so
the mind is not the brain
the mind in Spinoza's terms is a much bigger fish
at the same time it is not true to say that we
cannot speak of the brain in mental terms
the brain finally is substance - modified
as such it has both physical and mental characteristics
perhaps it is easier to speak of the idea of the brain
and the physics of it expressed in idea - as idea
so the brain as in the human brain
is clearly an idea of - presumably based on -
in Spinoza's terms - on adequate knowledge
that comes down to sound physics
sound biology
so what we get in these sciences is an objective
picture of the brain
my idea of the brain may be no more than an image -
the grey lump of flesh - which I believe to be
efficacious - largely because this is what I am told
how the brain works
as in the science of the brain is in Spinozistic
terms - to go to the second level of knowledge
the level of common notions and adequate ideas
the idea of the brain at this level
is quite a different matter to the idea we may have
begun with
in simple terms
the brain works as it does
and I may have a conception of it that reflects in
mental terms just what it does
such a conception would be in Spinoza's terms -
adequate
it's a good question though what this adequate
knowledge amounts to
would Spinoza think a complete picture of any
physical system is possible
(brain included)
I think he would
I doubt any scientist or philosopher would hold
to such a conception today
surely all our knowledge is by its nature inadequate
it's just a question of how inadequate
that is - it is a matter of degree
and here of course we are talking of empirical
knowledge
conceptual or logical knowledge is another matter
it seems to me that the so called certainty of
such is not a feature of the world but rather a
formal construction - a design of the concept
and I think one of the best examples of this is
Spinoza's substance
'that which is in itself and conceived through
itself; in other words, that, the conception of
which does not need the conception of another
thing from which it must be formed'
one way of looking at this is to say substance
as defined is defined as that which has no empirical
content - and is defined as that which is conceptually
complete
so in a way it is a definition of certainty
or an explication - of certainty
and of course certainty must be presupposed here
for it to be an explication
so what is the point?
is anything being said?
yes I didn't mean to get on to this track
what I wanted to follow on with was this
OK - I have a conception of - whatever -
let's say the brain
you have a conception
the Royal Academy has a conception
every man an his dog has a conception
I guess we're going to say - at the least -
that the Royal Academy's conception is the
most comprehensive - idea
and yes it may well be
but how do we know?
that is how do we know any of these conceptions
bear on the physical reality of the brain?
how do we know there is a connection?
that one is a reflection of the other?
this is not just a question for Spinoza-ites -
it applies to any such claim to knowledge
one answer to this question might be -
well if knowledge is not this - what is it?
granted no one can look from the outside -
and see if the relation - Spinoza suggests
holds
there is no outside
and I guess - if so -
we must make the best of the inside
Spinoza's theory of mind and matter -
is elegant and simple
and without the problems of others
in terms of elegance and simplicity it wins the day?
also - when we speak of mind
would Spinoza be prepared to say that in a world
without consciousness - human / animal
there is mind?
