Again, in the interest of explaining the screen argument further, I will list out every example I can think of of screens.
1. The screen of vision
Me standing in the Gulf of Mexico, thinking philosophical thoughts. |
2. The screen of sound
http://www.listenonrepeat.com/watch/?v=0NKUpo_xKyQ
Listen to this Ellie Goulding's song, Lights (I hope it is to your taste). The sounds you hear are just as much a screen as the 'image' of your field of vision. I am saying that those sounds exist, because there they are. Listen. Those sounds exist, and they exist in the form that you are hearing them. However, in your brain those sounds do not exist in the form that you are perceiving them. Your brain is completely sufficient for hearing sounds and interpreting them, but no where in your brain do the sounds you are hearing exist in the form that you hear them.
3. The screen of touch
Go find yourself a safety pin, such as this one:
Now, poke yourself in the finger. Painful, right? Why did you agree to actually do that?
While any feeling from touching could be used as an example, I picked a painful pin prick because it stands out. The pain you feel right when that pin, or needle, or spine goes right through your skin making your exclaim 'ouch!' is a screen. I'm saying that the pain itself exists. Why? Because there it is. You are feeling it. That really is the only way to argue for its existence. THERE IT IS. If you don't get it yet, poke yourself again.
The pain correspond to neural pathways, true. But the actual pain itself, as a screen, does not exist in your brain. The pain does not exist in the natural world that you are experiencing through your senses.
If it did, could you point at it? Point at the pain of a pin prick. Or perhaps you could take the mass of the screen of touch?
I don't think you can, but at the same time, the pain of that pin prick does exist.
4. The screen of taste/smell.
Go eat a strawberry! The actual taste itself exists.
Now smell a skunk. That smell actually exists.
Or perhaps the taste/smell of smoke?
That would be a... Wait for it...SMOKESCREEN.
Same argument as the past three, I hope this is starting to make sense!
5. The screen of thought, imagination, and memory
I'm not sure whether or not to break this into categories, so I'll just talk about them at the same time.
Wait, what is that big scary monster sneaking up behind you???
Did you perhaps, just imagine a scary monster behind you? If you did not, please do so now, for the sake of argument.
For example, you may have imagined this:
Or perhaps you imagined a tall, scary, slender man.
Maybe that wasn't your imagination.
No matter what you imagined, you can picture things in your mind. Those mental images you create are screens too. Think of a unicorn. You have a mental image of a unicorn, correct? Now think of a snail. Got that picture in your mind?
Remember your first kiss? Remember eating a really tasty meal? Remember being really embarrassed in high school? Remember yesterday? These memories are screens.
Finally, think out loud to yourself: "The world is an interesting place." Now think out loud, in your mind, "I wonder how many grains of sand there are on the beach?"
Those 'words' you are thinking in your mind exist in the form that you are thinking them, but they do not exist in the form that you are thinking them in the natural world.
Conclusion
The argument should be clear at this point.
1. Screens exist.
2. Screens exist in the form that they exist
3. Screens do not exist in the natural world.
- You cannot point at screens in the natural world. They do not have mass. Neural pathways correspond to screens, but have a different form than screens.
- We know that screens exist in the form that they exist because THERE THEY ARE. You are seeing/hearing/feeling/thinking them RIGHT NOW. Look/listen/feel/taste/think!
This is interesting, because it appears that these things that exist outside of the natural world are tied to the natural world, via brains.
Understanding this reveals something extremely interesting about what it means to be human. We, as humans, seem to be both natural and more than natural beings. We exist in nature, but a part of us exists outside of nature.
The knowledge that we are more than natural beings is quite literally, right in front of our eyes.
I find that to be deeply interesting.
Thanks for reading,
-JTS
if I am reading your post right it sounds like you think that though we may (to use just one of your examples) be able to point to the part of the brain responsible for pain we cannot account for either the experience of pain or our consciousness of it in the natural world. If I am understanding right you are pointing out THE basic assumption/flaw in a physicalist understanding of reality. I can, however, think of a few objections that might be made. Most die hard physicalists would say that we simply cannot tie consciousness, or screens, down to the brain YET. It is not that our experiences or our consciousness of our experiences are not physical it is just that science has not advanced enough to explain consciousness fully. Secondly, it is unclear how something nonphysical can rise from something physical. Wouldn't there have to be a nonphysical antecedent to our experience of pain for that experience to be non-physical?
ReplyDeleteHi!
DeleteThanks for your comment!!!
I think science has already reached the point it needs to reach for us to know that screens do not exist inside of our brains in the form that screens exist. For that, we simply need a dissection and a microscope.
This is why the argument is hard to get around. Screens exist in the form that we perceive them, but if they do not exist in the form that they exist in in the natural world. We would have to be able to point to something in the natural world that looks like our field of vision in order to do that.
In response to your second point- that is a great point. I haven't developed my thoughts on that yet, other than to say that it is very interesting. True, it is unclear how something nonphysical could arise from something physical, or the other way around. The connection between the two is also unclear.
I will have to ponder those ideas. Let me know if you think of something!
-JTS
Ancient Hebrew food for thought:
ReplyDelete(You may already know this, sorry for junking up your comments if you do)
The Greek/Western connotation for soul is that it is part of a three part existence, ie body, soul, and spirit. However, the Hebrew thought for a soul is that it is a collision, if you will, between dirt (Adam is related to "soil, dirt, earth") and the breath of God (could also be "spirit of God" or "wind of God"). Your comments on it being a natural/supernatural combo made me think about this. Their idea was that human existence was kind of an emergent property of when those things were combined. If I didn't explain that well, let me know, and I can ask for clarification or better explanation from a friend of mine who is getting her MA in Jewish Thought in Israel.