This episode is about a link between descartes Keanu reeves and Yugioh
[Music plays with simpson russell]
You have probably heard of the work of rene descartes famous French philosopher and Captain hook look-alike who wrote I think therefore
I am, which episode one of Philosophy Tube was about .All the way back in the distant past while poorly shot and edited past
But descartes was famous for holding another view as well called
Dualism
In his meditations, Descartes supposed that there were two
Fundamentally different sorts of substances in the universe there's physical stuff which bodies and computers [and] chairs are made up of which is
extended in space hence he called it Ray's extensor
But there's also [mind] stuff
Which isn't in time and space at all?
Thinking stuff or Ray's Kaja tans .
By the way that is Kaga tans with a hard "g"
Not Kaja tans from a latin verb [Co] guitar a meaning to think
Bodies are made of red extensor , minds are made of [Ray's] Kaga tans and the two are seperate
To understand why Descartes formed this, we need to go back to his mission statement
Which you may remember was to doubt absolutely everything he could in order to find something
indubitable which he thought would be certain knowledge
He found that he could doubt everything
except that he was thinking since doubting is a kind of thinking and since thinking
Requires a thinker he knew that he must exist , hence the famous "I think therefore I am" syllogism also called the cogito
Descartes goes on to say that he can doubt the existence of his body and indeed all physical things, but because of the cogito
he cannot doubt that his mind exists
In philosophy there was a notion called
Leibnitz's law ,which descartes kind of leans on here even though live [nets] didn't write it down until after descartes did his work
libel [it] [says] law is the identity that is sameness of
Indiscernibles if you think you have two things and they have all the same properties well
Then you don't really have two things you only have one thing to take an example this pen suppose
I were to say [that]. I really have two pens here, but they have all the same properties including their position in space
well
That's just kind of silly that's the same as having one thing if you think you have two things and they have all the same
properties, they are
identical by the same token if two things have different properties then they must be separate for descartes the
Existence of the body can be doubted but the existence of the mind can't be doubted so they must have different properties
So they must be separate things
The separation of mind and body has actually been quite a pervasive idea it crops up a lot in popular culture
see for instance the Matrix [and] ghost and
ukyo it's time to
Go to the door
But whoa?
Hold on there monsieur. There is a big problem with this and that problem is called
the masked Man Fallacy
It goes like this suppose. You are at a masquerade ball, and there is an enigmatic and charming figure there
But they're wearing a mask so you don't know who it is
Somebody comes up to you and says. I think the masked man might be your dad, and you say that's impossible
[I] know who my dad is [I] do not know who the masked man is therefore their properties are different therefore. They must be different
[what] do you think about something is not a property of the thing itself it is a property of you
Conflating the two is the masked man Fallacy and this is the mistake that descartes makes he can't doubt his body
And he can't doubt his mind, but that is something to do with him
He hasn't actually established that the things [themselves] have different properties to [give] another example Lois lane believes superman can fly
Lois lane does not believe Clark Kent can fly
therefore Clark Kent and Superman are separate
No what you think [about] something is not a property of the thing itself
Furthermore even if descartes had established that mind and body was separate that wouldn't necessarily
Mean that they are two different substances
[Ray's] [Kaga] [Tans] and Res extensors
It could be that mind and body are separate but the mind is still [nevertheless]
Very much part of the physical world and even if descartes was totally right his dualism throws up a whole bunch of questions
For instance we know that what goes on in our bodies is affected by our brains
and we think the brain has something to do with the mind so how does a
non-Physical mind affect a
Physical Brain how does Res cogitans wrap itself around the neurons of Res extensa?
How can a non-physical thing
Causally impact a physical thing and why do people's minds change depending on what you do to their brains?
And I know that your body is separate from mine because they inhabit [different] bits of space
But my mind seems to go where my body goes. But if it's Res cogitans, and it does have a location in space
it's no more in my body that it is in yours
So how come I the subjective seat of my experience [seemed] to go wherever my body goes?
For these reasons Cartesian Dualism is not so popular nowadays
But what do you guys think was descartes on to something here? Are the mind and body separate and if they are are they totally
Separate substances?
send me your questions comments queries and [comebacks], underneath the video on Twitter Facebook or by
Email you can also let me know whether these like the next episode to be about plato's republic
Or do we have?
Individual duties to the environment need like if you enjoy the video and you can subscribe to philosophy Tube using your body to stimulate
your mind
our last episode mixed 18th century Scottish enlightenment philosophy with
Metallica let's see what the plaza fans had to say about hume on Miracles
Hands question said but all you need to do to prove a miracle is to verify that the effects have happened mmM
I would want to also insist that there be some evidence for a supernatural
Explanation of those effects you mentioned the bodies of Saints not rotting as a miracle and whilst a body not rotting can be clearly observed
Before I call that a miracle
I'd want to make sure first of all that it was really happening and second of all [that] there was no ordinary
Natural explanation for it also even if there is no evidence for a natural explanation
That still leaves the question open you'd then need to have some evidence for a supernatural explanation before you call that a miracle
whatever form that supernatural evidence might take
Austin Labonte said that hugh might be throwing the baby out with the bathwater here and saying that certain unlikely
But natural events shouldn't be believed in and gave the example of getting a hole-in-one in the masters golf tournament
Remember though hume was an empiricist. I think in the case of the golf tournament
[he] would say it's more [likely] that the hole-in-one happened than all the camera Crews and witnesses were lying
Crucially because a hole-in-one is a natural event and it's part of the nature of unlikely natural events that they do occasionally happen
Whereas in the case of a miracle [every] second of every day counts as evidence for assuming that the laws of Nature are uniform
So you're always going to have more evidence for supposing [that] a miracle story is
False then the miracle story itself will ever have for assuming that the laws of Nature are not
uniform
Joshua Pearson left a really really good comment underneath the humor said on this which explained it all go and read that he really knows
What [he's] talking about Bronto music said that hume is right
But because Miracles aren't real in one sense doesn't mean they're not real in another
do you
Want to explain that at all?
[I] mean
It seems like if something doesn't exist that's incompatible with it existing surely things don't exist
[more] or [less] you either exist
Or you don't Dominic steen can asked how can we have evidence for the permanence of the laws of [Nature]?
remember hume
Wasn't saying that we have evidence for assuming that they're permanent only that we will always have more evidence for supposing [that] they are
Uniform than any miracle story could ever have for supposing that they are
Non-uniform he wasn't saying that one idea is definitely conclusive
He's saying that we need to weigh the [evidence] the weighing of the [evidence] is the crucial thing
[Ibaka] to [say] that we could define miracles as natural events, but ones which Defy all rational probabilistic interpretation
[I] was waiting for somebody to fall into that trap. I'm afraid [the] problem
Is that it's part of the nature of unlikely event that they do occasionally happen?
so if you say that a miracle is an
unlikely event which happens you're not going to have any way [of] telling the difference between a genuine miracle and an unlikely event that just
Happened, so whilst you may have won a small victory by defining Miracles as possible
you will never be able to definitively point to a particular event and say for sure that it was a miracle, so
Kind of a pyrrhic victory that's why I've got time for this week
Thank you very much for watching and I'll see you in the next episode. Bye