. Thus good genes become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Mr Tannett seems to be arguing that a piece of wool is innately conditioned to become a jumper. Or to use Voltaire’s famous example that the nose was innately designed to hold spectacles. Mr Tannett then launches into argument by anecdote. He selects an extremely small sample size on which to argue toward generalities. As far as I know Mr Tannett has only taught in this country as well, and thus his anecdotal evidence is wishy washy at best. It does not meet the criterion that innateness must be universal. Some anthropological examples would have been useful here. Mr Tannett then argues that personality is innate. Now this would seem to ignore the obvious fact that personalities seem to change over time and in differing environments. One does not behave in the same way in a football crowd as at a funeral. This is not an innate trait, but a response to cultural and societal pressure. After all no baby is innately aware how to behave at a funeral. They pick this up through tone or through their parents telling them how to behave. Thus personality is here brought about through nurture not nature.
            Mr Tannett then suggests that sexuality is innate. Now Mr Tannett takes the safe option of simply comparing hetro/homo sexuality*. However this is a tiny example of the spectrum of sexualities. Are we then to say that a paedophile or a zoophile desires are also innate. If so the stigma we attach to paedophilia is unfair. We would have to say that paedophilia is as legitimate as hetro/homosexuality. This is seemingly not something that we do. Is this because we view sexuality as a choice in response to our environment? Mr Tannett’s claim that we need innateness for love is folly. His innateness is the love of the magic potion. The love without choice. His love is a love that a computer could feel.If anything it must make more sense, that love is a rejection of innateness, a rejection of the given. Love begins with the ability to choose your own path, your own partners.  
            I hope I have managed to convince you that Mr Tannett’s arguments fail upon inspection. That most of his arguments about innateness are responses to environment and culture. That just as culture changes so will the way we act. This is why we value education as we feel that talent and knowledge is not something given, but something gained. That the human story has been one of experiment and change. As Darwin shows it is not those that are the strongest or fittest or even most intelligent that survives, it is those most adaptable to change.  Innateness is the opposite of change, it is solid and it is fixed. Thus not only is innateness unpalatable to us ethically, it is also anti evolutionary.  Mr Tannett’s arguments failed to meet either of the criterion needed to classify something as innate. We now laugh and sneer at those that hold forth to physical creationism. I hope that one day we can say the same to those supporters of psychological creationism, those that seek to defend human nature, and those that defend innate abilities.    

By Lloyd Duddridge

*Editors note:  This point was actually removed from Mr.Tannett's point for space restrictions, but as it is an interesting point of debate it was left in Mr.Duddridge's reply.

The Philosophy Takeaway 'Human Nature' Issue 36

Innate Knowledge and Human Nature - By Mark Tannett

Innate Knowledge and Human Nature

In this article, I intend to argue the case for innate knowledge and the concept that there are certain traits which we are preconditioned to respond to.

  The first reason I have for thinking the way I do is that there are certain stimuli which we almost always react to in the same way. Primarily, if you see, think about or are with the object of your affections, your pupils will dilate so that more light can enter your eyes  and you can see them more clearly. This in itself is a fairly romantic notion,  which is an innate reaction in all of us. This reaction, however, can be mimicked. Specifically, the use of candles or dimmer switches can be used to create the same effect, regardless of whether the person is the object of your affection or not and so, not only the senses but feelings can be manipulated in this way. This is purely because of the innate reaction we have to the situation which can be replicated without the original intent to trigger such a response (in this case, romantic affection).

  It is not only stimulus to the eyes which is innate but to the ears as well. For instance, when babies cry, they always cry at an almost identical pitch which is pre-programmed to elicit a response from the mother. Also, when cats mew, they tune in to this exact frequency in order to get food through an empathetic response to this frequency. Lastly, the eyes of a child are more developed at birth than any other part of the body. This is because having bigger eyes is also something which we are innately pre-programmed to respond to with empathy.

The second reason I have for believing in innate knowledge comes through language. It is my belief that people’s use of body language is something which, in some cases, we have innate knowledge of how to react to. My main example of this is the ‘fight or flight’ reaction when we are threatened in some way. I will admit that this argument is somewhat based on a hierarchical society where males and females are always fighting for status and greater access to the gene pool but if we are willing to agree with that assertion then the natural progression  is to say that people will fight to increase their status or fly to maintain it if they feel they cannot increase it at that point. In the split second that we are threatened, our survival instinct kicks in. This is an innate reaction.

  Other examples include reflex actions which totally bypass the conscious part of our brain and in so doing, increase our chances of survival and passing out before being able to asphyxiate oneself. These are safety features inbuilt into our systems and these are innate so as to aid in our survival just like the previous examples in the first argument are innate so as to aid survival in our children and attraction to each other.

As for other interactions between others and oneself, I can’t say that I’m comfortable with the idea that human nature is preconditioned in other ways. I worry that if so much else is innate and preconditioned, it can absolve people of responsibility. The only things which I truly believe are innate are the ones which are inbuilt for survival, attaining higher status and the rearing of children so that evolution can carry on and the species improves as a result. Everything else is what we take from our upbringing and our surroundings. Nonetheless, I think it’s impossible to refuse these innate features of ourselves and it would be foolish to so.

As a musician, and having been around many creative people for a great deal of my life, I think the notion that we have genetic talents to be interesting. On a personal note, I would like to think that I was naturally gifted and talented at being a musician and that I had an innate gift which had been nurtured to fruition to the point I am at now. Thinking about this now, I think there is an innate talent (although innate talent on its own means nothing without hard work, application and a lot of nurturing!). There are many things which point toward there being a ‘natural’ element to talent. Indeed, Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences would seem to suggest that we have different strengths and weaknesses although this is only for a specific point in time. Nonetheless, it does raise a far more fundamental question. Is our intelligence, our ability to be logical or creative, innate?

This is far more difficult to call. On the basis of my experiences, I am going to say yes, it is innate. My reasons for doing so are as follows:

  Firstly, having been educated in private school and having worked as a music teacher in grammar and state schools since, the people that I’ve worked with have some common features. First of all (and this should ruffle some feathers…), the link between one’s reading age and their ability to be creative and link ideas together is definitely a feature of my experience in schools. I find it difficult to resolve the idea that these children have been nurtured into not reading at all. In fact, I’m fully aware that many of them read a huge amount and yet, still haven’t progressed to a reading age that is indicative of the time they have spent reading. The only reason I can find for this is that there is an innate ability within them which prevents them from being able to progress as quickly as others around them (This is, of course, not taking into consideration specific learning difficulties such as dyslexia which is a separate issue entirely).

  Secondly, I have also worked in Early Years scenarios and the personality that children take on, even at the age of two, is striking. This has provoked me to think about whether certain social interactions between people is innate, particularly whether our tendencies to be extrovert or introvert. On this point, again, I think it is but because it comes down to our ‘fight or flight’ reaction. Extroverts have a tendency to talk over people, to be more emotionally hot headed, to be less willing to listen to ideas and stuck in their ways or they want change that it happens overnight. These are the fighters. Introverts are far more observant, quieter, open to change (as long as the process is well thought out). These are the fliers. I realise I am making massive sweeping generalisations here but I cannot help but think that these social tendencies are inbuilt on an innate level. The reason I have for thinking this is that the inner conflict which I think most people have when growing up, particularly introverts to be extroverts, makes me think that really, we are one type and one type only and this never changes throughout our life. If this is the case, it must be innate.

To tie in these final strands to what I said in the last paragraph of the first section of this essay, I still stand by the fact that all innate qualities are intrinsically inbuilt for survival, attaining higher status and the rearing of children. The notion of innate intelligence is, sadly but necessarily, based on higher status. We automatically as human beings and, more than that, animals, will defer to those we perceive as being higher status than us and with it, relinquish control of various elements of our lives. Intelligence is not the only means of attaining higher status and it would be extremely foolish to state that in any categorical sense. However, the reason that the world has not evolved into a meritocracy (among many other reasons) is because there are elements of innate skills and traits within us; Strength, intelligence, creativity being the main three, hence why sports, academia and the arts are most prized within the education system. While nurture can go a hugely long way to increasing and developing all of these things, there will always come a plateau over which people will not be able to ascend because of their innate ability. People subconsciously realise this and defer status.

  With regards to sexuality, I can only put it down to survival. I think the phrase ‘No man is an island’ is more apt here than anywhere else. We, as human beings, are built to love. It is part of our human nature and without it; we die, both emotionally and physically. When one’s capacity and ability to love the person they have fallen in love with is taken away from them, it feels very much like dying as anyone who has gone through a particularly hard breakup can attest to, I would hope. Possibly a bit overly melodramatic but I hope you, as readers, will forgive me. Love and life are one and the same thing. They are dependent on each other and cannot exist without each other. To deny one’s human nature, to deny their ability to love whoever it may be is cruel, unfair and a violation of who they are a person.

I leave you with this thought:

Human Nature: If we accepted all that we are, think what we could be.

By Mark Tannett

*To see the rebuttal to this agument please see article published on 24/01/12 
The Philosophy Takeaway 'Human Nature' Issue 36

Ethics: nature or nurture?

Some 40 years ago, when the youngest councillor on my council, I was furious that my comrades chose to ban Last Tango in Paris, and I sat down with the Ten Commandments in from of me and despite ignoring much of them, came out with four principles. They were:

i) maximise human potential subject to the limitations of both present and future environments, (person+environment: ‘Green’)

ii) when two or more people are involved in an activity, provide relevant knowledge, (group: Rights, often civil)

iii) share equally the burdens imposed by the limitations of the natural environment, (group+environment: here Socialism)

iv) be free to do as one wishes, as long as others are not affected. (person: here ‘Social Liberalism’)

The last seemed to me to be crucial, and the other principles stated the relations with both other humans and the environment required to achieve this. Banning Last Tango in Paris was clearly a violation of (iv).

Now I have shown how ethical principles might be built up from key concepts, here individuals, groups and the present and future environment, though I have the most difficulty with (ii). But how far are such principles in-built to nature? My view is that (i) and (iv) are in-built, at least for the present environment, and when that person is oneself. A principle about person+environment is a key feature of bringing up the young and indeed caring for the old, who still have a role to play. It is Rule (iv) is all about wishes and will, and it is custom that ensures that people learn how their actions affect other people.

In other respects we have what might be considered ‘original sin’, including violation of the future environment, withholding crucial knowledge and greed. Custom leads communities acting more ethically towards each other to a greater or lesser extent, for the survival of the community, but that does not imply they will respect the rights of other communities. In effect the group mentioned above is not wider than the community.

And not everyone would agree with my principles. An economic liberal might say:

i) socialism is theft,

ii) socialism goes completely against human nature, and

iii) theft is every bit part of human nature.

Martin Prior

Philosophy Takeaway Newsletter 36 – Human Nature

Human Nature Is Good

                     

 

You may wonder, how looking at the world today, dare I say that human nature is good? Well, because of two reasons, the first is that I believe so, the second reason is why I believe so.

Humans are very malleable creatures, we respond to our environment, to stimulation and to manipulation. We live mainly in a state of ignorance, the majority of us have no access to education and the education we do get is mediocre. Thus our true nature as such, is rarely actualised; it’s rarely seen as what it could be. The reason why, to me, things appears so bad and dominated by the ‘evil side’ of us is because of fear. Fear is the tool that enabled 'primitive' man to survive, to be aware of dangers, but it has also stopped the modern man from fully flourishing. 

Fear has become conditioning and we have not yet learnt to drop it. Underneath it all, the human spirit is good, it’s undeniable that we strive for goodness as a whole. That’s why things like universal peace are so appealing, because we are creatures that thrive in peace. We have created war out of fear, but that doesn’t make us bad. Even the politicians who declare these mentioned wars go and give themselves a Nobel PEACE prize. Why? Because they have to show a good side, even characters who are moved primarily by greed have to put on sheep costumes in order to appeal to others. Because we are fragile and compassionate by nature. We care. Our bodies are fragile and we are sensitive. WE are not predators. We are biologically quite weak but our strength lays in that we are primarily emotional and intelligent.

             
Thomas Hobbes said man is the wolf of man, and how right he was, but he forgot to add, man is the friend of man, woman is the mother of man, humans are the lovers of humans. Who causes you pain? People. Who relieves you from that pain? People.

Take the example of a child, pure and innocent, old enough to talk yet young enough to not have been schooled to hate. In a child you see a tendency to play, to interact, to discover and create. He gets taught evil. You can say people are born with a personality, yes, but people considered evil, have a history of having evil done to them. Evil is not intrinsic, because it’s not life affirming and we are a surviving species.

            
 I propose you an experiment; say one generation of children of the world are given good living conditions, food without poison, a well rounded education which doesn’t consist of memorizing things like our current education consists of. These children are taken on trips to see natural wonders, they are taught to respect animals, and they’ve had a stable home with present parents. I say one, only one generation that has these conditions in the whole world and you will see human nature; the goodness of human nature. We are evil because we are scared, because we suffer so badly. 

We need to evolve in other aspects than technological, we need to care for each other, and that to my view, is the next step. We live in a world which sits half way between ignorance and primitive living and the modern world, we are a stone throws away from enjoying watching public executions and a stone throws away from visiting other planets. We sit half way between the past and the future, here in the present. We are not at the top of our capacity; we haven’t experienced the full capacity of human nature. But I can see, I can feel, a capacity for love, for understanding, for growth toward a world of philosophers and free thinkers. Human nature is ever changing and ever evolving, evolving to perfection and what is that? Goodness. 

That’s why I believe human nature is good.

Eliza Veretilo

 

The Philosophy Takeaway 'Human Nature' Issue 36

Jetlag - By Martin Prior

Jetlag

My mind says Pacific Standard Time (GMT-8). My brain says be on the safe side, go to sleep and wake up every two hours.

I know that I have a mind: it is that which knows and thinks.  I do not need to know I have a brain.  Many societies don't.

And when I see somebody with brains, s/he may quite reasonably be in two minds (or more).  But the number of minds and the number of brains need not be identical.  To my mind that is the key point.

And to my brain, it is time to go to sleep again. 

By Martin Prior

The Philosophy Takeaway 'Mind & Body' Issue 35

The false dichotomy of the mind and brain: - By Samuel Mack-Poole

The false dichotomy of the mind and brain:

Romeo: Peace, Peace, Mercutio, peace!   

Thou talk’st of nothing.

Mercutio: True, I talk of dreams,

Which are the children of an idle brain,

Begot of nothing but vain fantasy.

Lines 95 – 99, Act 1, Scene 4, Romeo and Juliet.

Many of us who are philosophically minded have met ardent dogmatists. Although they are entertaining, due to the spittle dripping from their chins, their insight into the human condition is limited by its very nature. As philosophers, it is our role to think a little deeper than most, to aim that beautiful light of truth into the murky depths of ignorance and be prudent about the claims we can make. In all honesty, I see a true philosopher as someone who considers and analyses, deduces and induces, reverses and inverts, asks questions and argues, not from ego, but due to that ache that resides in us to discover and uncover. Thus, my brethren, I can only reiterate that we should be prudent about claiming what we can know.

Firstly, we should start with defining our terms – Ellese Elliott, my intellectual sparring partner, assures me that this methodology is the most respected academic method. Who would I be, as humble as I am, to flaunt what the academics hold in such a sacred regard?  I will use a common dictionary to define the key terms. The mind is defined as:

“(in a human or other conscious being) the element, part, substance, or process that reasons, thinks, feels, wills, perceives, judges, etc.: the processes of the human mind.”

I believe this definition, is, however, too narrow to define the word “mind”.  After all, there is that unoriginal Hollywood homage to mental illness in the shape of the film A Beautiful Mind. What is being referred to in this film title is the protagonist’s intellectual capacity; thus, the word “mind” is clearly utilised in different contexts. Do you think it is any coincidence that we use the word “mind” as a noun and a verb? If you live in London, you know to “mind the gap” – this is because of the word’s etymology, which I will expound upon later.

Thus, when juxtaposing the prior definitions with the definition of “brain”, we will come to the sticking place.  The word brain is defined as:

“Anatomy, Zoology . the part of the central nervous system enclosed in the cranium of humans and other vertebrates, consisting of a soft, convoluted mass of grey and white matter and serving to control and coordinate the mental and physical actions.”

However, when we dig a little deeper, we find another definition – the word “brain” is a direct synonym of mind! Here’s the definition: “the brain as the centre of thought, understanding, etc.; mind; intellect.”

The mind can only ever be part of the brain, after all the word’s etymology is from the Old English gemynd, meaning memory. And what is memory, if not part of the brain? The “mind” is a mere word, outdated in its use, a construct, a mere fiction with a fantastical history. There is no credible proof that it exists: none, whatsoever. Any atheist, who attests there is a mind, is contradicting their arguments on a lack of a deity.  No true empiricist (a philosopher who believes that knowledge is mainly gained through experience) will ever make such a lowly assertion that the mind exists outside or independent of the body.

Philosophy, a noble tool of thought, critical to critical thinking skills, is in danger of becoming regarded by scientists as a dead subject. When notable and intelligent philosophers contradict what can be proven to be true, we sully the name of philosophy. When we jump down the rabbit hole of the supernatural, we may as well gift our scientific critics goldfish in a barrel to shoot at.

Science and philosophy shouldn’t be antagonists but natural bedfellows: Dawkins and Singer epitomise this. The fact that science was born from philosophy, and now has returned to its mother with the gift of knowledge, is beautiful. We should celebrate the fact the prodigal son has returned, with such noble presents to boot.

We know now, due to advancements in the field of biology that a thought is a physical process. A neuron (also known as a neurone or nerve cell) is an excitable cell in the nervous system that processes and transmits information by electrochemical signalling – that is what a thought is. Now, my friends, should we disregard this information?  No! We should embrace it. This definition, although narrow, doesn’t capture the poetic beauty of imagination, but it does convey that a thought is a distinct physical process; one which is observable.

There is, of course, much more to thought than the biology of it. Nevertheless, such an earthy materialistic, purely biological view of the mind isn’t cold; it doesn’t lack romance. In fact, I would say that that those who look forward with truth in their hearts are the most genuine in their outlook regarding humanity, as well as its place in the vast cosmos in which we reside. This is far more preferable than looking back to the 17^th century with rose tinted intellectual glasses.

I know what I’m saying is controversial, even abhorrent to some philosophers. Please understand me, as I must clarify my position. I’m not saying ancient philosophy has no value; that would be foolish. However, where ancient philosophy contradicts modern science, should we really stand idly by and argue the inarguable? Although it is a good mental exercise to do so and it is important to have such debates, can we really invoke the fallacy exposed by Russell’s teapot* in good conscience?

I started with a quote, thus I shall end with a quote from the great Christopher Hitchens, which illustrates the facile pomposity of ignoring empiricism, albeit ironically:

“My own view is that this planet is used as a penal colony, lunatic asylum and dumping ground by a superior civilization, to get rid of the undesirable and unfit. I can't prove it, but you can't disprove it either.”

By Samuel Mack-Poole

* If Bertrand Russell claimed that a teapot was orbiting Jupiter, and we had no scientific way of proving that there was no such teapot, it would be ludicrous to believe that it existed! What he is saying is that the burden of proof in philosophy lies with the person making the claims, and not on the other person to disprove it - Ed.

The Philosophy Takeaway 'Mind & Body' Issue 35

The origins of mind and body (and other possibilities) - By Selim 'Selim' Talat

The origins of mind and body (and other possibilities)

I -

The origin of an idea is hard to know, if not impossible. Who was the first to suggest that the mind and the body are made of two different substances? It might seem obvious to us now that there is a rational part of the human being, which has the ability to think things through and make choices, and that there is the bodily part which is full of primitive drives and urges. For this is the philosophy  whose roots stretch back to Rene Descartes, who is essential in the understanding of this question, but also saturates it, and whom I shall avoid discussing. What is important is that if we remember that this mind and body divide was not always so, it was not always 'obvious' to us.

  If we go back to the ancient greeks (a familiar path we take in western philosophy, unschooled as we are in the wisdom of the east!) we can find a different idea of body and soul in the great works of the playwright Homer. Although we was a dramatist, his work was so  epic that he literally created the greek pantheon of gods! People  genuinely lived their lives by these passionate deities, believing that they could influence human beings directly, and so deserved worship. This was a mythical world view that encourages what we would call determinism - that our actions are decided for us by a force beyond our human willing. It was only after the body died that the soul took any real form, enjoying the rest of its time in the underworld.

  Even the idea of mind being associated with the brain is not so obvious, for it was a popular ancient greek idea that the main core of consciousness was actually in the human heart.

With Pythagoras comes a strengthening of the souls place in this equation. A believer in eternal rebirth (who would stand up for a bullied dog if he thought it contained the reincarnated essence of a late friend) Pythagoras gives us the idea of the soul being linked to this world, not departing elsewhere after death. It is an eternal element within us that is separate from the actual physical body and can remember its past lives. This makes the body separate to the soul in quite a profound way, like a passenger switching between trains.

  In addition to this we have the mathematical world view of the Pythagoreans. Perhaps this was the start of reason as we know it! For now all could be reduced to mathematics and this meant that everything could be understood through the power of pure mindthinking. Suddenly, the prospect of perfect reason separate from 'earthy things' becomes a possibility.

II -

The pre-socratics (the philosophers who came before Socrates) were often searching for the one fundamental substance of the cosmos. They were often asking 'wot stuff wos made of!'. Thales had his water, Anaximenes had air, Heraclitus had fire and all had their reasons for believing this. Today we might see physicists trying to find the building blocks of everything, atoms and quarks and strings and energy and such. The point to be raised here is thus: If everything is made of one specific substance, then your computer is made of the same thing as you. So is the light hitting your eyes, the chair you are seated upon, and so on. There is nothing differentiating you from any of it. Which raises the further question - what is so special about us and how do we know that inanimate objects do not also possess conscience?     

  If we consider ourselves star-stuff which somehow gained awareness, then we must at some point have transformed into life out of this 'inorganic' matter. Yet not all life contains 'mind' (or at least, we do not all think it does), so at some point we must have moved from life-without-sentience (awareness) to life-with-sentience. If I may boldly speculate, I believe this to be the result of a gradual emergence out of wilder nature through the creation of language and concepts to distinguish things. Then a sense of time which allowed reflection on the past and thinking about probabilities in the future, as well as developing an understanding of death as inevitable. The belief in spirits and perhaps even deities would be the first acts of creativity which are not so directly related to survival. The development of counting and planning would be essential to this idea of continuous identity. Slowly but surely, the world around could be divided up into more and more parts, with an understanding of how those parts interact to make up the whole. The greater this process of division and articulation, the greater the understanding of oneself an as a separate and articulated entity, yet the greater one understands the outside, the greater one can perceive the whole and understand how it continues to affect us.

III -

  

A new question is raised: If we are made of the same thing as everything else, is it possible for us to transcend our environment by making choices? Materialists can look at the world as a machine, a series of causes and effects that could all be discovered if we had greater knowledge of how the machine worked (we could in theory discover what caused what, from every perceiveable angle, and then predict the unfolding of the entire future!). Mind in this case would be awareness, and 'free will' an illusion. Yet this search for cause and effect does not have to be limited to scientific study of matter. If everything is made out of chi, then perhaps this too can be understood as an unfolding process of cause and effect.

  The point is this: Our minds must be outside of the chain of cause and effect to have freedom.

IV -

Now that we have had our brief look at this question lets get pragmatic. Why bother talking about it at all?

Why but for the reason that the mind / body distinction is of immense importance to our lives. It is not just 'empty philosophizing'.

  The culling of animals every year is encouraged by the separation of mind and body (animals do not have minds from this perspective and thus have no basis for the right to life). 

  When someone commits what we deem a crime they are tried as an individual capable of making choices, with the severity of their punishment being decided by how much they were under duress. We assume that people are always capable of rationalizing their actions.

  Intelligence is something separate from the body, it is not part of a unified process, for the body is just that place where all of our 'yucky stuff' is contained – it is low and base and disgusting where all of those horrible things such as taking a s*** happens, and where all of those immoral impulses such as sexual pleasure threaten the ones 'purity'.

  It is of massive importance to the politics of freedom, to aspiration and competitiveness, egotism and individuality. In short, it is of importance to every aspect of our lives!

By Selim 'Selim' Talat

The Philosophy Takeaway 'Mind & Body' Issue 35

A rebuttal: The False Dichotomy between the Mind and Brain. - By Elliott, E. 2012

A rebuttal: The False Dichotomy between the Mind and Brain.

This article is a rebuttal to Samuel Mack-Poole’s ‘The False Dichotomy between Mind and Brain’. It will outline and argue against two key claims in his article. Firstly that the mind is part of the brain, and secondly that thought is a physical process. I will then briefly outline what is empiricism and why empiricism can be used, not to refute mind, but to prove mind. Poole answers the question ‘what is mind’ using the following dictionary definition, “...the element, part, substance, or process that reasons, thinks, feels, wills, perceives, judges,...1.” So the mind is a thing that reasons, thinks, feels, wills, perceives, judges. Poole does not reject this definition, but says that it may be broadened. I don’t necessarily disagree here, but he doesn’t give an alternative definition so I will work with this one. He embeds mind in brain by favouring the following definition of brain. “The brain is a centre of thought, understanding, mind and intellect.”

So here, the mind is a: reasoning, thinking, feeling, willing, perceiving, judging thing and this thing is part of a material thing which is a centre of thought, understanding, mind and intellect. The first question which arises out of this picture is, how can a brain have a mind? How can a brain be the centre of mind? How does the mind orbit the brain if you will? Poole does not offer a causal account of mind and brain, but only that the brain seems to be the central substance. The phrase ‘the centre of’ here is a bit ambiguous. It is already very complicated at this stage and challenges the view that only people are thinking things.

In ‘Neuroscience and Philosophy’, Hacker and Bennett attack the field of Neuroscience by accusing Neuroscientists of being conceptually confused. It is people who think, feel, perceive and all those other things. They called these kinds of activities that people do ‘psychological predicates’ which can only be ascribed to people, for example ‘Fred is thinking about his cat’ or ‘Jay is remembering his anniversary’. It is not brains that understand, or parts of the brain, but people.

This same theme crops up in a paper on ‘The Distinction Between Mental and Physical Illness’, where Kendell argues that it is not the body that is sick, nor is it the mind that is ill, but the person. These types of critiques are based on Wittgenstein’s later works in the ‘Philosophical Investigations’ where he argues that it is the job of philosophers to see when people from different language games are importing the rules of another language game and say to them, ‘hey, you are operating outside of your language game’, or ‘you are breaking the rules of your own language game’; which is what Neuroscience is doing. Neuroscience can here be accused of stealing the language from what Poole argues, stems from a fantastical history. If Neuroscience is to be strictly scientific, that is base its conclusions on observations, than why is science still employing mind, or concepts that stem from a fantastical period? ‘Poole goes on to assert that thought, something which has brain as its centre, is a physical process. Now what is a physical process? A physical process isn’t a fixed state, but something that is comprised of parts which are causally linked through the dimension of time. This can get complicated here, but we will leave thinkers like Hume to the side at the moment. If we employ the term thought as a physical process, as Poole states is proved by science, then surely science should be able to show us thought. Well, can they? Can Science prove thought? I went ‘in my mind’s eye’ to a live operation by which the person was alive2. The clever surgeons carefully sawed through the subjects head in a semi circle and lifted up part of thesubject’s skull, like a skull cap. Underneath the blood and flesh we saw the brain, in the white light. Wow, amazing. Yet through the disgusting yellow and grey matter – where, Dr. Scientist, can you shown me this subject’s thoughts? The scientist then points to a bolt of electricity that momentarily makes the brain light up. ‘There it was- a thought’ exclaims the Scientist. But, to beg the question, is that a thought? Is a thought a flash of lightening in the brain? Ironically we may use lightening as a metaphor when we say we have been struck with an idea, but do we mean it literally? No. A bit of brain lighting up is not a thought.

Moreover, if I was to see someone’s thought, would it still be a thought, as usually what we mean by thought is something private, that only I can experience and not you. The scientist, by this qualification, could never show a thought for as soon as another observed ones thoughts it would cease to be a thought as it is no longer private, but publicly seen.

I think the definition of thought as physical process is wrong, yet a physical process may be a part of thought. I do not know if this is actually the case, but would suggest here that science does argue this – and even sometimes is as bold to give some kind of casual account which usually lands flat on its arse again. But thought is not electricity in the brain; it is not only a physical process.

The only other thing I will point out is the contradiction in his sentiments concerning empiricism. Empiricism –simply- is the doctrine which holds a number of arguments for the position that knowledge comes from experience. Now I won’t go into these arguments here as they are not important here. Poole implies in his article that if it is not in your experience or stemming from it then there is no proof. Besides from the fact that I can argue for mathematical or logical proofs as being alternative forms of proof, I will merely say that my experiences are only experienced by me, and your experiences are only experienced by you. They are idiosyncratic. Within my experience there are tables, chairs, trees and flowers, but there are also thoughts and feelings, memories and ideas. So, we do have empirical proof that thoughts and feelings exist, but these things are based on my experiences and not yours. I think Poole really wants to argue for a notion of truth called ‘endoxon’, truth is consensus. But this is naïve and depends on a correspondence theory of truth which can only be asserted and has no sufficient proof as of yet, nor will it ever. As, in order to prove a correspondence theory of truth, which quite simply states that if I can point to it, it is real, depends on us transcending our own self. We can only have our own experiences of something and cannot, as Kant argued, know something beyond the realm of sense data and the categories of the mind. I would go on, but I think I have successfully tackled two of the main problems in Pooles article. Firstly, by identifying the conceptual confusion, using Hacker and Bennett and latter Kendell, present in Poole’s article by ascribing psychological predicates to the brain. Secondly, by arguing that empirical proof is based on the account that only I can experience my experiences, and if experience is a sufficient criteria for truth then we can still have thoughts, memories and all those other things as different aspects of experience which do not have a material quality. There are a number of other confusions in the article which I have left, like the two definitions he compares and states are synonymous, are by definition not. The part is not the whole, the part in this case being mind and the whole the brain.

1. Whether other animals have mind, which is not what should be focused on here. 

2.  Let’s not for the time being argue qualifications of life as it will distract from the issue again at hand, albeit an interesting one.

By Elliott, E. 2012

The Philosophy Takeaway 'Mind & Body' Issue 35