The Invisible Fabric of the Human Mind

In David Hume's AN ABSTRACT OF A BOOK lately PUBLISHED; ENTITULED, A Treatise of Human Nature, &c, he reflects on a larger work concerning the "secret tie or union among particular ideas, which causes the mind to conjoin them more frequently together, and makes the one, upon its appearance, introduce the other" (pg 11; 34).
Hume uses the example of two billard balls hitting each other to help illustrate the notion of cause and effect, which becomes the foundation for every conceivable train of thought that our minds engage in. Hume states that it is only through our experience that we are able to conceive thought, and says, "TIS not, therefore, reason, which is the guide of life, but custom. That alone determines the mind, in all instances, to suppose the future conformable to the past"(pg. 6; 16). Essentially this means that it is impossible to use reason if we do not have any experience in a given situation, but does this mean that the human mind is incapable of improvising and constructing new ideas that seem all together unconnected from our past experiences?
In his example of the two billard balls hitting each other, Hume says that, "when I see a billiard-ball moving towards another, my mind is immediately carry’d by habit to the usual effect, and anticipates my sight by conceiving the second ball in motion. But is this all? Do I nothing but CONCEIVE the motion of the second ball? No surely. I also BELIEVE that it will move. What then is this belief? And how does it differ from the simple conception of any thing? Here is a new question unthought of by philosophers"(pg. 6; 17). Indeed, if one has never experienced a game of billards, then it would be very difficult if not impossible to conceive visually what will happen when the cue ball is struck into another ball.
Hume's idea of experience as the foundation for every connected thought or idea is strengthened when he states that, “secondly, THE mind has a faculty of joining all ideas together, which involve not a contradiction; and therefore if belief consisted in some idea, which we add to the simple conception, it would be in a man’s power, by adding this idea to it, to believe any thing, which he can conceive" (pg.6; 20). This statement clarifies the way in which Hume believes are minds operate, in that for a given situation, we essentially will fill in the blanks with imagination by drawing upon past experiences. If one is isolated from society and has little or no experience in their past, then it will be impossible for this person to ever unlock the ability to use reason or imagination.

Why didn't God make us perfect?

In his “Meditation IV Of The True And False”, Descartes brings up a very intriguing question. According to Descartes, God is all-powerful and all of his faculties are perfect, therefore it would be within his capabilities to create other perfect beings. So if God created us, the question becomes why did he make us imperfect?

Descartes first rationalizes that it is an impossibility that God is a ‘great deceiver’ because any form of deception implies ‘malice or feebleness’ and therefore cannot be present in a perfect God. If God does not deceive, then the faculties that have been given to Descartes must be sufficient if they are being used correctly. However, Descartes is certain that he does make errors sometimes. But if he makes errors and the faculties given to him are adequate (not imperfect), what exactly is the cause of his imperfection?

According to Descartes, on the spectrum of being there are two extremes, the supreme (God) and non-being (state of non-existence). Descartes decides that he is in fact in between these two extremes. Because he is not the Supreme Being himself, he reckons that it then makes sense that he falls into error. But the error has nothing to do with God; Descartes errs because he is not God so his capabilities are not infinite.

This logic is shaky, and that is even apparent to Descartes himself so he attempts to go further and strengthen his argument in removing the blame for his imperfections from his Creator. Since God is Supreme, Descartes is certain of two things: that He could have created everything completely and utterly perfect and that God knows what’s best. If those two things are true wouldn’t that mean that God made the RIGHT choice in making Descartes imperfect?

To answer this question, Descartes takes a cop out route. After using his intelligence for four whole Meditations, he decides that it is ridiculous for him to even think that his intelligence could comprehend the infinite and perfect reasoning of a Supreme Being. So after all of that, the answer that Descartes really gives us as to why God made us imperfect is…”Don’t worry about it, he made you incapable of understanding anyway.” Not too strong I think.

Descartes tries to fortify this by saying that in this grand universe which is perfect, one must not look at a singular thing that God has created and call it imperfect, you must look at the whole. I think this is another cop out; it would make more sense for a supreme being to a universe in which everything within the universe was perfect as well as the whole. Wouldn’t something that is perfect in parts as well as a whole be MORE perfect than something that is only perfect when viewed in certain instances? I think so. What about you?

The Broken Computer [Mind versus the Senses]

Willis had a problem. See experience told Willis that everything he knew was due to his senses. A three hundred year old corpse his class was studying, on the other hand, told him otherwise. The corpse blabbed on in his book about how we learn through our minds, not our senses, even going off on this tip about melted earwax or some crap. It just couldn’t make sense. How could that be when everything he knew, he learned from reading a book, listening to his teacher, or studying for a helluva lot of tests? He figured the whole lot of it was nonsense and that Descartes was nothing more than an aged moron. Without a second thought, he tossed aside his copy of ‘Meditations’ and got onto his computer.

That morning, he managed to get a hold of a bootleg copy of ‘The Hangover,’ which, by the way, is a good, funny movie but one he never got a chance to see. Excited to watch it, he put it into his DVD Drive and waited for the magic, but nothing happened. He tried a few tricks he thought might get it to work, but still, nothing happened. He figured his DVD Drive was malfunctioning so he opened up his computer and looked through it, testing it out a few times and trying to diagnose the issue. From his perspective, there was nothing that could’ve been wrong. The lens was fine, the bootleg spun, and he was certain it was being read. Everything was in perfect working order. Almost everything, anyway.

He finally settled on the idea that maybe it was the bootleg, and not anything in his computer -- after all, he did buy it for three dollars. Putting another DVD in, one he knew would work, he waited again for the DVD to respond but once more nothing happened. Again, he ran his tests and concluded that there was nothing that could've been wrong. At this point, he grew angry. He really wanted to see that really funny Mr. Chow he heard about. Out of the corner of his eyes he spotted ‘Meditations’ but noticing the book that had caused him so much grief before didn’t help at all. He yelled violently as he flung the book across the room. ‘You dead, stupid fool!’ And that was that.

Then, suddenly, it happened. Something just clicked. He shot an apologetic glance toward the book and began to smile. He then went to work on his computer and finally managed to fix it without running into any issues whatsoever. It was a simple fact that he had been focusing on the wrong thing the entire time. It wouldn’t have mattered if the DVD Drive was in pristine condition, or that his copy of ‘The Hangover’ was legitimate and straight out of the proper packaging. He could’ve put a hundred and one DVDs into the Drive, or even replaced it, but without what processed the data being fixed, it wouldn’t do anything but hit a virtual wall. The info on the disc would be floating around in electrical limbo.

‘Hmmm…’ He thought with a grin, ‘Whaddya know, I guess the old Frenchman had a clue after all. All the senses do is bring images, or waves, or textures to our minds and it’s up to it and reason to sort the stuff out and turn it into information. And hey, that earwax example wasn’t too shabby either. Similarity is an idea formed by our mind, without it we could even be looking at two identical apples, or an apple and its reflection, and have no hint in hell that they’re one in the same, we wouldn’t even have the mind to be confused. The fact that there’s any contemplation in the slightest that the two apples might or might not be the same is a product of reason. A camera can't distinguish the people in the photos it takes. An audio recorder doesn’t learn from the voices it records. Those things don’t have the reason to. Sure it could be retained all the same, but these things have no idea what’s going on. Now that I think about it, the senses work a lot like a downloading program. We might’ve gotten an app, music file, or video through the program, but it’s because of the data, scripts, and processes already in our computers that we’re able to install, or even use them. It all makes sense now, Descartes was a genius!’

A week later, Willis took his Philosophy midterm. He got everything wrong except the bit on Descartes. When he got his results, he was positively satisfied.

God Exists Then Descartes Exists

In “Meditation Three: Concerning God, That He Exists,” Descartes first states that all things that can be felt by his senses exist within him. The way in which he values his own thoughts is by evaluating them to outside external forces because if his own ideas could not be challenged in any way they could never be proven wrong.

Descartes believes that there are ideas that are derived from the world outside him because there are things that do not depend upon him. He gives an example of feeling the “heat”. He feels heat from an outside source, something other than himself. He also says that when he thinks about something that is true, it comes to him spontaneously and not as something being taught by nature.

Descartes admits the existence of God through rational thought. First, he admits that he exists. Then, he admits that God exists within him, and therefore, God must exist too. Descartes ideas are reflections of the way to know the true God. He knew that there are secrets of God in all things, because all human wisdom and science was hiding in ideas.

God is the Almighty because God created the earth, all things, and human. Descartes believes in God, which reinforce, Descartes existence. He believes that he exists, and God exists. God created Descartes, people, everyone, and nature. For example, then he is, Descartes says, “there is a God, I exist”(25). Because God made Descartes so he knows God, like people know their fathers because people are made by their fathers. “God created me makes it highly plausible that I have somehow been made in his image and likeness, and that I perceive this likeness, in which the idea of God is contained, by means of same faculty by which I perceive myself/ all things were created too”(35). Similarly to the old testaments, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. (Genesis 1: 1), The God said, “Let us make man in our image, in our likeness”(26), and “God created in his own image, in the image of God he created him”(Genesis 1:27). Descartes and Genesis have same ideas.

Descartes concludes that God “necessarily” exists because he believes that there is a substance that is infinite, intelligent, powerful and independent that created him, and all these are not initiated within him alone. Descartes states, “I have no reason for thinking that there is a God who is a deceiver” (25). The ideas of God are not false, he is not a deceiver, and the idea that Descartes has of God is true and clear. Descartes perceived reality of God and he knows that God is true. “I think I intuit as clearly as possible with the eyes of the mind”(25). God is honest, but human is not honest. Descartes says that “let anyone who can do so deceive me”(25). God does not deceive, but humans can deceive other people.

Change in Course Schedule

This is the change in the reading schedule for the next few weeks.

Nov. 8: Descartes, Meditations 3,4
Nov. 10: Hume, "Abstract"
Nov. 15: Hume, "Abstract"
Nov. 17: Nietzsche, "On Truth and Falsity in Their Extramoral Sense"
Nov. 22: Quine, "On What There Is"; Essay assigned
Nov. 24: Quine, "On What There Is"

Class Cancelled--Nov. 1st

I have to cancel class for tonight. I will be posting a revised schedule on Blackboard and on the blog, either later today or early tomorrow.

The Stone: Pictures of Philosophers

Check it out:

Pictures of Philosophers on the New York Times