Privileged access and epistemic transparency are very interesting ideas. They deal with the idea of individual truths. These truths focus mainly on things that can be true to you, but false to others and can encompass things that may momentarily appear true, yet are generally false. The question philosophers have focused on is as follows: How can something as solid as a “truth” vary from person to person, and mind to mind? The general idea behind this topic is, as discussed in class, that some mental states belong to an individual because only that individual can access them. One can hypothesize others mental states based on how they act, however one can not really know the true state of mind.
According to Descartes we have direct access to our experiences, thoughts and emotional states. This results in a transparent mind. Transparency is the idea that if you believe something, then it is true. For Descartes, this was a no brainer, a completely obvious point. It seems logical that one’s own mental states are transparent to one because they are conscious of them. This follows his Cogito argument, where one can be certain of their existence because they are thinking. We can have knowledge of our self existence only as far as being a thinking thing, carrying out mental acts such as judging, wondering and being afraid. To Descartes, the transparency of mental events, such as the Cogito argument, form the basic principles upon which all human knowledge can be based, and go hand in hand as fundamental ideas.
While Descartes believes this to be incredibly fundamental to human knowledge, there have been several critiques of this over the years. One example that goes against mental transparency is Freud’s idea of the unconscious min...
... middle of paper ...
...ner sense module, that relies on self-interpretation and privileged access.
Many theories exist arguing for and against the inner sense. Evolutionary considerations often favor the inner sense as understanding the self is necessary for monitoring and control. Behaviorism on the other hand suggests that the inner sense does not exist, along with privileged access, as the only mental states are those that are dispositions to behave.
Although the question regarding the existence of the inner sense remains, it is clear that the transparent epistemic rule allows for an individual to further understand their mental state, therefore supporting the idea of privileged access. Assuming that one is conscious of their state of mind, the logical rules allow inductive and deductive inferences to be made and can therefore help an individual determine what is true and not.
This idea begins the philosopher’s ongoing discussion on the body and the mind. The first thing he must do is prove he exists beyond a doubt. Descartes declares, “If I convinced myself of something then I certainly existed” (4). This idea rests on the ability of his mind, if he did not actually exist, he would not be have any sort of mental activity. From this early point in the text, Descartes foregrounds the superiority of the mind. As Blackburn puts it, “he is forced to recognize that his knowledge of his self is not based on knowledge of his embodied existence” (20). For Descartes, the ability the think defines the self (the mind/soul)– he cites thought as the one thing that cannot be separated from him. He believes if he stopped thinking he would stop existing. His ability to think sustains him, at this point in his meditations he is only a mind, his mental existence is the only thing he has
Descartes major concern is what we can know to be actually real. This concern starts from a dream he has, in his dream he thinks he is actually awake, so when Descartes does wake up he begins to question reality. On page 75 and 76 he says “ But I had the persuasion that there was absolutely nothing in the world, that there was no sky and no earth, neither minds nor bodies; I was not, therefore, at the same time, persuaded that I did not exists? To solve this he tosses out all emotions and reasons to try to figure out what actually exists. He starts himself on this hyperbolic doubt, increasing levels of doubt, meaning he continues to doubt himself until what he is left with is Cogito Ergo Sum. . Cogito Ergo Sum is being aware of disembodied thinking. He uses this as proof of his existence, because having thought, whether wrong or right, is proof that one does exist.
Descartes claims that intellect as thinking being extended as to the Aristotelian claiming intellect as a thought. He claims that there must be a conception of what the thing that thinks underlies the Cogito inference in which registers these sufficient grounds. He establishes this argument by suggesting that it must exclude anything that requires the existence of anybody from the essential properties of the ‘they’ that thinks. Therefore claiming that mind is an extended thinking thing and the body being a non-extended thinking thing. He established these claims by first questioning everything he sees and doubting of everything that he sees is false and that his deceitful memory represents ever existed. Also excluding the senses and questioning
In constructing his argument for God's existence, Descartes analyzes several aspects of the nature of human thought. He begins by outlining the various types of thoughts we have, which include ideas, thoughts, volitions and judgments. Ideas, or images of ideas can only exist within the mind and are certain of existence. Volitions, or choices are firmly within the mind and are also certain. Emotions, such as love, fear, hate, all exist in the mind and are certain as well. Judgments involve reference to effects outside the mind and are subject to doubt. Therefore, judgments are not certain and distinct. Descartes believes that images, volitions, and emotions are never false but it is our judg...
Abercrombie states that the human brain plays an active role in shaping the information presented to us, based on one’s past experiences. Kahneman claims that the human mind uses two systems of thinking, System 1 and System 2, where System 2 is more active and effortful than System 1. I attempt to illustrate how Abercrombie and Kahneman's ideal concepts of the perception of reality are applicable to real situations, by referring to the following three readings: Jung’s “The Personal and the Collective Unconscious,” Plato’s “Allegory of the Cave,” and Andersen’s “The Emperor’s New Clothes.” The three readings relate to Abercrombie and Kahneman, considering the overlapping concepts of reality, that words and metaphors structure our understanding of what is real, reality can be altered from different perspectives, and that ignorance can actually be bliss.
The teaching of Descartes has influenced many minds since his writings. Descartes' belief that clear and distinct perceptions come from the intellect and not the senses was critical to his ultimate goal in Meditations on First Philosophy, for now he has successfully created a foundation of true and certain facts on which to base a sold, scientific belief structure. He has proven himself to exist in some form, to think and therefore feel, and explains how he knows objects or concepts to be real.
Descartes affirms that he is certain that he is a thinking thing. His reasoning, however, seems to be a circular argument. Descartes knows he is a thinking thing because “in this first instance of knowledge, there is nothing but a certain clear and distinct perception of what I affirm” (Descartes, 24). He concludes, “everything I very clearly and distinctly perceive is true” (Descartes, 24). Descartes could only know that what he clearly and distinctly perceives is true if he can be certain he is a thinking thing. Throughout this proof, Descartes is trying to use God’s existence as a way of affirming that which he clearly and distinctly perceives. However, he is also trying to prove God’s existence by claiming that the idea of God is a clear and distinct perception. Without inquiring into the existence of God, “it appears I am never capable of being completely ...
The most important of these is the agency, or control, of the subject over its own mind. While it may be evident that, of course, one has control over what one thinks about, in reality, there are many cases in which thoughts arise unbidden, or a memory suddenly appears, fresh as day. A good example of this may, in fact, be dreaming. Dreaming is a case in which our psychic apparatus controls the dream, and yet, what we perceive as ‘ourselves’ in the dream does not actually have agency over the content or progression of the dream itself, nor privileged information about what events will emerge. If, according to Descartes’ method, we are to get rid of any faculty that has been shown to be not totally reliable, then we are to get rid of the faculty of agency, which of course would undermine the method of doubt, that assumes the faculty of agency precisely in order to doubt. This is one reason to render doubtful the validity of Descartes’ method, however, it is not enough to salvage external world
Descartes makes a careful examination of what is involved in the recognition of a specific physical object, like a piece of wax. By first describing the wax in a manner such that “everything is present in the wax that appears needed to enable a body to be known as distinctly as possible” (67), he shows how easily our senses help to conceive our perception of the body. But even if such attributes are modified or removed, we still recognize the changed form, as the same piece of wax. This validates Descartes’ claim that “wax itself never really is the sweetness of the honey, nor the fragrance of the flowers, nor the whiteness, nor the shape, nor the sound” (67), and the only certain knowledge we gain of the wax is that “it is something extended, flexible, and mutable” (67). This conclusion forces us to realize that it is difficult to understand the true nature of the wax, and its identity is indistinguishable from other things that have the same qualities as the wax. After confirming the nature of a human mind is “a thinking thing” (65), Descartes continues that the nature of human mind is better known than the nature of the body.
Are minds physical things, or are they nonmaterial? If your beliefs and desires are caused by physical events outside of yourself, how can it be true that you act the way you do of your own free will? Are people genuinely moved by the welfare of others, or is all behavior, in reality, selfish? (Sober 203). These are questions relevant to philosophy of the mind and discussed through a variety of arguments. Two of the most important arguments with this discussion are Cartesian dualism and logical behaviorism, both of which argue the philosophy of the mind in two completely different ways. Robert Lane, a professor at the University of West Georgia, define the two as follows: Cartesian dualism is the theory that the mind and body are two totally different things, capable of existing separately, and logical behaviorism is the theory that our talk about beliefs, desires, and pains is not talk about ghostly or physical inner episodes, but instead about actual and potential patterns of behavior. Understanding of the two arguments is essential to interpret the decision making process; although dualism and behaviorism are prominent arguments for the philosophy of the mind, both have their strengths and weaknesses.
Unlike one of empiricism’s major tenets, Tabula Rasa, or blank slate, Descartes believed that the mind was not a blank slate, but actually came pre-loaded, if you will, with ideas, which are part of our rational nature and that our rational nature allows us to grasp . Descartes begins his journey deep within his own mind by claiming that all truths can be conceived by thinking about them. He calls his method cogito or pure reasoning. His famous words “I think, therefore I am,” describes the way that he thinks the mind is the true reality with the rest of reality being an extension. His example to prove thi...
Descartes was incorrect and made mistakes in his philosophical analysis concerning understanding the Soul and the foundation of knowledge. Yes, he coined the famous phrase, “I think therefore I am,” but the rest of his philosophical conclusions fail to be as solid (Meditation 4; 32). Descartes knew that if he has a mind and is thinking thoughts then he must be something that has the ability to think. While he did prove that he is a thinking thing that thinks (Meditation 3; 28), he was unable to formulate correct and true philosophical arguments and claims. For instance, his argument for faith that a non-deceiving God exists and allows us to clearly reason and perceive was a circular argument. Another issue with Descartes' philosophy is that he wanted to reconcile scientific and religious views, which is wrong since the two maintain completely different foundational beliefs and they should exist exclusively- without relation to the other. Thirdly, he believed that the mind was the Self and the Soul, failing to recognize that humans have bodies and the outside world exists, and through which we gain our knowledgeable. Lastly, Descartes argues that ideas are all innate while they actually are not- we gain knowledge through experience.
In his Meditations on First Philosophy, Descartes states “I have a clear and distinct idea of myself, in as far as I am only a thinking and unextended thing, and as, on the other hand, I possess a distinct idea of body, in as far as it is only an extended and unthinking thing”. [1] The concept that the mind is an intangible, thinking entity while the body is a tangible entity not capable of thought is known as Cartesian Dualism. The purpose of this essay is to examine how Descartes tries to prove that the mind or soul is, in its essential nature, entirely distinct from the
Sigmund Freud's model of the mind can be likened to an iceberg, where the tip is visible above the water and the rest is hidden below the water unseen. The visible part is likened to our conscious mind from where we have our sensa...
...have struggled with the nature of human beings, especially with the concept of “self”. What Plato called “soul, Descartes named the “mind”, while Hume used the term “self”. This self, often visible during hardships, is what one can be certain of, whose existence is undoubtable. Descartes’s “I think, therefore I am” concept of transcendental self with just the conscious mind is too simplistic to capture the whole of one’s self. Similarly, the empirical self’s idea of brain in charge of one’s self also shows a narrow perspective. Hume’s bundle theory seeks to provide the distinction by claiming that a self is merely a habitual way of discussing certain perceptions. Although the idea of self is well established, philosophical insight still sees that there is no clear presentation of essential self and thus fails to prove that the true, essential self really exists.