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.

[jossianny(jossy)]

"...sensory ideas are produced without my cooperation and often even against my will. so sensory ideas must be produced by some substance other than me--a substance that actually has all the reality that is represented in the ideas that it produces"(sixth meditation, 31)

   I always questioned how can a person live without believing in a higher power. I think Descartes is saying that God or a higher form is the cause for the things that we can not explain and thoughts(ideas) we do not control. Which proves that God or a higher form actually exist because those ideas pop in our heads without we really thinking about it.

now the only question that pops into my head is, can the higher form be within us?

[sharifa.wickham]

“So if the ideas were transmitted from a source other than corporeal things, God would be a deceiver; and he is not. So bodies exist.”

Descartes trying to decipher how ideas come about in our minds is very complex. It leaves me to wonder how he comes up with convoluted ideas. However, I appreciate him axing out the idea that God does not put ideas in people’s mind nor is he a deceiver. I am unsure if I totally agree with him that nature taught us about our sensations, such as how do we know when the ache in our stomach is hunger, or our throat being dry is thirst. Yes nature plays a part in how we respond to our senses, but it is more scientific than nature.

[Mateo Duque]

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? 

[sharifa]

“These resources may incorporate bodily actions into cognitive processes, as when we use our fingers as working memory in a tricky calculation, but they will not encompass the more contingent aspects of our external environment, such as a pocket calculator.”

The Extended Mind is trying to convey that our mind goes beyond the limit of our brain; our mind also consists of what we do externally. However, cognitive and our bodily actions can be blended together in helping us think, such as using our fingers to find the answer to a math calculation. But, there is a time when we do not use the blend of both cognitive and bodily actions, and we strictly use bodily actions to help with our cognitive. For instance, using a calculator or any gadget to help with the answer to a math problem is us not using our cognitive, but using our bodily actions instead. Therefore, our minds surpass the mental stage by having other environmental factors assist us with our thinking.

But will there be a point where we will rely too much on environmental factors and not on our own cognitive? And will that be a bad thing since the world is technologically advancing?

[Duvall Ledbetter]

 "Someone may be tricked into eating pleasant-tasting food that has poison concealed in it: but here nature urges the person towards the pleasant food, not towards the poison, which it doesn't know about. All this shows is that the person's nature doesn't know everything and that is no surprise" (Descartes Sixth Meditation 32-33).  

 I believe Descartes fills in the gap between mind and body. That gap happens to be nature which can confuse us and be beneficial at different times. Our intuition tells us to go drink a beverage with a unknown substance but it doesn't tell us what the substance is. The mind may be connected to the body in the sense that whatever we feel can always be traced back to our thinking patterns. Sometimes we become confused as to where our thoughts and habits come from. Is there a hidden power similar to God that humans don't know about?. Descartes gives a indication on how we may find out. Although God is a figure that most of us want as a model of existence, can he really give us all the answers?.

I wonder what we perceive in everyday life is voluntary or involuntary. In other words are we really controlled by what we see hear touch taste and feel?

[Givan]

In Meditation six, Descartes introduced the concept of Dualism; he’s basically stating that there are two substances, a mental substance (mind) and a physical substance   (body).  Descartes is also trying to prove that the mind works independently from the body and he attempted to prove this, by trying to remind the reader about what he said was dubitable (mind) and indubitable (Body).  So Descartes is stating if we agreed that the body and mind is indubitable and dubitable then they both should be detached substances or entities.

In the sixth mediation Descartes uses a higher power (God) to explain some of his convoluted thoughts. I think Descartes knew, he would arrive at a point where God or a higher power would have to be the voice of reasoning; for some of his more complicated thoughts. I firmly believe that’s why he introduced the existence of God and created a compelling argument in an earlier meditation. So he can refer to it later on, and that’s what he did in the sixth meditation. 

[iriejam796]

In meditation sixth, I agree with Descartes that the mind is what controls the body. If we didn't have a brain our body will never be able to perform any external or internal processes.  A person who is mentally challenged does not have the same cognitive or intellectual thinking as a person who is not. Descartes uses different examples to distinguish the difference in the external features(experiences) and the internal features( senses) and arrive at the conclusion that sometimes our mind is disconnected but 90% of the time it's all connected. Descartes says " All of this makes it clear that, despite God's immense goodness, the nature of man as a combination of mind and body is such that it is bound to mislead him from time to time."  I think Descartes is making us aware that whatever idea/thought we cultivate in our minds and follow through with is not to be blamed by God. It should be our mistake because God will never deceive us.   

In the Extended mind I agree that the external/internal features sometimes affect how the mind and body think and react. The story about Inga and Otto gives a prime example of how the cognitive system works. If the memory is gone the brain sometimes can't think on it's own. It becomes dependent on other sources to help communicate and tell the body what to do. In the end there was no difference in the way both minds worked. In Otto's case he rely on outside resources while Inga's was internal. After reading this article my question is "What is considered extended mind and is that something extra that we are born with?"

[tresjoli17]

Rene Descartes “Sixth Meditation”

The existence of material things, and the real distinction between mind and body

“When the mind understands, it somehow turns in on itself and inspects one of its own ideas; but when it imagines, it turns away from itself and looks at something in the body (something that conforms to an idea-either one understood by the mind or one perceived by the senses.”

 

I chose this quote because I found it kind of confusing when I compare his ideas of understanding and imagination, to my own. I inferred that he meant that to understand, the mind breaks down one of its own ideas, and to imagine is the mind breaking down an idea introduced from the perception of the senses. To me, to understand something means you are able to break down the how, why when where or sequence of events that makes something what it is. You “understand” the answer to the question, or the result of a computation, or how something came into being. I don’t agree that understanding something means the mind turns is on itself and inspects one of its own ideas, simply because all ideas do not come from any one of our individual minds. Just in case I am misunderstanding what Descartes was trying to imply when he says “ inspects one of its own ideas”, and that he really meant we “understand” ideas that have been proven, wouldn’t we have had to perceive these ideas through the use of our senses first? His explanation for “imagining” seems to fit right in with “understanding” to me. “It turns away from itself and looks at something in the body (something that conforms to an idea-either one understood by the mind or one perceived by the senses.” For example, we have to feel rocks to know that they are hard, or we have to taste fruits to know that they are sweet. I feel like to determine the existence of any material body, we must use our senses. Descartes comes to this same conclusion when he states that “it seemed impossible that sensory ideas were coming from within me; so I had to conclude that they came from external things.”  

               In the case of imagination, Descartes references drawing a triangle with his mind’s eye. It is not really there so he must have imagined it. I don’t fully agree but I can’t disagree. My definition of imagination has really been coming up with ideas that we have not yet perceived, something fictitious, or something that does not seem possible in the real world.

[racquelallwood1987]

Meditation VI "Imagination differs from pure understanding". I'm not in clear understaniding of the meaning but I feel the author is trying to let individuls know that sometimes one imagine things to understand what it is to them in their own way. On the other hand, when a person don't have to imagine what an object is that meaans that they have a clear meaning of the purpose and capability of the object-which makes it "pure understanding."  The author goes on to let us know that whether you are able to imagine or not doesn't change the person you are, so one can live without imagination!!!

 

[jimborat69]

I believe that it was just a good run for Renne Descartes to go through all his doubt. However it end up that we need to relay on our senses and intellect/mind. As he said "And I ought not to have any doubt of its reality if that is unanimously confirmed by all my senses as well as my memory and intellect. From the fact that God isn't a deceiver it follows that in cases like this I am completely free from error". Our senses is connected with our mind and this gives us intellct, experience and knowledge. Like when we touch a hot pot, we are burned through our sense and this is recorded in our mind. So the next time we see a hot pot, we recll that we got burned before and we need to be carefull now. Everything that is happening in our life is real and we can remove our doubt because we are intellectual human being that can deffrentiate the right from the wrong. If we do choose the wrong way, it is because at that time we thought it was the right way. Some might also think that is wrong way but in ourselves we think it's right.

[Kevin Duffy]

"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"

 

Descartes talks about wheather material things exist and how his perception of them is that since they may not be made by god how could they be real.  In the quote i chose i think what descartes is trying to imply is that when we look at a pentagon we can imagine a pentagon immidiately in our mind if we have the understanding thta a pentagon has 5 sides.  My response to his finding that imagining takes more effort than understanding is a very fair one because one can know that a pentagon has 5 sides and have never seen one before, therefore their imagining of this object would be hindered. The imagining of the pentagon will take more effort for one who has never seen one, but i feel in some cases imagining can be just as simple or just as difficult as understanding.

[asiyebodur91]

Descartes 6th Meditation has lost me. I reread it twice and I still do not get the idea that Descartes is trying to set forward. He did a well explanation on distinguishing the mind and body but he wasn't successful at combining them. I felt like he lost me on most explanations. It kinda had a lot of "psychology" involved in it, being that I am a psych major I should've grasped some things,I tired. Like when he talks about "active faculty", the brain comes to my mind. Then he states facts like, "things that are done, can't be undone". Overall, I probably need a wider lesson on this 6th meditation. To some extent, i agree with Clarke and Chalmers, because in this century, being that I see at as the up-rise of technology, we tend to use the internet, and our technologically resources around us more than we should or need, but it comes tyo a point where we rely on them. And yes, then it becomes integrated into our minds, what we've researched or read, we archive it most of the time, and re-use it when we need it. 

[staceydavidyants]

"So it may be that imagining differs from pure understanding purely like this: when the mind understands, it somehow turns in on itself and inspects one of its own ideas; but •when it imagines, it turns away from itself and looks at something in the body (something that conforms to an idea—either one understood by the mind or one perceived by the senses)." 

In this quote, Descartes distinguishes understanding and imagining based on how how our mind works when it does either of these actions. When we understand, we take an idea and inspect it based on what we already know in order to comprehend. But when we imagine, the mind turns away from its previous knowledge and tries to conform to something new, without already having seen it. A good example that he gives it the difference between a triangle and a shape with 100 sides. We could distinguish a triangle from a square because we understand and comprehend both objects. But the difference between a shape with 100 sides and 101 sides is much more difficult for our mind to compare. Our imagination doesn't go so far, and in order to make an actual comparison, we would have to have a mathematical understanding of a shape with so many sides. Today, our concept of mind is truely extended because we have so many tools to aid us in our knowledge. Computers solve highly advanced mathematical problems, and even the simplest of things can easily be looked up on our iPhones. Electronics have become an integral part of the way we think because they make it easy to answer any questions that we have or to further our knowledge by just looking up a simple fact, without actually having any understanding about it. The question I have is whether these tools we use to extend our mind actually end up clouding our imaginations. Do we imagine less since most of the things we imagine can be produced on our iPhones and computers? 

[Blanca]

In the Sixth meditation, Descartes analyzes the two substances he had divided up in the second meditation which are the mind and the body. He tries to discover a connection between these two substances to make sense of how the body works in reaction to what our mind thinks."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. When I consider the mind—i.e. consider myself purely as a thinking thing—I can’t detect any parts within myself; I understand myself to be something single and complete. The whole mind seems to be united to the whole body, ·but not by a uniting of parts to parts, because:· If a foot or arm or any other part of the body is cut off, nothing is thereby taken away from the mind." Here Descartes explains that our mind is united with our body as a whole & that the mind cannot be divided.

In the extended mind, Clark and Chalmers explain that there are external factors that have an affect to the way that the mind thinks beyond the brain & the body's reaction to this thinking. I agree with many points that these Authors make such as the way that our cognitive processes can cause bodily actions. I am unsure that external resources can play a role in the way we think because sometimes these resources can do the thinking for us such as a calculator. Will our intellectual activity decrease even more if we continue to rely on technology?

[lrwilen4]

"The power of imagining depends on something other then myself" Descarte is making a very good point when he states that your imagination depends on thing other then yourself, however i disagree. I think imagining comes from using knowledge that you already have gained and not from an outside source. you can not create things to imagine. you must first have a thought and only afterwards can a person create. everything imagined comes from a real source. you can only imagine based on what you yourself thought and perceived and not on what an outside source is. I really admire the way descarte is very clear and makes his points very easy to follow. 

[taniki0108]

"I am distinct from my body and can exist without it."

 

I  agree with the part that our mind is separate from the body, because I have had personal experience with losing feelings in one of my feet.  My mind was telling my foot to move and I think that it was moving but it really wasn't. My mind convince me that my foot was there and and that it was ok to walk, but my body was not performing any action.  The more my mind told me it was moving the more I believed it was and I started to think my eyes were deceiving me.  When I finally gain back the feeling it was just as if it never left I was doing all I was doing before and my mind was telling me the same thing but this time I actually saw them move. The part about it can exist without the body that I don't agree with that much.  Because if the mind is not there then to me the body is not useful, it would have no sense of direction or purpose.  Descartes came to the right conclusion that there is a higher power (God) and thats the best way to perceive the whole mind vs body confusion.

 

 

[Carmen Wang]

All this shows is that the person’s nature doesn’t know everything, and that is no surprise. (p. 33, Sixth Meditation)

After the first class on the concept of the mind, I began to understand what Descartes was trying to prove and this shows me that myself, in my nature do not know everything and often lack understanding. He wanted to prove that God exists, is good because He purposely designed humans with a soul and a body to function together for the good of mankind. He believes that the human is formed of both a soul and body; senses are from the body while the imagination, memory, understanding and reason of the mind are from the soul. He realizes that human is weak in that our senses and imagination often deceives us, but that is only because we lack understanding and do not use what we are given correctly. God is good in that He has given us senses to perceive vividly and clearly and a mind to use rightly in imagination, memory, understanding and reason to distinguish what is true from false. It is clearly for the good of our well-beings to function in life; however we often misuse God’s given goodness, with the senses to imagine false things, with the senses to come to quick conclusions in our minds without rationalizing, without reasoning from knowledge and understanding. Therefore, in an example, he uses the knowledge of science, to help him to understand why someone with an illness such as dropsy can harm himself. This is because his body is ill and cannot function properly, and produces an unneeded thirst in his throat to accumulate water. When God created in goodness for the body to be healthy and nourished with the nutrient of water, by to sense dehydration in the throat, which in turn the nervous system sends nerves to the brain, for the mind to make a right decision or judgment to action.

How do the knowledge we gain and understand about humans relate to reality of our designs as human beings prove the existence of a God? And if we are designed in such way, who designed it, why, and for what purpose can we place our values upon? 

[odinredd]

I am not sure what quote to put up here. "Where does the mind stop and the rest of the world begin? I want to agree so bad with what The Extended Mind represents for us. Most of us consider ourselves a blend of environmental and personal development. There seems to be little argument that we can use "outside" sources to development and become. I believe though that even though we are able to recieve input from outside sources it is still just our senses that we are relying on to understand the input we get. If there is someone with no sensory reception at all then that person would not be able to use any outside resources to come up with anything. Would he still be able to function as we all do? Yes. But his understanding about the same things would be completely different. By our accounts he might appear to be a vegetable but that does not mean that the person's mind is not operating.

 

 

 

[tayo.ojudun]

I agree with asiyebodur91, Descartes somewhat lost me too in the sixth meditation. 

Perhaps, it's because I didn't read five therefore the segue into six wasn't clear to me. However, there were a few things that I read and picked up in the sixth meditation. 

 " Yet I heard that an amputee might occasionally seem to feel pain in the missing limb." This was an odd statement for Descartes to make, does it hold any truth? It's seems ridiculous. Was this sarcasm? Or Simply a statement to help prove his ideas? I don't quite get it. 

"So it may be that imagining differs from pure understanding purely like this: •when the mind understands, it somehow turns in on itself and inspects one of its own ideas; but •when it imagines, it turns away from itself and looks at something in the body (something that conforms to an idea—either one understood by the mind or one perceived by the senses). "I am drawn to this statement for some reason. It's such a detailed, intricate, and intriguing way of thinking about imagining and understanding. For the most part when I hear the word imagine I think of little children, therefore I can't help but to question does this way of thinking apply to all age levels and all mental capacities? Having the ability to look inward and inspect a personal idea must take some type of growth. 

Another thing that I found interesting in the sixth meditation was "Since I seemed to be naturally drawn towards many things that reason told me to avoid, I reckoned that I should not place much confidence in what I was taught by nature" (Descartes 30). I would like to know exactly what Descartes is talking about here. What things does reason tell us to avoid that we are naturally drawn towards. My mindset is that reason tells us to stay away from foxes for example. Yes I may be interested in/ drawn to foxes and want to pet a fox. However in the long run it's best if I don't. Just because we are naturally drawn to things, it doesn't mean that they are good for us.  

[m.inam.gul]

"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"

This above statement sort of condenses the main idea of Descartes complex concept. Typical of Descartes, he is very interested in the mind and in this Mediation he examines the existence of material things in relationship to the mind and body. He draws a distinction between imagination and pure understanding. He believes the ability to imagine is not as important as having an intellectual capacity or a pure understanding. And he correlates pure understanding with the mind and imagination with the body. This to me makes sense, the imagination can't be an essential property of the mind, since we can seize to exist without it. Another thing that is highly noticeable is his long and connection to God. In many places he praises God and acknowledges the power and intervention of God. However his attempt to draw similarities between the mind and body was a disappointment. But i wonder does the fact that we live technology cultivated society affect our reasoning of ideologies during the 1500's. I think its harder for us to understand and accept some of the pauses set forward of ideas that happen in time such far back. I greatly enjoyed The Extended Mind. Its interesting how they go against the typical concept of the mind and say its artificial and that the mind actually extends out. That it's indeed connected to other things such as language, people, technology etc. To me, it might as well be incorporated with the brain. My question is based on today's aged scientific research, in that does the mind send microscopic signals to the universal based on mental thinking/visualizing? Why not take Clark and Chalmers view of the mind and "extend" their idea.

[trinimjs]

Six Meditation & Extended Mind

            In the Six Meditation I think Descartes is trying to explain the difference between mind and body, because of his belief and could not conclude his study in the six meditation so he wrote The Extended mind to prove his point. In an attempt to prove his care let us look at the definition of body: - The organized conscious and unconscious adaptive mental activity of and organism according to Webster Dictionary.  Now Descartes believed once he has a body and exist he can also have an imagination which covers the definition of mind. 

            I am able to imagine anything even if my imagination runs wild and I must concur with Descartes ‘This is different from pure understanding, 2 x 3 =6 that is understood.  Descartes believes the senses draws from the mind and not the body. According to Webster Dictionary, ‘The body is the main part distinguished from limbs and head’ and therefore I agree with Descartes when he said ‘the body is an

Extension of the mind.’

            But Clark and Chalmers believe in my opinion that the body is an extension of the mind and as such behave like the mind. ‘By embracing an active externalism, we allow a more natural explanation of all sort of actions’ 

[Ji Yeon Park]

I think that in the end, Descartes is trying to separate the mind and the body. As he is religious, I know that in Christianity, you are taught that, after death, your soul will go to 'heaven' or 'hell'. In a way, the religious side of Descartes might have cause him to think of the mind and body as two separate entities.

"I am really distinct from my body and can exist without it" (Meditation 6, Descartes)

Although the mind resides within the brain, I feel as if Descartes is describing the 'mind' as a spiritual being, without a physical form. Without a physical form, the 'mind' cannot be harmed. It cannot be 'tainted' like the body.