Some comments on 'Matter and Mind'

 

--Nasir Khan

In response to my short article 'Mind and Matter', Linden Wilson wrote a long comment.

I am reproducing below that comment followed by my reply. This exchange is suitable for anyone interested in Western philosophy or the history of ideas.

Linden Wilson wrote: 

 

Nasir, my friend, you have every right to express what you believe, but you can't claim what you believe as fact, just as i can't claim that the non-physical mind does exist is fact, even though i believe it. However, there are sophisticated arguments for the existence of such things, which cannot be so easily dismissed or counter-claimed, which is why the argument rages on, Descartes was never essentially disproved, nor i would claim, can he be, and recent philosophers such as Ryle, Churchland, Dennett etc, have not succeeded in proving their cases that such ideas are just illusions of various kinds. I could point you to Frank Jackson and David Chalmers and whole host of others who take a different stance, in fact not only is there a philosophy of mind, but there is now a thriving philosophy of consciousness, and even of emotions, because these things do not 'fit' the physicalist paradigm, which only dominates science because only such 'physicalist' things were measured 'scientificly, for obvious reasons. Whichever way you analyse consciousness, emotions, thoughts, sensations and other such 'mind' things, all the things which make us 'alive', there are no such things as, to put it crudely, 'atoms of consciousness or emotion' etc which can be physically pinpointed, described, and systematized in the way material phenomena can be, they perfectly elude such attempts, which perhaps should make us think again but that's only my perspective. I also think biasedly, that these things are the most interesting things to study because they make us 'alive', could we call ourselves 'alive' if we had no consciousness, no conscious thoughts, no emotions, feelings, sensations, imaginings etc? I would have to say no, so what are these things, the mystery deepens?

-

Nasir Khan replied:

 

Dear Linden Wilson, I speak and write as a materialist. As a result, I see my views as a reflection of that particular philosophical outlook in all its ramifications. I disclaim to be a spiritualist or an idealist. Obviously, you raise some important points and they reflect your approach to many metaphysical issues. I again repeat in light of what you say that metaphysical questions are not something we can scientifically prove or disprove! So, your judgments seem somewhat light-hearted to me! When you talk about consciousness, feelings, emotions and thoughts, etc., you are putting them just outside the ambit of matter. But things can't be compartmentalized or categorized in so easy a manner.

In fact, I had given my views on this matter in my short explanation above. Perhaps, you may read again what I said and then see what you have written in your large comment, which I appreciate nonetheless. I don't know on which grounds you say that Descartes was not disproved, or Ryle, etc. did not 'prove' their case. Descartes' duality of mind-body problem is too mouldy now for any serious discussion. But Ryle approached the problem of mind in a distinctive way. In fact, he struck at the roots of the non-existing problem of mind, and showed its vacuity.