How to Survive a Gun to the Head (Youtube video)

Real Smart Descartes

If we are to stick to Leibniz’s Law in being the deciding factor between Cartesian Dualism and JJC Smart’s ‘identity theory’, we must first understand why this law is true or not. It says that two different things cannot have the exact same properties and still be two different things. They could be entirely identical (like two cars of the same model fresh off the assembly line), however, they would not have the same spatial location. Thus, one property remains different from the two similar objects. However, if two things have different properties but are still considered to be the same thing, only under a different condition, then we must include that condition as a different property; thus two things. I believe Leibniz’s Law to be the turning point in this argument because both philosophers are attempting to support or dispute it in a way. It is also a great place to start because its logic is easy to understand.

Descartes argues that the mind is separate from the body because the two have different properties. His thinking is simple.  Since the body is divisible, and the mind is indivisible, the mind has a property that the body does not. Therefore, according to Leibniz’s Law, the mind is separate from the body.

            Smart’s case relies on proving brain processes and mental sensations are one in the same thing. The key to understanding this is the mind/body connection. If what happens to your body is so finely connected to the feelings of your surroundings, then your mind and body cannot be separate from themselves. However, according to Leibniz’s law, if we can distinguish two different things as having different properties, then they cannot be the same thing. A brain process is the nerval connection in the body that results in the actual feeling of a sensation. A mental state would be the feeling of the sensation itself like a pain in your arm or hearing a concerto. If I am able to distinguish the two in such a way, it wouldn’t seem that they would be the same thing. In other words, if his argument is that brain processes and mental sensations are the same thing, then how can anyone use the term in its own definition? A brain process is what results in a mental sensation. It is a proven fact that it takes a certain amount of time for any brain process to actually reach the brain. Smart counters by saying a young boy and the same boy, only older (The General), have different properties but are still the same person. The only thing that changes is their temporal property. So what can we consider his identity if his mind and body undergo dramatic changes throughout his lifetime?

Descartes’ argument centers on the sensation of touch. He says that the connection from the foot to the brain, with regards to the nervous system, is deceitful. One may have a pain in one’s foot but it may not be because one’s foot is actually experiencing physical stimulation. It could be from stimulation in another place along the nerval connection (say the spine) that causes one to experience a sensation somewhere else. Another way to argue this would be to take Descartes’ separation of the body example quite literally by severing a bodily appendage. Why would we have a mental sensation of an itch on an arm that doesn’t exist? But one could argue that it only proves the mind is more connected to the body because it has a conception of itself that is no longer there. I would say that if the brain were so in tune with its body, it would understand the fact that its limb is no longer there.

Smart handles his discussion primarily from the sensation of sight. Or rather one of the anomalies that comes along with sight. He begins by using color, an adjective commonly used to describe something physical, to describe something non-physical, a yellowish-orange after image. By doing this, he attempts to say that the mental sensation of seeing the after image is the same as having the brain process of seeing an actual thing. And since we cannot describe such a mental sensation other than by means of something physical, then it must be a physical thing that has physical properties.

The power of his argument, comes from his use of color and how it’s used to describe purely physical things. My objection to this is that Smart describes it as being “yellowish-orange,” but I may come to describe it as being blue, red, yellow, and orange at the same time. How is it possible for something that is physical to have all of these properties at the same time? Also, the experience of seeing the after image is not exactly like an experience of seeing something physical. After a while of staring at the after image, it will eventually disappear. It also remains visible (even more so) when I close my eyes, which is a property that no physical thing (other than the back of my eyelids) has. So if I can say that the after image has at least one property that physical things do not, then we can conclude that the after image is not the same as seeing a physical thing, even if it is a noun.

Descartes reasons that physical things have physical properties such as having a spatial location, having size, having shape, having weight, being subject to the laws of physics, and being directly observable. Mental things primarily have unphysical characteristics such as having no location, no size, no extension, no weight, they are not subject to the laws of physics and are not directly observable (although apparently everyone has a ‘tell’). He says that the mind and body are connected as a singular unit, but since the mind has a property that the body does not, it must be distinct from the body.

            The substance of Smart’s argument is much like saying you cannot have music without a particular dynamic describing the volume at which it is played. It is easy to imagine a piece of music without any dynamics written in, however, it is impossible to actually the play music without playing it at a particular level. The dynamics construct the emotions (or the feelings) of the piece while the music provides the layout for which it is played. Descartes would say that they are two different things with different properties that coincide with one another in synchronicity. The sheet of music is a physical thing that contains dynamic markings (physical markings that are related to the abstract). However, Smart would argue that you cannot have music without the dynamics. You cannot express a dynamic without playing a note that expresses it. It would be foolish to think that one could play a concerto, silently. But having now brought up this analogy, it seems I have only proven that the body cannot exist without the mind, which we know not to be true (a dead body exists and does not have a working mind). Or maybe I should rather say that a singular body can exist but we can only consider it a person if there is a working mind behind it.

            However, it would also appear that I am excluding the idea of spatial temporal identity. Smart would argue that water and ice are composed of the same thing, but the density of ice is different from that of water. Therefore, ice has a different property from water even though it is composed of the same elements. This seems to disprove Leibniz’ Law in a kind of way. Obviously the argument still holds that the spatial identity between a glass of ice and an ice cube remain different. However, the characteristic of ice is also a property of water. It freezes when under the right conditions. It is similar to Smart’s ‘General’ argument. The boy and the General are the same person with different characteristics, but only if we examine them outside of their spatial temporal locations. The ice is different from water, but if we give the ice time to melt, it will eventually become water. But still what does that say about the identity of a person over time? Well what is it that changes the General from the young boy he once was? It’s the experiences he has and the memories he maintains of himself growing as an individual through time. Water has other properties, but they will only come into being under the right circumstances.

            The point of arguing all of this is to ultimately determine whether or not the soul continues to exist after bodily death. It is a question that reaches at the core of human existence. Is there a point of living if we are nothing but physical beings that have no way of interacting with anything outside of this physical realm? According to Occam’s Razor, we should remain loyal to the hypothesis that leaves the most variables out of the final product. In which case, it would seem that Smart’s hypothesis is the simplest because it doesn’t require further questioning outside of our realm of knowledge. However, Smart’s theory does appear to violate Leibniz’ Law.

            For the question of immortality, I would say that it depends on what degree of immortality we are addressing. Escaping bodily death would seem impossible according to the laws of thermodynamics (entropy). However, if we would like to appease to the fans of Occam’s Razor, then we cannot assume anything that we cannot possibly know to be true. That being said, there are some people who have escaped death. So long as the human race continues as it should, their stories will continue to live on through books, music, folk tales, movies, etc. Achilles may not be around anymore, but we still know the story of his battle against Troy and his quest to be remembered.

            Essentially, what I am trying to say is that I believe everyone has two identities. However, I’m not exactly siding with the Cartesian Dualist. I’m rather siding with Occam’s Razor. For now, it is no longer a question of the soul after death or whether God exists. As far as we know, living human beings are the only things that are capable of raising the questions of identity, the soul, and life after death. Even if our souls did continue to exist after death, it would only be the souls of the living that will persist to care about you and vice versa. Your living identity (bodily identity) is how you’re perceived by the world around you. Your lasting identity (post-mortem) is measured by the impact you made on the world while you were still alive. Is it possible that one could exist and not be perceived at all? Yes. Is it also possible that one could live their whole lives without having an impact? Of course. But it would also seem possible that these people wouldn’t have an identity as far as we’re concerned. If a tree falls in the woods, but nothing is around to hear it, does it still make a sound? My answer is no. Your identity is dependant on you.

Parallax Error

have you noticed that everything you see and hear is something that already happened earlier

the light you see from a star in space takes about five seconds to reach earth

the radio you hear takes at least .2 seconds to reach your area

you will see the smoke from a gun before you hear it being shot

you will see the flash of lightning long before you hear its boom

long distance interviews on the news are sometimes slower than a normal conversation  

think about this

the human reaction time is from about .1 seconds to .2 seconds

in high pressure situations sometimes adrenaline will aid in speeding this up but for the most part the average stays around .1 to .2

that means that when a deer jumps in front of your car at night, your brain processes this information in .2 seconds

nature is designed so that we see everything in a delayed manner

its almost as if its in our nature to be relaxed to the environment around us

humans are supposed to be relaxed people

so why is it that we insist on being so uptight so often

the universe doesn’t want us to walk around with sticks up our butts always being angry at our neighbors

breath out for once

live slowly in every moment

because you never know when a deer will jump in front of your car

Cafe

            I walk up the stairs and look to my right. Every morning she’s there, smoking a cigarette and looking at her phone. Occasionally, I offer to pay her for one, but she always gives them to me for free. Usually, I wouldn’t ever go out of my way to repay someone in cigarettes, but I liked seeing her there every morning. She reminded me that we are all creatures of habit, looking for a familiar tick in ourselves that we can convince ourselves of our own individualism. I could see myself approaching her awkwardly, however, the constant companion of her cell phone either meant that she’s a very popular girl, or that she has a boyfriend. Regardless, I hand her a cigarette, smile, and continue on with my own daily routine.

            I walk into the café, holding the door for an older gentleman in his forties. The air smells of hot paninis and ground coffee. One of the coffee girls yells a name on the side, holding a sandwich and an ice coffee. There’s no answer. For a minute, I’d like to tell her that my name is Michelle and she’s holding my order, but she already knows my name. It was one of the things I enjoyed about coming to the café before class. Everyone who worked there knew almost everyone by name. Sometimes, the woman at the counter would write out my entire order before I’d finish telling it to her: an iced 20 ounce caramel macchiato with soy and a tomato, mozzarella, and pesto sandwich. It was a sandwich of nostalgia that would always bring me back to a better time in my life when I lived with my best friend and worked at the Riviera Café in New York. The coffee was just to wake me up in time for my Screenwriting class.

            I sit down at the table across from the register, pretending to read the economic section of a USA Today that isn’t mine. While I skim past the headlines, I can hear the coffee ladies gossiping about which girls’ hair they wish they had. A group of sorority girls are huddled around a table behind me. Usually I would assume they were just a large group of friends, but at Lycoming College, the chances of it being a group of mindless sorority sisters was much higher. Together, they were an impenetrable team of women, bound by the illusion of ‘sisterhood’. Individually, they were just girls, looking to be a part of something. Looking to fit in with a particular crowd so that attending the right party would be a matter of obligatory importance. It made me wonder if almost all human activity could be synthesized down to a particular set of primal needs. Regardless, the economic crisis was beginning to bore me and the loud cackle of the sorority girls made it impossible to read anything anyways.

            I look at my watch. It’s almost 1 o’clock. I dig out my laptop from my bag and pull up all the normal sites. Nothing’s changed since I last checked five minutes ago, so I pretend to look at the screen while the people around me become my entertainment. Without any sort of context as to what people are talking about, I’m left playing a kind of ad-lib game with the pieces I get from their conversations. From across the room, I can spot Richard; a kid from my high school who’s perspective of reality seemed a bit askew at times. I recognized him from the hoodie he always used to wear everyday. There was something different about the group of friends at his table. None of them were talking to each other. At least not more than two words at a time. Every single one of them had their faces buried in a gameboy. And it wasn’t like all of them were on the same level as Rich either. One of them seemed like a normal jock that you’d often find everywhere on campus. And Richard was the leader of the group! I was there, sitting alone, and the kid, who used to be smelly to sit next to, had a group of his own friends that he could meet up and play gameboy with. It was weird how things had changed since high school.

            A girl shouts my name, but is already looking directly at me. I look at her for a second, wondering if she really expects me to raise my hand. For a split second, I feel like she has just introduced me to the entire café. Hi, my name’s Chris and I like coffee and sandwiches. I also enjoy sitting by myself and observing other people while they eat in front of me. She hands me my order and smiles. I get up to grab the straw that she always seems to forget. As if I’m supposed to drink an iced coffee by hand.

            

Revelations

1. i cant imagine why the caged bird sings

2. irrational censorship isnt protecting anyone, its called the game of life. no one should be losing

3. the clothes you own can write a speech about you

4. the things you say can sometimes be fixed and forgotten
the things you do are carved in stone

5. poker faces can also be misleading

6. in a week, wat hurts you will make you laugh

7. people tend to become the people they hang out with

8. you never realize how much you really use your pinky until you get a paper cut

9. all you need is love. nothing else

10. Everyone in the world has the power to change someone's life. get started.

11. Love isnt a feeling, its an ability (from dan in real life)

12. As long as you're honest from the beginning, people can't be mad at you for what they already know.

The Dilemma of Identity

Locke’s example of the prince and the cobbler raises a few important questions about the nature of our identities and the circumstances of our own consciousness in regards to our physical body. To everyone but the cobbler, he perceives himself to be the same prince but in a different body. In a way, his spirit is what carries his memories and personal identity, not the physical brain that he were to inherit from the cobbler. But that was one thing that I felt was the most overlooked by Locke and Reid. Our memories. If our memories are the things that hold our physical beings in the moment and hold us accountable for our actions, then why do we still ponder the existence of the soul? If our memories are held by a purely physical thing, the brain, then would it be safe to say our identity is located somewhere in the brain? Or without our brain, we are nobody? There’s something strange about Reid’s example of the general. He asks how a man could and could not be the same person if he has no memory (Reid uses the word consciousness) of his past. In a sense, Reid is asking if our memory is connected to our personal identity and what happens to a man if he were to suddenly lose his memories?  Does he then lose his identity? In a sense he loses everything that attaches him to his particular time of existence. However, he still maintains consciousness and his ability to communicate thoughts. A dog certainly holds the memory of its owner when he comes home, so what distinguishes a pet from human existence? Would it be wrong to assume that a person’s identity is a combination of their memory, consciousness, and their ability to communicate thoughts in an effective manner? Or does it have to be one of the three?

Get Smarter

In J.J.C Smart’s “Sensations and Brain Processes,” he explains that there’s no difference between mental states and brain processes in terms of what we experience. Neither have non-physical properties, only physical ones. However, they aren’t necessarily the same thing. A brain process might be what happens in the body that results in the actual feeling of a sensation. A mental state would be the sensation itself like a pain in your arm or hearing a concerto. The difference lies in the scientific connection within the body that might explain our anatomy like a kind of mechanical instrument. Something physical happens to the body, which causes the nervous system to bring about a mental sensation. It’s difficult to describe such a feeling, however, making them harder to classify. This is where I became lost. Smart wants to say that since we cannot exactly say what these feelings are, they can’t be non-physical properties. Since they have properties that appear to be similar to physical properties, Smart concludes that these sensations must be purely physical. I suppose that the amount of time it takes for you to have a brain process and then a mental sensation is so small that they are essentially the same things for all intents and purposes. The after image example he brings up is interesting because it is one of the very few sensations that we can actually witness for ourselves and describe it in terms of color, something we use to describe physical things all the time. However, that doesn’t necessarily mean those after images are real physical things, it only means the sensation we are having at the time is real.