WEEK 4: MINDS; Descartes's Sixth Meditation and Clark and Chalmers's "Extended Mind"

[Mateo Duque]

Class,

I know some of you like to work ahead. If you want to post beforehand that is okay. I will be posting some helpful comments and questions later after we discuss Descartes, WEEK 3.

[Juliet Harper]

02/16/13

          Hi,

     He started talking about imagination and the pure understanding, and who it is different from each other. He is saying that imagination is an application that we have no control over while pure understanding we have control over. Imagination is our mental effect. 

    * Corporeal natural is shown with existence of memory, implying  that if senses have anything to do with what he imagine.

3 steps into fining out about perceive and imagine are

        * Sensation ( external) which is uncontrollable and he realize that he could of used these senses before reason ( natural taught him so).

        * Judgement ( external) that not even what nature had taught him is reliable.

        * God clarified his taught ( mind is distinct from a body, meaning that the mind can think while the body cannot function without its mind.

              I  agree with him here because when someone is in a coma and is brain died the body is just laying there waiting for a response form the mind.

So the mind and the body is a combination. 

            * Sensory idea is produce without his will, but God didn't give him all the ability to distinguish between mind and body but to understand the concept of the body. God has given him the ability to correct the wrong.

Differences of the mind and body - :

       There is only one mind that understands and perceives.

        While the body has many parts which can do without one limb ( eg.  amputation).

 Thought God give us the sensation of natural sense we are often deceptive from time to time because of the communication from the brain to the mind.

2 points that can help us are - Help from other sensation.

                 and or memory.

So in the end God do not deceiver us but because we are so busy we forgive to uses our nature sensation that he had given to all human. 

  Misusing the order of natural which is beneficial to mind and body.

[joyash22]

The extended mind spoke to me. I am Otto, a lot of my information is external. I am dependent on my cell phone for a great deal of information. Since I became dependent on it I don't remember any ones phone number, my to do lists are on it as are birthdays and appointments. I don't rely on my memory much. So my phone s part of my belief system.It is a constant in my life, it is available at all times and the information is current and correct. The information therefore is an external belief. 

[Elvira Toporova]

The last part of the Meditation  Descartes’ discussion of the interaction of mind and body.  A major criticism of Descartes’ dualism is that he does not offer a satisfactory account of how the unextended mind can influence the extended body and vice versa.  A second criticism is that he does not make it clear where the mind is to be found – he says at one point that it is restricted to a small part of the brain, and at another that it is ‘sort of intermingled’ with the whole body.By the power of God, anything that can be clearly and distinctly conceived of as existing separately from something else can be created as existing separately.   However, Descartes claims that the mind and body have been created separated without good reason.   This point is not shown clearly, and further, although I can conceive of my own mind existing independently of my body, it does not necessarily exist as so.  

[rebecca.s]

"There is a great difference between the mind and the

body. Every body is by its nature divisible, but the mind

can’t be divided."

This is one of Descartes more solid, in my opinion, explanation for his belief of the distinction between mind and body. We understand, through Cartesian rationale, that everything can be divided into separate and distinct pieces almost infinitely. A finger can be separated from a hand, and then broken down into individual organs: skin, muscle, bone, etc...which can then be broken down to cell, the individual organs in cells, all the way to their molecular makeup, their atoms, and the atoms' components (fifty years ago, nobody knew that protons and neutrons were distinct objects. Thus it is entirely logical to assume science will discover the makeup of a proton one day). However, despite its attachment to a physical body, the mind cannot seem to be divided in this manner. As Descartes describes, even when a part of our physical bodies is lost, the mind remains whole. These are properties gained not from observation through physical senses, but through application of rationale within a mind. Therefor, the properties are true and serve to fundamentally differentiate mind from body, making them two distinct things.

I am curious though to understand if there is a flaw in this logic. I find it very difficult to imagine a mind without a body; without any senses whatsoever. In every possibility, there is a color or a sensation of some sort attached to my mind in my imagination. I wonder, in this case, that if a sense was physically removed if maybe some part of the mind would go with it. It would more or less be impossible to test, since it would be very difficult to sense with out minds if part of it was missing. The senses are how our mind understands the world, and, although Descartes would likely disagree with me, perhaps itself as well. What would happen if one of them was removed?

[Soon M. Seo]

Soon M. Seo_Rene Descartes_Sixth Meditation+Andy Clark and David J. Chalmers
“There is a great difference between the mind and the body. Every body is by its nature divisible, but the mind can’t be divided”(Descartes 33)
“And if the view is taken seriously, certain forms of social activity might be re-conceived, as less akin to communication and action, and as more akin to thought. In any case, once the hegemony of skin and skull is usurped, we may be able to see ourselves more truly as creatu res of the world”(Clark, Chalmers 39)

I don’t think so. Well, I just don’t think if we can recognize ourselves better without flesh but mind because I will never know unless I can throw my body out. Also, I don’t know if other creatures see themselves clearly. Have I ever seen my mind? No. Will I ever know if my mind can be divided? No. I may. Is my mind and my body belong to me or God or us? Is my mind isolated or connected? Do we communicate each other when we talk? Do we never feel each other when we are separated? Does my brain or mind or both think?
I think unifying or synchronizing multiple minds almost or just equals the existence or force of God. Mind and thoughts have power. It moves this world forward. Now, what is mind, body, and God? What is I and you? Is this all about body and mind? Or the universe? Is mind only thing we can’t divide?

[joyash22]

In Descartes 6th meditation Descartes is grappling with the existence of material things. If it exists in his imagination does it exist? He states if he can perceive it clearly then gd must have created it and it therefore must exist because gd wouldn't deceive.
Descartes make a distinction between mind and body. Can the mind exist without the body since it is a separate entity? He concludes they are mutually exclusive but the mind needs the body to function.

[Mateo Duque]

Class,

This week we are examining the concept of 'mind.' I want to finish setting out what Descartes's concept of the mind, or soul is. Also, I want to examine Clark and Chalmer's idea of the "extended mind." I want to ask some simple questions: what is the mind for Descartes? What does he distinguish it from? In the Second Meditation Descartes wants to divide the world up into two substances: mind and bodies. In the Sixth Meditation, now that he has distinguished between them, he needs to find a way of seeing how they are connected. How does he do this? Is he successful? Some people when they say "mind" think it's only what goes on in our heads. That we only think we our brains. Clark and Chalmers are arguing that our concept of "mind" should be extended. It should incorporate those things (tools, people, etc.) that we use to think with. So for example, your computer or iPhone becomes an integral part of how we think. I'll talk more about it in class, but can you think of any objections to this view? 

[Ellie]

1)      “It is certain that I am distinct from my body and can exist without it.” (Page 30 of Descartes meditations)

 

Why does the distinction between the fact that “my” body and “I” are two separate entities make certain that I can exist without the body? what is even meant by “exist”? Does exist mean that I just “am”, or that I am living? How do you know that we really can actually exist without the physical body?

If death is (making an assumption here…) the decomposition and destruction of the actual physical body, wouldn't existing without ones body mean that one can live after death? Is Descartes hinting here to belief in an afterlife for ones mind/soul? Because if one is distinct from their body, then after their bodies death, “they” still exist.

 

If this is what Descartes is saying, then it seems like it’s a contradiction to the idea of the extended mind by Clark and Chalmers. Because if the mind does exist without the body which is the physical, then how can the mind exist beyond the physical if there is a part of the cognitive mind that is reliant on extensions that are likely physical in nature? Can the soul/mind of a deceased body still think with the physical extensions if it is no longer contained within a physical itself? Like in the example of Otto’s notebook being an integral part of his cognitive mind. Once Ottos body is no longer living, and if (according to Descartes) there is an afterlife for his mind, does it mean he only partially exists (after death) if he can no longer use the notebook? How does one determine what part of this extended cognitive mind is distinctive from the body? Or is it just not really distinctive?

 

2)      “if ideas….God would be a deceiver; and he is not. So bodies exist.” (Page 31 of Descartes  meditations)

 

Why is it such a given that god is not a deceiver. “God” is what people use to express thought or belief in a higher power. Just because there is something that is more powerful then you, that doesn't mean that it is automatically “good”.

Like parents. Essentially people would like to believe all parents are good to their children. If God is supposedly some kind of parent type figure, then I assume people want to believe that it  is good as well. But who says it is? Just like regardless of all those who wish to believe all parents are good, the fact remains that there are some who actually abuse their children and are not “good”. Maybe this “god” is like that as well? Why can’t people entertain the possibility that maybe (if) there is a higher power that (it) isn't all good. Maybe this higher power is actually deceiving us. If so, then the existence of a god is not good enough of a proof for the existence of bodies, because the bodies can actually be a deception from the higher power godlike type creator/ruler…

 

(^^^ My apologies if anyone takes offense to this, it is definitely not my intentions...I’m just curious as to why people assume god=good) 

[Kateryna Panasyuk]

In the last, 6th Meditation Descartes confused me with the idea of separation of mind and body. I think it is insane to imagine this.

Also I can not believe Descartes in last Meditation because of use of terms "soul" and "God". Who proved that any of those things existing? And how mathematician can use unproved, unexplained things to prove something? It is probably because of the time-frame he lived. I am clearly disappointed and confused by the last Meditation.

[ivandavenny]

The ideas presented in these two readings are very very different; Descartes continues his argument that the mind is a thing separate from body and nature and Clark and Chalmers contend that the mind extends outside the body and into the environment.

The thing I find most frustrating about Descartes's argument is when he brings up God: "if things were to be transmitted from another source other than corporeal things God would be a deceiver; and he is not" (p 31).  That seems like a mighty big leap to me.  Ironically, Descartes uses an external force to prove his supposedly entirely internal existence.  I know that earlier he states that he finds it more likely that there is a God than that there is not a God.  Okay, but to characterize God in such a way without providing more samples seems like he's skipping steps.  Why is it God's nature that moves us out of the fire?  Another thing that frustrates me is his idea that the mind cannot be broken down.  "Every body is by its nature divisible, but the mind cant be divided"(p 33).  He discards imagination and parts of the mind that derive from the senses, fine, but earlier, in the first meditation, he argues with himself!  He splits his mind into two personalities which then have a discussion.  

The "Extended Mind" piece also asks where the mind ends and the external world begins.  However, Clark and Chalmers argue that internal thought should not be separated from the outside world, and that our interactions with the manipulable external environments are in fact part of the thought process.  This would mean that not only are our bodies more closely tied to our minds, but different bodies can become part of our thoughts as well.  However, these bodies are dependent on human interaction to become part of our thought process.  For example, the word "tree" means nothing unless there is a human mind interacting with it.  The external world needs the context of the human mind in order for it to be perceived; if a person cannot interact with the world around him, he still exists and can still think (albeit probably differently), but without any person to provide context, the word 'tree' becomes simply a group of markings.

[sremac.sara]

Descartes addresses the differences between imagination and understanding, arguing that understanding is essential to his being, but understanding is nonessential and results from the (possible) existence of his body, 

"Being able to imagine isn’t essential to me, as being able to understand is; for even if I had no power of imagination I would still be the same individual that I am."

However, if a chicken can exist for a little while after having its head chopped off, then it must not be thinking, only moving. If this is so, then it puts into question Descarte's idea that the mind can exist without the body, and maybe rather the body can exist without the mind. 

It seems then that the mind could be divided into two parts, and perhaps imagination belongs with the idea introduced by Clark and Chalmer's theory of the "extended mind", as understanding may be closest to the essence of one's being, and imagination might be an extension, as it is less literal. If you were to combine the two readings, there may be your mind, extended mind, and body, with the extended mind bridging the gap between the two others. 

I agree with Clark and Chalmer's idea of the extended mind, as I think that any external thing that your mind interacts with through thought, whether it is a person or a book or the wind, inevitably forms and influences thoughts, so while I do not believe those things are in your mind, I think they are part of your mind/existence if existence is thought and thought interacts with these external things. With the Otto example, the notebook is not in his mind, but it is returning his thoughts to his former, lucid ones, and thus it is part of his continued existence and thus his mind. However one thing I would argue, is that these other objects could be manipulated by others. For example, Otto's notebook could have been tampered with by another person, giving him the wrong information. This would change his thoughts and his existence, so external beings must be a part of our existence as well and have power over our thoughts. This goes against Descartes strong dismissal of other bodies and their associated minds and their relevance to his body or mind, this idea is touched on by Clark and Chalmers, 

" If a chicken can exist for a little while after having its head chopped off, then it must not be thinking, only moving. If this is so, then it puts into question Descarte's idea that the mind can exist without the body, and maybe rather the body can exist without the mind. 

"...we can even construct the case of Twin Otto, who is just like Otto except that a while ago he mistakenly wrote in his notebook that the Museum of Modern Art was on 51st Street. Today, Twin Otto is a physical duplicate of Otto from the skin in, but his notebook differs. Conse- quently, Twin Otto is best characterized as believing that the museum is on 51st Street, where Otto believes it is on 53rd. In these cases, a belief is simply not in the head." 

[AYGUL KULA]

The Extended Mind by Andy Clark and David J. Chalmers

In this reading Clark and Chalmers are analyzing the mind, memory, belief, environment and external objects in cognitive processes. They think that external objects are helpful and playing important role especially for people who don’t have biological memory like Otto. Otto has Alzheimer Disease. Otto’s notebook plays important role in his life because he has no biological memory.  “For Otto, his notebook plays the role usually played by biological memory.”  He writes everything in that notebook and when he needs the information he relies on his notebook. People who have biological memory like Inga, the information are just in their memory, and when they need them they just have to recall it.  As writers say “In both cases the information is reliably there when needed, available to consciousness and available to guide action, in just the way that expect a belief to be.”  But Inga’s memory is safer and more useful than Otto’s notebook.

[elena.pronoza]

"Sixth Meditation" by Rene Descartes

In his sixth meditation Descartes talks about existence of material things, to be exact about a body. Our imagination suggests that body exists. But can we trust it? He explains that imagination really differs from pure understanding. Sensory perception of colors, sounds, tastes, pain and so on helps us to imagine but it doesn't prove the fact of body existence. God distinguishes my body from my mind. "So my mind is distinct from my body." But as I am “a thinking thing” and that is essential, body just closely joined to me. Descartes tells that we are “capable of special types of thinking: imagination and sensory perception”. Sensory ideas theoretically can be produced by other substances; it could be a body or God. Later author goes to the idea that God is not a deceiver and "nature teaches us something" using a sensory perceptions as a guide. But because of the weakness of human nature errors sometimes could occur. Idea of division and independence of mind from the body seems to me really possible. Maybe body is just something that we have as a necessary cover for our essence, something that helps us to walk, to do things, to exist for other people.

 

"The Extended mind" by Andy Clark and David Chalmers

Clark and Chalmes discuss an idea of active externalism explaining that environment is playing an active role in cognitive process. Authors think that human organism, in case he is linked with external entity, creates a special coupled system that can be called a cognitive system. Clark and Chalmes think that this coupling can greatly help us in the future; we “may be able to plug various modules into brain”. This idea from the first look seems really outstanding but I don’t really believe in that possibility. Outside modules can keep some sort of information but talking about these “helpers” as about “coupling” is too much. How come an Otto’s notebook can be considered as a part of his mind? How we can talk about this as about coupling? It is the same as discuss robots to be the mates.

[AYGUL KULA]

Sixth Meditation by Rene Descartes

I think Sixth Meditation was easier to read and understand than First and Second Meditation. One of the subjects that Descartes talks in this reading is imagination and understanding. He says “Being able to imagine isn’t essential to me, as being able to understand is;” He explains when the mind understands, creates and idea, but when imagines looking out in the body and senses for confirmation of an idea.

Also in this part, Descartes answers some questions about body. I was wondering what he will say about that?  “I understand myself to be something single and complete. The whole mind seems to be united to the whole body,” Finally he accepts his mind and body as whole belongs to him.   He says that the body is detachable but mind is not. If a person loose a part of his/her body still can be thinking that the mind will still same.  The body parts are not the part of mind.

[monise_71]

" Insofar as they are the subject of pure mathematic, I perceive them vividly and clearly, so I at least know that they could exist, because anything that I perceive in that way could be created by God"

 

In this statement,  we can see that Descartes strongly accepts the existence of the material things simply because not only they are pure mathematic things we cannot doubt, since mathematic is straight forward (two plus three equal five), but also God is able to create them. Descartes presents his argument based on the ability of imagination and on the senses. I think that he underlines very good examples that enable us to better understand his point of view.

Our imagination allows us to perceive simple figure, however this exercise becomes  more difficult when it comes to picture a complex figure. The difference he draws between imagination and pure understanding shows us the limitation of the imagination. Imagination does not require anytime of specific knowledge. To repeat Descartes, Imagination uses the mind's eyes to picture properties of a body. While imagination is limited to the mental photography, understanding goes beyond that t and use mathematical relationship to depict the properties of a figure no matter its complexity.  To better clarify this difference, Descartes use the example of the triangle and the chiliagon to show how easy it to picture a simple figure using the imagination which gives us a limited knowledge, and how beneficial it is to use preferably our understanding. Unlike our imagination, our understanding can provide us an extending knowledge. The issue is imagination needs the mind to be existed unlike the body which exist  can without a mind.

 

Monise 

 

 

 

 

 

    

 

 

[imusicea92]

"...for even if I had no power of imagination I would still be the same individual that I am."

    I find this statement to directly contradict every piece of evidence already shown. Imagination is exactly what makes us individuals and it's the reason Descartes has any argument at all. For instance 30 people can look at an apple and understand that it's an apple but all 30 people will have a different way of reaching their conclusion and that's part of imagination. If it was part of an understanding like Descartes is looking for, then all 30 people would give the same answer. Yet, some people will use color, previous experiences, general knowledge, or even process of elimination to reach their conclusion. Every argument Descartes has provided us is because he imagined it, it flowed from his mind. We may not be able to control our thoughts but we allow those thoughts to grow and that makes us who we are; as far as we know, no two people will have the same 1,000 thoughts in a row. This begs the question is imagination or understanding more essential to us and do we need both?

[g.dlegister]

"As vividly as it teaches me anything, my own nature teaches me that I have a body, that when I feel pain there is something wrong with this body, that when I am hungry or thirsty it needs food and drink, and so on. So I shouldn’t doubt that there is some truth in this."

Descartes acknowledge the fact that his mind is in his own body, he explain how is body is like a natural alert system. The mind is connected to the body so that the mind can react to what the body needs so both body and mind can maintain balance. He continue to question the labeling and comparison of sickness and health, stating that a sick human being by Gods creation can still be healthy. Descartes makes a comparison to a clock that is badly configured but still functions, either the clock tells time three hours ahead of time or three hours behind. Descartes makes a point that even someone with physical sickness can still function if the mind of a person is still healthy.  

[kingholee]

Descartes was a very smart person, he was trying to to his mind to think, to understand, and to discover everything he wants to know, most of the things he wrote like he talked about math and sciences, we can see he is very reasonable, and his thought are well organised, but when he started talking about god, we may start getting confused, I think he was probably confused by himself too, since no one in this has certainty about god, but he was trying to convince himself to believe in something like that as certain as other things more easy to understand like math and science.

the way Descartes tried to separates the body and the mind is interesting, he was trying to explain, we are not necessary to use or move our body to think, and probably the body are even not necessary to exists in order to think, like someone can still think even his body was paralyzed, but he still aware that his body and his mind are connected, like he can sense the pain when the body can hurt, feel pleasure on a tickling sensation and want to eat when his stomach gave him the tugging sensation,

so he was also confused on this matter, one side he tried to convince himself, the mind and the body are two different things, the other side he knew that this two things can not really separate from each other. 

[Yolanda Challenger]

This is just being re-posted from February 18th, as I posted as a response to someone's statement but mine does not show up, only in my inbox. Yes indeed, Descartes does think that understanding and imagination are totally different from each other.  "This imagining, I find, takes more mental effort than understanding does; and that is enough to show clearly that imagination is different from pure understanding". (28) He thinks that imagination takes a mental effort and if the image is complex it would be very difficult to see a true image of the object.
Is he trying to say that the mind can only imagine only the simple things, that can be seen with the mind eyes? You have to first know and understand, before you can imagine and form and image in your mind. I think that Descartes is trying to say that imagination is not
an essential part of life,and that we can do without it,  but in life you need understanding.
I don't understand when Descartes states that when the mind imagines, it turns away from itself and looks at something in the body. Does he mean that understanding and imagination works in opposite directions? That they have an inverse relationship.

[Mateo Duque]

Here are my comments to students:

Juliet, what I like is that I see you trying to figure out the structure of D's thought. You pick up and try to understand his distinction between imagination and pure understanding. What I don't like is that this feels like your notes. I would like to see something a bit more polished. I know this is just a web blog, but I need to see more structured sentences and paragraphs. You don't have to cover everything, pick one thing and explore it.

Joy, your first comment is a great point. However, you need to expand on it for a better post. You might want to think of objections. In what situations would 'the extended mind' hypothesis not work? Why would someone not buy into the idea?  Your second comment is not substantive; it's a very short re-hash of what D is doing--it's a book report. I don't want that. I want you to evaluate D's argument.

Elvira, this: "A major criticism of Descartes’ dualism is that he does not offer a satisfactory account of how the unextended mind can influence the extended body and vice versa" is a claim and must be supported. You can't just say things and not give reasons. I shouldn't be allowed to say "Elvira is poopyhead" without at least giving some support for my claim. It's not that I disagree with the claim, but every claim should be backed up. You haven't do the work for this claim. I really like criticism of authors and works, but they need to be good and come with well-made points.

Rebecca, great post! You suggest a thought experiment in order to test out a point that you find lacking in D. I would try to support a bit more and more clearly if you can. D does think that you can think without a body. How would you take on this position, even thinking it is crazy.

Soon, you have a philosophical bent because you ask many questions, some of them good. However, I want you to not only ask questions, but to try to answer some of them. Also, at the start be clear what it is you are arguing against. Questions are great, but I need to see statements as well.

Ellie, good post. I like how you played the D off the C&C. Because philosophy is new to you and you are not sure of yourself you are asking many rhetorical questions. I want to urge you, like I did Soon, to make more declarative sentences. Put yourself out there. Take a stand. You can be wrong that's okay. Say I think D is wrong for the following reasons....

Kateryna, accusing someone of being crazy is harsh claim in era. Try to be more charitable to D. Why would he believe the things he does? Try to imagine what advantages come from thinking of the mind as separate from the body. Try to put yourself more in D's shoes. Also, back up your claims. If you really think D is something, give me evidence.

Ivan, good post. It's good to express one's frustrations over a work, but try to see it within D's perspective. Like I asked Kateryna, why would D want there to be a distinction between mind and body? What is to be gained? Also, I like your discussion of the extended mind, but instead of giving me a rehash of the argument, try to pull out what the implications are. Give me an interpretation.

Sara, I like your attempt to mash-up D and C&C. Although I think neither party would be happy with that remix. Is that your notes that accidentally got added at the end?

Aygul, thank you but you are giving me a summary of the article. I want you to analyze it. Do you believe it is right? Why or why not? Can you think of nay objections? How would you argue against it, or defend it?

Elena, you've given me two little book reports to prove that you have done the reading. That's not what I want. I want an analysis of a part, a premise, a concept used in one of the readings.

Monise, awesome job! This is a detailed examination of D's distinction between imagination and pure intellect. Nicely done. One suggestion: go a bit deeper, do you buy the argument? Why or why not? Give me reasons.

Liz, I like how you take issue with D's ideas on imagination. I hope that in class you got a better understanding of what D means when he uses the word. It's not like our idea of 'imagination.' You're right the imagination is creative for D, but not in a good way. It takes more basic, true elements and combines them into untruths. Like when a painter sketches a picture of satyr. We have to stay within our own minds in order to stay close to truth.

King, why might we, or D, get confused when it comes it God. Don't just assume that everyone feels, or thinks the same way you do. Make it explicit what you think is going on. Also, don't just tell me something is interesting. Try to figure what is going on, and ask yourself do I think this is right?

Yolanda, you ask some very good questions and have put your finger on an important issue. However, you ask a lot of questions but never put forth your hypothesis. It's okay to be wrong. What do you think D is doing? Do you think he's right? Why or why not?

[monise_71]

"It's not just the presence of advanced external computing resources which raises the issue, but rather the general tendency of human reasoners to lean heavily on environmental"

 

Andy Clark and David Chalmers, in their essay "The Extended Mind" present an argument that contrast the idea that the mind would be limited to the brain. They state that certain objects of the environment function as a piece of the mind. I Partly agree with the fact that certain external objects function as an extension of the mind. For instance, "Language" as they is an example that I agree to be considered as a positive extension of our mind. I say positive because langue allow us to express our thoughts without interfere with our memory. However, other external objects that are considered as an extension of the mind represent an obstacle to functionality of the mind, thus an obstacle to the memory. How can we consider an cell phone, for example, as an extension of the mind? To me the cell phone does not increase the capacity of the min, but instead it 's taken away some of the task of the mind and make the mind lazy. The cell phone become so involve in our daily living that we cannot make a move without it. It is sure useful, but in my opinion it does not extend our mind. This the reason why I like the quote above.

 

 This statement seems referring the situation that we are living today in the way that people rely on certain devices and even worst the internet as their reliable source of information. Thanks to the expansion of technology.  It makes our live seems so easy by giving us access to countless type of objects that we definitely rely on more than our mind. But, what will happened to our thinking capacity? or our memory? For, instance, people no longer brainstorming, or read a book for research because with one click people have access to tone of information and the answer to almost all their question. Is this process reliable? 

 

 In certain extend, I like the way that Chalmers and Clark illustrate the environment's role in connection with the mind by using the story of Otto and Inga. Unlike Inga who use her mind as a reliable source of information. People, today, just like Otto who couldn't function without his notebook, feel incomplete without their favorite piece of device. Both cases Inga and Otto has a pros and a cons, the same way that our favorite devises are useful. However, I don't think that they should be uniquely and positively as an extension of the  mind.

 

 

 

 

  

[pesantezkevin]

What stood out to me was the example of Otto and Inga which is found in Clark Chalmers Extended Mind; under the section of titles From Cognition to Mind.  As we all know they presented us with the scenario of Inga a normal girl who depends on her natural skill of memory to get her from place to place.  She was told about an event and she solely based herself getting there on her memory to get there; it took her a while but she got there. Then another scenario of Otto a guy with Alzheimer’s who depends on a small notebook which he carries in his back pocket.  He writes the location of everywhere he goes in that small notebook that way he can remember where he goes.  This skill or method he uses would be considered to be an unnatural way of using his memory.  Both cases of memory are considered to be analogous; which basically means that they are comparable in respects.  Even though they are technically different; in a way they both played the same role.   The purpose of this is to show that in a sense Inga’s source of memory is more reliable than Otto’s.  Anything can happen to Otto’s notebook; for example he could misplace, loose it, or someone could take it.  Clark is trying to show the relationship of memory and how there is only one mind and one body that is able to perceive it.  I feel like that both forms of memory basically the same, and not everyone is built the same way.  In Otto’s case his form of memory may not be considered to be natural like Inga’s but he can’t do without the notebook.   What I don’t seem to understand is why Otto’s method of memorizations would be considered to be unnatural.  He didn’t choose to have Alzheimer’s, and in a sense the notebook is natural to his method of remembering things.  Basically why would using a notebook be considered unnatural if he has no other way of remembering things.

[krystalgonzalez.28]

"The whole mind seems to be united to the whole body, but not by a uniting of parts to parts  because If a foot to arm to any other part of the body is cut off, nothing is thereby taken away from the mind." (Descartes, Sixth Meditation, p.33)

I feel like I am always confused when I read these meditations.  I reread them and go back and I am still confused.  If Descartes speaks about dividing the mind and body as 2 different things in the second meditation how come this quote tells me otherwise?  He also says that he an existing, thinking thing, can exist with out a body.  He can be just a mind.   This makes me real confused whether he thinks if hes even real or not.   

The quote I chose made a little sense to me.  I agree in that taking the body parts away it doesn't affect the mind,  the mind is still able to think, process and try to understand the world around us.  Yet many of the things our mind thinks about has to do with past experiences things that we have gone through which would have to do with our body parts.  Our senses are a big part of how we learn and how our mind grows.  Like Descartes said there is a difference between understanding and imagining.  We are able to understand because of things we might have seen, heard, touched, etc.  If we were just a mind with no body we would only imagine but even imagining is hard when you have nothing to start the imagination process because we don't exist. Our body and our mind need each other to work.  Am I making any sense?  

[dahlia4808]

Decrates states "Thus that special effort of mine is nessasary to the act of imagination which is not require for conceiving or understanding"
Decrates states he can exists without an imagination. The power to visualize, the power to conceive and image. I
I disagree with this quote . We need to have some sort of imagination to exist in life. We all need to be able to daydream, dream at night and keep our minds going. Our minds are always flowing with informations. How we interpret them varies from one person to another. If we had exists without our imagination, we lives would be different. We wouldn't be able to think differently. We may not be able to have options. Unconsciously we would not be aware that our minds wonders freely. We can get so in gauge in our thoughts and dreams that we loose track of our surroundings. This quote from decrates is unreal. We all need some sort of imaginations day in and day out.

[gregorydny]

Descartes was a mathematical genius that applied his math logic to life. Good for him confusing for me. Imagination and pure understanding are two entirely different things but one builds on the other. You cant have pure understanding if you havent seen or experienced something. To have to live it to understand it. You cant really [imagine something if you have no foundation to begin with. You cant seperate mind and body similarily because the body fuels the mind similar to a car and an engine.No car useless engine. Descartes thought otherwise ...

[Elvira Toporova]

A major criticism of Descartes’ dualism is that he does not offer a satisfactory account of how the unextended mind can influence the extended body and vice versa. This  criticism points out the absurdity of the dualist’s position.  Whenever I am doing something – writing something down, for instance – there must be two parallel things going on: my body doing the writing and my mind doing the thinking about what I am writing. 
 

[herring.chantell]

Like Des Cartes mentioned, I believe the mind and body are separate entities. The brain lies within the body and controls it, but the the mind is the cognitive and conscious aspect of it. For instance people with mental illnesses or zombies have functioning brains and bodies, but their mind is disconnected. Or in a another situation a person who may an impaired brain due to a disease, it wouldn't change their cognitive, conscious or philosophies. I also believe that the brain and mind often coincide and work together.To me the mind separates us from many other living organisms that have a brain.