I'm not going to be the one to bad mouth Decartes, but in common with all philosophies that are older than me, we know know more about how things work.
Thoughs take place in the physical brain, even though we are not 100% on how we can be almost sure that all thoughts cease when thebrain no longer functions. Mind then is in the physicality of the brain, and so not independant of body at all. The question them becomes what is spirit, and more importantly how does it interact with matter. As a religous man, I must belive that the two are seperate and yet combined, yet I have no problems with the concept of God being apart from and a part of the physical universe, so I have problems excepting this. On May 18, 11:09 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > It get harder than even the following standard philosphy Lee: > Since a Cartesian substance is a thing that is ontologically > independent (Principles I:51–52), a complete thing is an ontologically > independent thing. When we clearly and distinctly perceive mind and > body to be complete, we know that they are substances. When we still > clearly and distinctly perceive them to be substances after clearly > and distinctly perceiving them apart from each other, we know that > they are not the same substance under different descriptions. On this > view, Descartes holds that mind and body are ontologically independent > substances, and their distinctness consists in their ability to > continue to exist even after God separates them.[36] > > An alternative interpretation of Descartes on the real distinction > between mind and body reads the distinction as consisting in the > ontological independence of mind and body, but not in their > separability.[37] Descartes holds that a sufficient condition for > establishing a real distinction between two things is clearly and > distinctly perceiving them to be non-identical substances (“Synopsis > of these following six Meditations,” AT 7:13, CSM 2:9; Fourth Replies, > AT 7:221–223, CSM 2:156–58). If so, he holds that the substantiality > of two non-identical substances does not consist in their being > separable but is just an indication of their separability.[38] On this > view, mind and body are separable for Descartes; it's just that their > separability is a consequence of the (different) fact that they are > really distinct.[39] > > A third reading of the Cartesian real distinction stresses the > difficulty in making room for unactualized possibilities in Descartes' > system. The reading also highlights that Descartes holds that our > clear and distinct perceptions are veridical but says (in his proof of > real distinction) that God can bring about whatever we clearly and > distinctly perceive. Descartes is clear in other texts that the reason > why he mentions God's power in the proof of real distinction is to > remind us that no matter how unlikely we think it is that our > intimately united minds and bodies could also be really distinct, God > has enough power to have made all of our clear and distinct > perceptions veridical. > > I'd rather swim in your sea mate! Science gets like this in its > conceptions. It's seriously entertained that distance is a complex > illusion. > > On May 18, 11:05 am, "[email protected]" > > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Duality and non duality. It's a hard one to get the head around. > > > I belive that Ik on kar, that duality is indeed an illusion, but it's > > a bit one way and a bit the other. > > > If God has granted us free will, that is the freedom to choose God or > > not, then that points towards non duality, but does it really? > > > I see it like water. The sea is the whole, the ik on kar, but it is > > made up of individual drops. We are both the individual drops and the > > whole. > > > On May 18, 10:14 am, RP Singh <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I have no religion. But I studied and grew up as a Hindu. > > > > On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 10:40 AM, the taoist shaman <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > RP ---what is the name of your religion > > > > > RP Singh wrote: > > > >> In duality there is the relationship of the observer and the observed > > > >> , the knower and the known , that is , there are two. In Non-Duality > > > >> there is only One and the world which is dualistic in nature , remains > > > >> what it is , just an illusion - i.e. subject to birth and death. God > > > >> ,Reality or Atman is Non-Dual and duality is just its expression.- > > > >> Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
