Well the way I see it, as one delves deeper into oneself more primitive wants or needs become the motivations for various things we hold true to our identity. For example: I go to the gym to workout, which follows that I do so because I want to be revered, which follows that I do so because I want women to want me, Which follows that I just want sex. — john27

In Freudian theory, that would be the 'id', 'the primitive and instinctual part of the mind that contains sexual and aggressive drives and hidden memories'. Nothing to do with 'perversion' as such although how it's channelled or expressed may be the result of a perversion.

or maybe that God and the angels argue about it now. — Interpretive cards (MWI, Bohm, Copenhagen: collect ’em all) - Scott Aaronson

Incidentally, the oft-ridiculed Medieval meme of ‘how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?’ actually started about a debate as to whether two incorporeal intelligences can occupy the same location. Somehow, this reminds me of 'super-position'. (Although perhaps the very possibility is excluded by the medieval equivalent of Pauli's principle, although I haven't dug that deep into it.)

I'd also be interested to hear your opinion on whether identity is linked with perversion, or vice versa. — john27

I'm sure we'd all be interested to hear on opinion on this, as currently the implication completely escapes me.

I think we’re all wresting with these things. It’s one of the main reasons that we’re members of a philosophy forum.

I think it’s possible to be critical without being totally cynical. I am disappointed to learn about this aspect of Descartes’ character, but that doesn’t mean I want him struck from the history books. Understanding something of Descartes’ philosophy is important for understanding modern culture. But I agree, there’s plenty to be critical of. As that passage says, at the very least, Descartes ought to have known better, and many purported devotees of his ‘mechanist’ philosophy used it to justify enormous suffering.

(By way of antidote to the above, see this tear-jerker:

https://wapo.st/3Y1hqOb

Reflecting on my own experience on forums, I’ve become upset mainly when I’m enthusiastic about an idea or perspective and others pour cold water on it. There have been times when I’ve been seriously perturbed by online debates. Debates about religion, philosophy and politics are often like that, one of the reasons that it has been considered poor etiquette to broach political and religious topics on social occasions (although of course this being a forum that is what is expected). But then learning to deal with adverse reactions has also been an important learning, and detachment is an important attribute. One of the best lecturers I had in philosophy had an uncanny ability to present differing philosophical perspectives in a way that was sympathetic to both sides without ever really needing to signal what he himself thought was right. He just laid out the cases, anticipated objections, summarised the issues. I admired that in him.

It’s also a factor that we live in a period of intense polarisation of views - culture wars, and the like. Many people hold very strongly to ideas that others may feel are absurd or dangerous. Anti-religious ideologues may see all religion as superstition, and fundamentalists may see science as the work of the devil. And so on. It’s one of the background factors in today’s culture. Again it’s where an element of detachment is important - doesn’t mean being apathetic, but learning to make dispassionate judgements.

Well, you know, Zen Buddhists are famous for eschewing all written teachings yet their canon comprises thousands of volumes.

And I generally agree with Aaronson’s descriptive categories. I am very impressed with Christian Fuchs’ philosophy of QBism which I guess puts me in the second category. Deutsch et al seem to want to preserve the principle of objectivity above all else.

Yes, Copenhagen can be understood as the operational interpretation - shut-up-and-calculate. — Andrew M

I’m sure that’s not right, either. That infamous phrase was, I believe, coined by David Mermin, mainly in respect to the attitudes of the many working physicists who were employed in roles that require expert knowledge of quantum physics and couldn’t afford to spend time wondering about the implications.

Likewise, Bohr was often misinterpreted as being a positivist, but that is far from the case. Heisenberg relates a story where Bohr lectured the Vienna Circle positivists on the implications of quantum mechanics, and afterwards they all politely applauded and murmured approval. This is when Bohr uttered the often-quoted remark that ‘if you are not shocked by quantum physics, then you cannot have understood it.’

Bohr, Heisenberg, Schrödinger, Pauli, and others of that generation were deeply cultured individuals with deep knowledge of philosophy both Eastern and Western. The ‘shut up and calculate’ generation were mainly Americans after WW2. Totally different mindset.

Here is a passage from the web page that calls into question Descartes’ participation in the torture of dogs. It is by one Kevin R. D. Shepherd who seems a reputable source. I agree with the sentiment.

As a philosopher, Descartes surely ought to have been more resistant to fashionable cruelty of the leisured class of scientists active in his own time. His inclination to the contrary places him in the same category as reprehensible events of the 1660s, when thirty vivisections were conducted in the presence of assembled members of the Royal Society in London.

A well known early report of brutal Cartesian vivisectionists at the Port Royal School, in Paris, has aroused differences of interpretation. One commentary says the report “may not be trustworthy.” That account was written years after the events described. However, there are other reports of animal experiments in the late seventeenth century, along with implications that Cartesian mechanists made no attempt to minimise animal suffering, believing that this was an illusion (Boden 2006:72-3).

The Port Royal report describes dogs being nailed alive to boards for dissection. This was during the 1650s. The callous behaviour is very easy to credit, as the Jansenist milieu under discussion is known to have been influenced by Cartesian attitudes, via leading figures at the Port Royal School and related Abbey. Someone had taught the pupils a Cartesian approach to supposed automata. The report was included in the Memoires of Nicolas Fontaine (1625-1709), a contribution which is very difficult to ignore (on the Port Royal School, see Delforges 1985).

Vivisection increased substantially as a consequence of Cartesian doctrine, being avidly practised by the Royal Society. This organisation was founded by a group of scientists including Robert Boyle (1627-91) and Robert Hooke (1635-1703). Their crimes are on record, including the injection of poisons, ever since a favoured device of laboratory personnel. Dogs, sheep, and other animals were the victims. Hooke is known to have vivisected a dog in 1667, and in this respect was a virtual blood brother of Descartes.

Hooke’s prestigious colleague Robert Boyle was an ardent defender of vivisection, viewing critics as sentimentalists. How tough and supremely insensitive the empiricists were. The objectors were here viewed as “a discouraging impediment to the empire of man over the inferior creatures of God” (Boden 2006:73).

The question as to whether observation must consist of a conscious act is a contentious one.

In 1958, Schrödinger, inspired by Schopenhauer from youth, published his lectures Mind and Matter. Here he argued that there is a difference between measuring instruments and human observation: a thermometer’s registration cannot be considered an act of observation, as it contains no meaning in itself. Thus, consciousness is needed to make physical reality meaningful. As Schrödinger concluded, "Some of you, I am sure, will call this mysticism.…’ — “Quantum Mysticism, Gone but not Forgotten

I think for me the vivisection example is still enough — Moliere

Of course, it’s abhorrent, but it is still a niche below nailing dogs to boards and flaying them alive while saying their cries of agony are like squeaky wheels. I’m beginning to think that it’s an Internet myth.

Makes one wonder about the agenda residing in those that promote undocumented nonsense, resting assured somebody or other will take it for gospel. — Mww

As said above, I’m coming to the view that the passage referenced by the RealClearScience page that I quoted is not true. It’s the old story, don’t believe everything you read on the Internet, although the subsequent discussion of treatment of animals and the implications of Descartes’ dualism remains interesting in its own right.

For those who might have missed it - from further reading, I think the story about Descartes deliberately torturing dogs as a public display is not true according to two sources I link to in this post. He did have an interest in, and sometimes participated in, vivisection (dissection of live animals) but that is a different matter to public displays of torturing animals.

From a little further reading reveals the suggestion that the previously-mentioned acts of 'hammering dogs to boards' was actually carried out not by Descartes but by pupils at a college influenced by Cartesian ideas. However the same source also notes that Descartes was interested in vivisection and anatomical examination of animals alive and dead. Another source says that the report about maltreatment of dogs was written long after the events and may not be trustworthy.

It seems to me that on further reading, the story about Descartes appalling treatment of dogs is apocryphal at best, but that he certainly was interested in vivisection, not least because of his theory that the mind and the body interacted via the pituitary gland.

But, as far as the story that opened this thread is concerned, unless someone has better information, I'm somewhat relieved to report that it probably is not true.

In the article Descartes on Animals in the Philosophical Quarterly, Peter Harrison argues that the view that Descartes denied feelings to animals is mistaken. — RussellA

I did find a copy of that work, and scanned it, but it doesn't make any mention of the allegations that I found in the post I linked to, about Descartes actually mounting demonstrations of torturing dogs. Towards the very end, Harrison says 'Whether Descartes' hypothesis encouraged such practices as vivisection remains an open question', so presumably Harrison is not aware of such claims. Now this thread has attracted so much attention, I'll put some more time into double-checking the substance of it.

(Incidentally for those unaware the original poster has been banned.)

I find the relationship between metaphysics and religion frustrating. On the one hand, as you note, religion is intended to "account for the foundational basis of being itself," which is exactly what metaphysics does. On the other hand, the existence of any particular god understood as a literal being rather than metaphorically is a matter of fact. — T Clark

I think I'm starting to get some perspective here. I've been following a very good, scholarly writer who publishes on Medium Castalian Stream, specialising in stoic philosophers through the perspective of Pierre and Isletraut Hadot. Pierre Hadot is famous for his revival of the values of ancient philosophy, through his books such as Philosophy as a Way of Life, and What is Ancient Philosophy, among others. (More details below if required.)



The point is, ancient stoicism and other philosophies were indeed ways of life, on the basis that to make the 'philosophical ascent' required to attain insight into the 'first principles' required certain characteristics and attributes which the ordinary man (the hoi polloi) lacks. (This is very much the topic of many of the Castalian Stream entries.) It was presumed that those who had such insight were aspiring to be, or actually were, sages (although it was always felt that the true sage was exceptionally rare.) Even stodgy old Aristotle had that side to him.



The point is, us hoi polloi don't see these things, because we're not sufficiently trained. But don't worry! saith Martin Luther. All you need is faith! Who needs all this 'wisdom of the Greeks?' (which is likely to be luciferean, anyway). 'Faith in the Word' is sufficient!

I will grant that is something of a caricature, but I think it's near the point. Interestingly, the one mainstream Western cultural tradition in which Aristotelian metaphysics is still a living culture is the Catholic, and there are Catholic intellectuals who are adept in it (I'm thinking of Jacques Maritain, Edward Feser, Stephen M. Barr, and others of that ilk) because of Aquinas' synthesis of Aristotelian and Neoplatonist philosophy with theology.

In any case, the upshot of a lot of this is that large elements of the consensual metaphysical framework which used to underpin Western culture and society have been forgotten or abandoned, and not really replaced (although there are always nascent forms of a new metaphysic emerging.) But I think this is the deep cultural reason for the uneasiness (not to mention the outright hostility) directed towards metaphysics - too close to religion for comfort!

Fantastic answer from ChatGPT. But there's a lot of 'in principle' there. I agree, it's 'in principle' testable, in a way that much speculative physics is not, but a lot would have to happen first. I'm confident you and I will never see it, it will remain 'in principle', possibly forever.


Deutsch is a very imaginative individual, and this whole many-worlds idea appeals on that level. But the Copenhagen attitude is much more modest, in my view. May not be as exciting.

I remember reading years ago the Guardian review of Brian Greene's book on the multiverse (which I know is a different thing to the many worlds interpretation, but still)....

When Moses asks to see who or what he has been conversing with on Mount Sinai, he is placed in a crevice and told to look out once the radiance has passed (no peeking now!). Anything more than a glimpse of God's receding back, the story implies, would blow his mortal fuses. The equivalent passage in Hindu scripture occurs in the Bhagavad Gita – and, as befitting that most frank of all religions, is more explicit about the nature of the fatal vision. Krishna responds to the warrior Arjuna's request by telling him that no man can bear his naked splendour, then goes right ahead and gives him the necessary upgrade: "divine sight". What follows is one of the wildest, most truly psychedelic episodes in world literature.

No longer veiled by a human semblance, Krishna appears in his universal aspect: a boundless, roaring, all-containing cosmos with a billion eyes and mouths, bristling with "heavenly weapons" and ablaze with the light of a thousand suns. The sight is fearsome not only in its manifold strangeness but because its fire is a consuming one. "The flames of thy mouths," a horrified Arjuna cries, "devour all the worlds … how terrible thy splendours burn!"

Until recently, a physicist would have regarded this scene as the picturesque delirium of a pre-scientific age. Most still would. And yet the contemplation of the unspeakable flowering of an infinity of worlds is no longer the province of "mystics, charlatans and cranks", as the leading string theorist Michio Kaku has written, but instead occupies "the finest minds on the planet".

Welcome to the multiverse. — Ned Denny, TheGuardian

The other point that might be considered is the confluence of metaphysics and religion. Quite often the two will be grouped, as they were by the Vienna Circle, who routinely lumped them together. Why is that? I think it's because they're both the attempt to account for the foundational bases of being itself. There also an historical factor - which is that early Christian theology incorporated a good deal of the terminology and conceptual tools from Aristotelian metaphysics (and neoplatonism) to provide the philosophical superstructure for belief. That found its ultimate expression in Thomism in the West and orthodox theology in Eastern Europe. They can be dealt with separately but because of the way they've ended up being blended there is a fairly porous boundary - it is clear that movements like positivism, again, tend to regard them as different aspects of the same meaningless morass of verbiage.

...the quantum AI experiment that he describes... — Andrew M

You mean this?

if we had a quantum computer on which an artificial-intelligence program was running, say, with human level artificial-intelligence then this entity would be able to experience interference in its own consciousness. — Are There Many Worlds? David Deutsch in conversation with Markus Arndt

You think that is remotely close to what Popper would consider 'falsifiable by empirical evidence'?

‘When we create an artificial human using technology that doesn’t exist yet, all will be revealed!’

I think that's pretty accurate. Metaphysics mainly comprises unproven first principles - unproven, because they are understood as the basis for any investigation to proceed. If you wonder what they are, it's because they're generally so deeply embedded in your outllook that they condition how you think about things, without your necessarily being conscious of them. They are often principles that are thought to 'go without saying'.

Consider the epistemological approach known as radical constructivism, which is a kind of anti-realist attitude - 'radical constructivism is an approach to epistemology that situates knowledge in terms of knowers' experience. It looks to break with the conception of knowledge as a correspondence between a knower's understanding of their experience and the world beyond that experience. Adopting a sceptical position towards correspondence as in principle impossible to verify because one cannot access the world beyond one's experience in order to test the relation, radical constructivists look to redefine epistemology in terms of the viability of knowledge within knowers' experience'. The metaphysical claim shows up in the inevitable debates with realists. 'What?' realists will demand. 'You think the whole world is only in your mind?' I've been a party in this debate many times, generally as the former, and it proves difficult or impossible to bridge the gap between worldviews, because there's a kind of foundational or temperamental disposition that I think is associated with those respective views, that is very hard to articulate.

Might also add, by way of full disclosure, that I am very much a dog lover. I've had quite a few, though none currently - my dear other is indifferent to them - but the last one in particular, named River, I had a very close physical relationship with, as I used to take him to the dog wash every week, and he was also a rather emotionally needy dog, as he'd been neglected for years prior to being rescued by us, and had apparently been caged alone for a great many years. Took him six months to settle down.

(He was also an exceedingly lazy dog, although it turned out he might have been suffering from diabetes for the 3 years that we cared for him.)

Something I'd like to see is the connection between Cartesian philosophy and how we still treat animals. — Moliere

That was in the back of mind when I started this debate, although since joining forums ten years ago I've become aware of how deeply influential Descartes is in modern culture (much more so that most people are consciously aware.) But his mechanistic view of organisms is deeply embedded in today's culture although being seriously challenged now by (for example) semiotics in biology, embodied cognitivism, and other more holistic philosophies.

(@Janus, @Manuel - if you do create another thread I'll move the relevant comments from this one if you like.)

That is rather chilling! You can see how it dovetails with the Biblical 'dominion over beasts' dogma. (I think I prefer pagan philosophy, overall.)

I know I'm the one who introduced Dennett into the conversation, but let's try and keep the thread on track, or else I'll split it into a new topc.

Thanks for that! Jonathan Bennett's editions are always very helpful. I'm nowhere near really understanding the background to these disputes, I will admit.

Quite what Descartes means by 'thought', why humans have it and animals don't - I have a rough idea, but I'll do some more reading. But one point is that I'm sympathetic to the idea that the faculty of reason is (in Descartes' terms) 'an incorporeal power', i.e., something that cannot be explained in physical terms (contra the philosophical materialists.) Reason comprises the ability to grasp the relationship of ideas, and is not reducible to any notion of physical causation (a theme I'm exploring under the 'argument from reason'.) I'm of the view that when h. sapiens evolved to the point of being able to reason, speak and tell stories, then a new horizon of being opened up which is not reducible to the physical domain, including the biological domain. In other words, that humanity transcends biology. I think that is a modernised version of Descartes' belief.

But it seems to me that Descartes' understanding of the mind or soul is too narrow. It's not that I would rather say that 'dogs have souls', but my conception of what 'the soul' stands for is much broader than Descartes allows. There is mention of the Pythagoreans belief that souls transmigrate between different species (there's a famous anecdote that Pythagoras recognised the departed soul of a friend in the bark of a dog), which Descartes dismisses. He's on firm ground there, of course, because reincarnation is anathema to the Church. But me, I'm not so certain......

In the article Descartes on Animals in the Philosophical Quarterly, Peter Harrison argues that the view that Descartes denied feelings to animals is mistaken. — RussellA

It is not available for free online reading, but I do know and respect Peter Harrison's work.

Before cancelling Descartes and tearing down his statues... — RussellA

Please notice I've already stated that:

I'm not someone who wants to tear down statues of famous people connected to the slave trade, for instance.... — Wayfarer

and also

I have respect for Descartes - certainly I don’t want to ‘cancel’ him! — Wayfarer

Criticism is not cancellation! In fact the inability to make this distinction is one of the primary drivers of 'cancel culture'.

Well talking to orchids sure is preferable to torturing dogs, I’ll give you that.

"A number of studies have shown that plants feel pain, and vegetables are picked and often eaten while still alive. Animal rights activists are often in the news, but has anyone ever protested for vegetable rights?" — RussellA

Perhaps we could all become Jains

The observer problem is a problem because there’s nothing in the maths to indicate where the observer must come into the picture. But the act of observation seems to be fundamental to determining the result. This undermines the principle of objectivity, that things are ‘just so’ irrespective of whether they’re observed or not. And that is one of the planks of Galilean science. As soon as the observer has to be acknowledged - that’s where the trouble starts, as far as science is concerned.

Philosophy long pre-dates, and post-dates, Descartes. I have respect for Descartes - certainly I don’t want to ‘cancel’ him! But the discovery of the particular acts under discussion here does change my opinion, not so much of Descartes the man (though there is that) but of the overall credibility of Descartes’ philosophical model. That discussion upthread about Descartes denying that animals are in any way different to rocks or earth - Aristotle's ontology was better than that! He recognised that animals possess attributes which mere matter does not, even if he also acknowledged that they lack reason. Something really fishy about all this.

I started the thread as a kind of :yikes: - so far, the most significant further discovery has been the article that Hanover linked to on the Friesian school website. There's probably a lot more to be discovered.

I'm kind of a dualist, myself - but as far as I understand it (which is probably not far), I'm much more persuaded by the matter-form dualism of 'A-T' (Aristotelian-Thomist) than by Descartes'.

As often I have no idea what you’re on about, but please don’t try to explain, it will probably only confuse things further.

Sure you’re not thinking of Voltaire?

How is it possible to even discuss these things without a deep knowledge of the machinery of experiments? — jgill

PBS SpaceTime video on the double-slit experiment.

Dr Quantum video on the double-slit - short and to the point.

They both cover the same basic subject matter. The basic point is graspable without any deep knowledge of physics, but of course learned exposition on the competing interpretations - why we see what we see - is a different matter.

Did philosophy begin somewhere? If so, where and how and when and why and who and what? — Bret Bernhoft

The actual word, 'philo-sophia', 'love-wisdom' is derived from Greek, and what is recognised in Western culture as philosophy is likewise derived from ancient Greek culture. Some say the first to be given the title 'philosopher' was Pythagoras, others that philosophy proper begins with Plato's Apology. Some will argue that philosophy is universal and found in other cultures also, and there's some truth in that, but I think for the English-speaking world, it's worthwhile trying to think about the subject in the terms that are associated with the philosophical tradition, proper. Trying to re-invent it from scratch would be rarely productive, save for the occasional prodigy.

Morris' book was ostensibly scientific - he had been (just looked it up again) keeper of primates at a zoo. But he made a lot out of the sexuality of h. sapiens - basically that was the main subject, or at least the only bit that made an impression. :yikes:

I recall barely anything about 'sex education' at school but I vividly recall my encounters with erotic magazines and literature.

We're sexual creatures, our libido being, as is obvious, liberated from the rhythms of the universe; quite unlike other animals, we're arousable 24×7, 7 days a week, 30 days a month, whole year round — Agent Smith

Gotta say, there was a book in the 60's called The Naked Ape, by Desmond Morris, which made all these points in abundant detail. God, it was hot ¹. It was where I first learned about fellatio. (Parent's bookshelves were a treasure trove of erotica in the 60's - who could forget Burgo Partridge's A History of Orgies? None of it actual porn, although that, and Philip Roth's Couples, was as good as, at that age....)

-------
1. "In February 1976, the book was removed from high school library shelves by the board of education of the Island Trees Union Free School District in New York." -wikipedia.

How does the additional fact of now knowing of Descartes' predilection for dog hammering affect your previous understanding of the Meditations? — Hanover

That it indicates his philosophical dogma is radically insufficient in a way which I hadn't previously understood. It's one thing to argue abstractions, quite another when infliction of actual suffering is involved.

This just seems such an aside held out for outrage. — Hanover

I have no particular axe to grind against Descartes. Up until this disclosure, I had no reason to think ill of him, and frequently refer to him in discussions.

That's a downgrade from Descartes, because Descartes was not crazy enough to think we doubted consciousness - while Dennett does. — Manuel

I quite agree, but I think this discussion is helping to understand the progression from Descartes to Dennett. Dennett's major foil is Descartes, and many of Dennett's critics note that he seems to act as if philosophy begins with him. Perhaps Descartes' metaphysical schema is such that one of it's consequences would inevitably be something like eliminative materialism, because of the way it depicted mind as a kind of ghostly substance (bearing in mind, what Descartes means by 'substance' is really nearer to 'being' or 'subject').

All that said, I recognise Descartes' genius. The invention of algebraic geometery alone provided one of the fundamental tools in the arsenal of modern scientific method.

Oh, and I agree with you about Janus' 'straw Dennett'. ;-)

Wayfarer, I know you have a hard time with a 'bigger' universe, — noAxioms

Notice the quotes around 'bigger'. What I think you actually mean is, 'many'. They're very different things.

Einstein didn't like the uncertainty principle or the 'quantum leap' because he was a determinist.

There is no invisible thing associated with consciousness. There is no soul, as some envision, that is the essence of consciousness. — Sam26

What the human mind does - uniquely well, as far as we can ascertain - is grasp abstract ideas and see causal relations (among other things) which are foundational for the ability to speak and reason. Consider for example the ‘imperfection argument’ from the Phaedo - that there is no physical or empirically existent instance of what is denoted by “=“. No two things are exactly the same (other than numbers, which are not things). And yet we rely on the concept of equals (and other like concepts) for all manner of rational thought. Rational thinking relies on such abilities, which have no physical equivalent, but without which there would be no science or mathematics. That is an attribute of the faculty of reason. That is a far cry from an ‘invisible thing’ yet it is a unique characteristic of the rational mind. Nor is it an ability for which there could feasibly be a scientific explanation, as any scientific explanation will of necessity rely on the very faculty which it would be here seeking to explain.

:up:

It's all ad hom. — Hanover

Ad hominem means 'attacking the man not the argument'. I'm criticising the metaphysic which can overlook or endorse such activities. It's not an ad hominem argument. To my mind it indicates a serious deficiency of the understanding, especially significant because of the role which Descartes occupies in the formation of the modern mind.

Also, as I stated, I'm not one who favours indiscriminately judging past actors by present standards, but this seems a different kind of case (although I must admit I did say it lowered my opinion of him.)

Never noticed that. Will seek it out next visit (which may well be in about 6 months.)