The Depraved

[BigJohn]

Interesting viewpoints.

If a person assembled in one place all the elements that are in a human, they can not make a person. As you have indicated, there appears to be some other 'things' that are needed. But exactly what they are, have already been discussed partially if not fully by yourself.

[Morpheus]

Originally Posted by sky123

Why Morph ? Would it be beneficial

To understand.

[sky]

Originally Posted by Morpheus

To understand.

What are you finding hard to understand Morph ?

[Gem]

Originally Posted by AbodhiSky

I like structuralist psychology more than gestalt psychology but I like the word gestalt. The whole is more often the object of perception than the parts, but the parts can be important to be aware of as well. I'd say structuralist psychology and gestalt psychology are more similar than different but some gestalt psychology theories go too far in my view, too absolutist.

It's coming back the mind/body duality. When Descartes determined himself to be a 'thinking thing', that implied mind and body were separate substances. The body (and objects) extends in space whereas the mind and thoughts do not. The psychological issue is, if these are separate substances, how does the mind cause effects in the body? From Descartes we define a person as 'a thinking thing', and psychology is generally based on that assumption, but how the physical substance affects you and you effect the physical substance is a problem. This divide brings about two approaches to psychology. One leans toward how you effect the physical (through will) and the other is more to do with how the physical (not a thinking thing) affects you. This implies that will is not the only cause, unless we assume 'God's will', which Descartes almost certainly did...

[Busby]

Originally Posted by Gem

It's coming back the mind/body duality. When Descartes determined himself to be a 'thinking thing', that implied mind and body were separate substances.

In my opinion Descartes put the cart before the horse. 'I think therefore I am' should really be 'I am therefore I think'.

Mind before matter or better Mind above matter.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by Busby

In my opinion Descartes put the cart before the horse. 'I think therefore I am' should really be 'I am therefore I think'.

Heheheh De Cartes before de horse. He couldn't start with the assumption 'I am'. Indeed his reasoning was, if I doubt I think, and that which thinks is what I am. His method of reason in the meditations was the method of doubt. To doubt everything he knows, to doubt all experience is real. To assume all of the senses and artifacts of the mind are but illusions designed to deceive him. He concluded that since he doubted all of this, it cannot be said that he doesn't exist, because he doubts.

He was a little bit more subtle because he didn't fully claim a continuous duration of his existence in the Meditations. He said, that he exists is necessarily true each time it is conceived of in his mind or expressed by him. However, it seems that overall he believed in his continuous enduring existence in the absence of thought in terms of his mind/body duality, but it's hard to tell since he didn't outright say.

Originally Posted by Busby

In my opinion Descartes put the cart before the horse. 'I think therefore I am' should really be 'I am therefore I think'.

How about:

"I'm aware my attention is on thought, therefore I am."
"I'm aware my attention is not on thought, therefore I am."
"I'm aware, therefore I am."

Sometimes I sit and think.
Sometimes I just sit.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by AbodhiSky

"I'm aware, therefore I am."

Decartes has an issue with any knowledge at all, so he employed a method of doubting everything to find out if there is anything he could know absolutely without doubt. He ruled out formal logic like 2+2=4 and everything of the senses and continued eradicating everything that could be not true or unreal. What he could perceive was his own doubt, and the doubt of doubt itself. I personally don't see how 'there is doubt' necessarily implies the existence of a doubter, just as thought doesn't necessarily imply a thinker. I think the crass conclusion 'I think therefore I am' overlooks the nuanced context of his discourse, because he doesn't actually claim to exist prior to or in the in the absence of thought. He merely infers he exists because he thinks. Whether of not he exists perpetually as the prior cause of thought (implying a willful identity) isn't particularly clear...

It seems to me there is no reasonable inference such as "There is awareness, ergo I am aware, ergo I exist". The self referential statement can actually be reasonably inferred.

[Gem]

I guess it hearkens back to Socrates' "I know that I know nothing".