[Wittrs] Re: When is "brain talk" really dualism?
- From: "Stuart W. Mirsky" <SWMirsky@xxxxxxx>
- To: Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 02:10:49 -0000
--- In Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Glen Sizemore <gmsizemore2@...> wrote:
>
> Say one has a text that says things like "the mind sees," or "the mind
> understands" or "the mind makes decisions" etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. Now, one
> simply substitutes the word "brain" for "mind." Is one thereby NOT a dualist?
> There are, of course, two related problems here: the first is that it is
> nonsense to say that the mind does things that a person is said to do; this
> is language taking a holiday. The second problem is that there is the
> implication that the "mind doing things" is somehow an explanation of people
> doing things. There are those here that really want to say that "mental
> states" are the cause of behavior; mental "possessions like "intentions" are
> the cause of the behavior that we label "intentional." These are the same
> sorts of people that want to say that Wittgenstein is an "operationalist."
> That is, his focus on actual behavioral episodes is really saying that the
> observable behavior is an "indication" of the "real" issue, which is the
> mental intention. When Wittgenstein says that "meaning is use," he does not
> mean that use is an "indication" of some mental possession called "meaning"
> that is somehow the cause of the utterance. Wittgenstein is often quite clear
> about the cause of an utterance; in several places he actually uses the term
> "training." Our social training (of course a Skinnerian view would go farther
> and say exactly what is meant by "training" - in this sense behaviorism
> extends Wittgenstein)) is the cause of utterances. He is not saying that
> training "deposits" meanings in our mind or our brain and this "deposit" is
> then the "real cause" of our utterances. Yet, this is exactly the implication
> of what has been suggested by some members of this group. It does not matter
> that they turn around and say "that is not what I am really saying." Ask
> yourself this: "Does the brain cause behavior?" If you answer "yes," then you
> are a mentalist, and a dualist. It is TRAINING that
> causes behavior. The brain somehow mediates this function, and it does so in
> largely unknown ways.
>
Do we have a mental life or not? By "mental life" I mean mental images,
thoughts, memories, beliefs, sensations, etc. When we sleep do we dream? When
we're awake can we daydream? When we're not paying attention to our immediate
surroundings but lost in thought, are there mental things going on? When we
meditate do we run the risk of being lost in our own thoughts? Do we have minds
or is the word "mind" a misnomer, a non-starter or simply another word for
"brain"? (I'll leave the discussion of what dualism is to a later stage
assuming we reach it.) Thanks. -- SWM
Other related posts:
