p.194
'That in complex systems such as ours, the brain's
regulatory operations depend on the creation and
manipulation of mental images (ideas or thoughts)
in the process we call mind.'
OK - so what we have here is a mind-brain identity
thesis - the mind as a brain process
Damasio notes that he is not confident of explaining
the relationship between brain circuitry and image
and that he has not nailed the problem to date
(1)
first up - a question - is Spinoza a mind-brain
identity theorist? - some people have argued this
I beg to disagree here
in Pt. II. P. XIII Spinoza states his view -
'The object of the idea constituting the human mind
is the body, or a certain mode of extension actually
existing and nothing else.'
OK - Spinoza does not say the object constituting
the human mind is the brain
important point I think
now what this idea of the body means may be hard to
visualize to a century convinced the mind is the brain
before Descartes it had been thought it was the heart
the point being - it is just to identify the mind with
a part of the body
OK
we must address another prejudice - that of 'the' mind -
who today thinks of the mind as not being located in a
specific part of the body?
to understand Spinoza you must know that he does not
see it this way
the mind is like extension - an objective attribute
of reality
mind is not a exclusively possessed - by any feature
of reality
nevertheless we can speak of the human mind
the mind as the idea of the body -
here the body is the object of the mind
the mind the body's subject
the relationship of mind and body is the subject /
object relationship
it is a logical relationship
the unity of the mode that is a human being
is such
that it has a subjective dimension
and an objective dimension
the dimensions point to
or are expressions of
a unity
that is substance - writ small
or
the human being is an expression in miniature
of the essence that is God
that is the totality
reality - writ large
which is in Spinoza's view - at the very least
like man
mind and extension
subject and object
man was made in God's image
finally there is no other image
(2)
what of this view of mind?
what is Spinoza argument for it?
II.P.I - 'Thought is an attribute of God,
or God is a thinking thing'
particular thoughts are modes that express
the nature of God
so the attribute of all particular thoughts -
belongs to God
thought therefore is an infinite attribute of God
this argument depends on Spinoza's argument
for attribute
that is - the reality of attributes - and of thought
as an attribute - an attribute asSpinoza would have it
- objective - infinite -
the attribute argument goes back to the argument
for substance
but just looking at the argument of II.P.I
the form of it is - particular thoughts point to
a universal thought
if particular thoughts exist
therefore
thought
and for Spinoza
therefore
God
my own view here is somewhat different to Spinoza's
I argue consciousness is to be equated with ontological
- metaphysical internality
consciousness is the inside
and of what?
well at least of human beings -
and other conscious entities
human consciousness is distinguished from animal
consciousness to the degree that it is reflective
which is about thought
human beings can think about thought
I confess I don't know any other way to say this -
but 'reflectively'
and I don't think it can be described non-reflectively
the point is that on this view consciousness sees -
it sees itself - it sees the world - the surface
that it is the inside of -
I'm not convinced that all things - have an inside
I don't know
and for that reason I would not characterize mind
as Spinoza does - as an infinite objective attribute
my outlook does have implications for the Damasio
argument
first - mind is not a surface phenomena
so - it is not accessible to surface analysis
- i.e. - science
mind is - indeed the source of science - but it cannot
be the object of science
what we observe is only ever the surface of things
the observing itself is internal - not external
how to characterize the inner states?
can this be done?
yes but only introspectively - artistically -
figuratively - poetically
and that is to say you need a different language
the language of science will only ever describe
what is out there -
not what is inside
so on my view - the kind of picture the mind-brain
identity theorists put forward - a kind of positivism
of the mind - is just not possible
and I think even they know this
but science is a vain whore - wants everyone and everything
to come to her - when in reality it's a case of beauty is
skin deep
or at least science can be regarded this way
my picture really of mind and matter is that -
apart from what I have put - regarding the internal /
external distinction
what we are really talking about - is primarily a relationship
there is something of this in Spinoza too
for me it is not a relationship that is to be resolved -
it is rather - and simply the relationship of the inner
to the outer or subject to object
but however you want to describe it - my point is the human
being - ontologically - metaphysically speaking is -
a relationship - or a relation (in the logical sense)
not a substance - a relation
not a variation on a substance - rather - possibly a variation
on a relation
