 Let us resume our discussion on dualism. As you all know that Descartes is advocating the substance dualism and in the last class I mentioned that we will be discussing the criticism of Ryle and John Searle with reference to Descartes substance dualism. We had briefly discussed about Gilbert Wright's criticism that is how Descartes commits category mistake. Descartes is being debated and discussed for last probably more than 400 years now and the problem of dualism is becoming perennial problem in philosophy of mind. Now, how does Descartes commit category mistake? Descartes commits this category mistake because Descartes puts mind and the body into two different framework and for him they are categorically distinct from each other. Now, this is was not acceptable to many and Ryle understanding the difficulties that Descartes is committing points out that this is a category mistake. Now, category mistakes becomes a problematic one because the problem of dualism is not that Descartes does not see the interaction between the mind and the body and this interaction has to be a logical interaction. This interaction is not to be you know governed by the existence of God or any other mystical power. So, therefore, Ryle points out that mind has to be located in the body and has to be exhibited in our voluntary actions. Mind is not a mystical entity. Mind is something that is shown in our everyday activities. Nothing hidden as I mentioned that one of the questions was about is there something hidden? Ryle was certainly referring to the Freudian notion of mind which says that there is a subconscious mind and this subconscious mind is not given to our consciousness and that remains an important category for Freud because the subconscious mind sometimes can control and the conscious mind and the subconscious mind perform voluntary actions which are known to the conscious mind as you know there are many movies sort in this particular problem of Freudian unconsciousness. Now, let us not go into that right now probably we will come back to this little later in our lecture what is the significance of Freudian consciousness, but today we are going to resume our discussion on the problem of dualism precisely giving two things in our mind. One is whether Ryle's criticism against Descartes is little problematic and how far it is acceptable to others. And second one is as I mentioned earlier that we will be also discussing about Searle's criticism to Descartes's concept of mind. Does dualism prevail is a question mark and with all these criticisms let us look at the difficulties that Ryle comments. Now, Hofstadter in one of his paper Ryle on category mystic writes I would summarize the kind of problem I find there are three important problem Hofstadter is mentioning. One is that Ryle is making a brilliant attack on mentalism in general and dualism in particular and the second one is dualism is not a factual mistake for Ryle it is a logical mistakes and the logical mistake is based on the problem of the study of logic of language as you know during that time McDonald points out in one of his paper and all this paper published in 1951 after Ryle's work the famous work the concept of mind and many of them were discussing about Descartes's problem and they were Ezeier, Ludwig Wittgenstein and many others and Ryle probably sharing their ideas with us but this piece of work the concept of mind is a classic to the philosophical community who is working on philosophy of mind. Now, Ryle says that it is there is something problematic about the logic of language the language is been used and another problem which Hofstadter finds is that Ryle is committing to a some kind of a sophisticated naive behaviorism is it true that Ryle is committing to that kind of behaviorism what is behaviorism that we will be discussing little later. So, keeping all these three points in mind let us look at what makes the bodily movement a voluntary one is a causal question for Hofstadter and that is one important question which I was discussing yesterday and this is one of the first you know disagreement with Ryle. Ryle says that how are the mental concepts applicable to human behavior is a question about causation of behavior this is something very significant when we talk about how do we perform voluntary actions is this voluntary action are consciously performed or they are intentional so on and so forth. Now, all intentional actions are conscious actions all intentional actions are subject to our moral evolution whether being as a moral one must talk about or must say that whether it this action is good or bad right or wrong this is how we evaluate this is how we reflect on our actions. Now, Hofstadter points out that if somebody is performing an action if somebody is behaving in a particular way now these behaviors are certainly caused by something now what is the cause of this action one of the disagreement of Hofstadter with Ryle the other one is it the behavior which is caused by the body and not by some kind of a non-material agency or the self Descartes discusses now if it is caused by the body then what is the causal principally now according to Ryle there are dispositions and sub dispositions which can manifest into actions. So, body has certain dispositional capacities and this dispositional capacities cause action cause behavior now Ryle therefore, according to Hofstadter is committing to some kind of a naive behaviorism now behaviorism is a materialistic theory of mind there are other materialistic theory of mind which will be discussing in the next class. So, for example, functionalism is one of the now materialistic schools of thought. So, let us think how does Ryle or overcome this issues probably for Ryle as we talked about the second point that Ryle was only talking about some kind of a analysis or Ryle was giving to us some kind of analysis of the kind of concepts which were used by Descartes. So, that was something interesting Ryle is not a behaviorist in the way we understand behaviorism. So, Ryle is not eliminating the concept of mind Ryle is not reducing the concept of mind now the question is is Ryle giving an explanation of the concept of mind or he is just describing the mental phenomena say for example, volition, emotion, will are all these concepts are dealt separately in different chapters in the particular classic for the concept of mind. Now, where Ryle gives an elaborate analysis of these concepts now there is a distinction between philosophical explanation and the scientific explanation. Philosophical explanation is a kind of a description, whereas scientific explanation is some kind of a causal explanation as you know science follows the principle of causality and tries to find out what is the cause of a particular event if the event is occurring in the world then what is the cause of it. For Hofstadter the question was whether Ryle is looking for the cause the way scientists are looking for the cause of mind or he is just giving an analysis and the analysis is based on the logic of the language. Now, if that is true then this kind of you know questions which Hofstadter is making that what makes the bodily movement voluntary is a causal question because look at the last sentence in Ryle's is a question about the causation of behavior. So, that was now a point which Ryle is talking about and that can be translated as this is what makes the bodily movement voluntary. Now, the second disagreement which Hofstadter is having is that Descartes is not to be blamed for advocating dualism because historically if you look at the concept of dualism it has been advocated by Stoics, it has been advocated by Plato, Aristotle and Augustine and many others. So, dualism is not an issue only with Descartes. Descartes is only trying to show us that how mind cannot be explained within the framework of a mechanistic world mechanistic world view which is given by the science and how can we talk about the mind with satanity that there is something and that is a real one how can we talk about such a self evident truth that mind exist. So, Descartes endeavor is something very significant in that direction if somebody tries to read Descartes from this point of view I am sure that he would try to find out how Descartes philosophical presuppositions are based on this epistemological concepts as we mentioned satanity, clarity, distinctness and self-evidence. So, all this if something is real then they must fulfill all these characteristics and that will be that will give some kind of authenticity. So, but Ryle questions the authenticity of Descartes because Ryle finds that this is some kind of a privileged access it is the self is only privileged to have this access to the mind. So, the privileged access thesis talks about that only an individual is having this access to his private mind and it is not accessible through the other meaning thereby others would not know my mind it is of course true that I am aware of my own thoughts as all of you are aware of your thoughts. So, and it is true that we look at mind from our own point of view is something very important we will come back to that, but what is important here is to note that dualism is not a problem with Descartes whether dualism is been advocated and Descartes is not to be blamed for this that he is making a kind of a category mistake. So, that was Hostert's point let us see how do we explain actions. So, philosophical explanation as I pointed out earlier that it is descriptive rather than explanatory because when we talk about human actions when we talk about voluntary actions. Now, all these voluntary actions are having some kind of a purpose. Now, if they are teleological and therefore, they cannot be explained only with reference to the kind of a the nervous systems function like a cybernetic mechanism. So, they cannot be explained only with reference to the physiology of the body the physiological function of the body. The physiological function is all right say we do accept that there are physiological functions which goes in accord with our thoughts. So, there is a kind of a harmony between the activities of the body and the mental activities. So, that harmony is not rolled out, but what is important is this that most of the time when we talk about scientific explanations of the mind we refer to the cybernetic mechanism or the mechanism that are there with reference to the anatomy human anatomy or physiology and they give evidences and science goes with evidence because evidence will show us how it can be proved how it can be proved that this is what is happening. So, scientific analysis is mostly demonstrative as you know it can be viewed from a third persons point of view. So, the demonstrative attitude of science it is explicitly present in rile. So, therefore, rile is trying to give an explanatory account rather than giving a kind of a descriptive account of the philosophy of mind. Now, what is descriptive and why description holds sound on what context description holds sound is to be seen. Now, most of the cases when we talk about mind is not an observable phenomenon it is not observable facts all observable facts are explained with the help of a theory science talks about a theory which explains the phenomenon. If mind is an unobservable fact then certainly we cannot have an explanation of mind in the framework of science. So, therefore we need to talk about a descriptive theory probably you know will help us to talk about mind. So, that is something very interesting. So, that science deals with explanation whereas philosophical explanations are different from scientific explanations. And you all know Wittgenstein's famous statement that philosophy is not science philosophy is either neither above or below science. So, the very fact that philosophy is not to be identified science. So, philosophical enterprise is something different it is something unique and for Wittgenstein it is a philosophical explanations are ought to be descriptive. Because, when we talk about scientific explanation if we accept scientific explanation as something true and it is fundamental. So, for as the truth is concerned then probably we will not see the significance of unobservable phenomenon like the mind. So, human mind and as an unobservable fact as an experiential fact will be eliminated will not be discussed as it has been discussed in philosophical theories. So, scientific theory eliminates probably the concept of mind. So, there is a danger in looking for a scientific explanation of the philosophical mind. So, philosophy has to differentiate itself the way it studies its own phenomenon. Now, why there will be mind as I said when we talk about voluntary actions when we perform voluntary actions we do perform it with this idea that there is something called a self or there is something called an ascent who is you know directing us and this direction with a purpose. So, there is a purpose in our actions. So, and that is why it is called voluntary actions . Now, look at now the way Hofstadter defines the concept of man. What is man he says and why this dualism I quote Hofstadter. Man exhibits certain characteristics in behavior a complex persistence in variation, teleological unit, multiple track dispositions and so on whereas, stones do not that is where human being is different from the other objects other things in the world other material bodies. And look at the next quotation man are something more than the bodily having something competent as body is not to make body behave intelligently and this is soul. Now, what makes the body to behave intelligently is something interesting. So, there we can talk about we can presuppose that there is somebody or there is something called soul or there is something called mind which is directing us and that is not to be explained you know of when we talk about how there are multiple dispositions and the complexity of human body mechanisms that is not the issue rather how things are planned and how things are executed and so on and so forth. How do we imagine about the reality all these are important how do we rationalize our actions how do we justify ourselves. Now, that is something interesting that gives us a clue to understand this presuppositions that there is something called mind and that is the real and Hofstra says that it is like pilot in the ship you put it in the parenthesis without the pilot the ship wanders endlessly. Hofstra mentions these lines this kind of sounds like a Stortlian and Platonic because there is an end to life and human actions are directed towards that. So, there is a goal there is a purpose so and this purpose makes you know our actions teleological there is a telos there is a purpose in performing an action. So, now, let us go back to Searle's criticism against Descartes now so with these we I will conclude Reil's criticism that even if we talk about mind body dualism we find that dualism is a kind of a problem that would go on in philosophical discourse because looking at this Searle's criticism Searle is raising this in his famous Reith lecture series on mind body problem. The title of the book which was published in 1984 minds brains and science by Harvard University Press I would refer to Searle's this particular text and the first chapter of this text tells us the mind body problem why dualism still remains is a fundamental question because looking at Hofstra does and many others we will find that mind is not something to be eliminated easily as it is probably mind is a substance is not acceptable to many others and but what kind of dualism Searle thinks that it is inevitable in the discourse of philosophy of mind. So, therefore Searle finds that there are two things which are incompatible and probably that is something very problematic for Searle one there is a commonsensical picture and the picture is that man is conscious is free mindful and rational agent and the other one is that there is a scientific conception of the world that everything in the world is constituted of certain material or physical particles. So, therefore, we encounter the problem of dualism because on the one hand we find that there is a world and the world is constituted of certain material bodies the finest molecules particles etcetera the carbons etcetera the other hand you have mind and which is treated as a conscious one which is free etcetera. Now, there is some kind of incompatibility between two and how do we can eliminate this difficulties how can we make this there is some compatibility there mind body relations. Now, Searle is raising two important questions in this context one is how human beings represent the world is something very significant how essentially meaningless world contains meaning. Now, these two questions I think are very important to talk about the concept of mind because in Reil's discussion we found that dualism is threatened we found that mentalism is also threatened and most of the scientific analysis of the concept of mind or the scientific explanation of the concept of mind after say 1950s onwards the kind of literature which are being produced mostly are inclined to the development that are happening in science. Now, their inclination is probably acceptable I mean need to respect the scientific endeavour which is very productive productive because we are finding more and more evidences with reference to our you know actions and with reference to our mind. So, the investigation that is carried out by science is certainly fruitful exercise no doubt about it we have advanced in the direction of neurophysiology neurobiology psychology artificial intelligence etcetera etcetera. Now, there are so many disciplines in science which are studying the concept of mind what is human mind and how human mind can be explained in scientific terms. So, that is that is of course is to be discussed and people are debating on this issue, but what is important is whether there is a mind at all Sal's first question talks about that now how human beings represent the world it is through human beings the world is being represented. So, it is through mind in other words it is through mind that the world is being represented and Descartes was probably emphasizing on this that there is representational mind and look it is idea of clarity and distinctness and Descartes mentions that if language intervenes then there is representation becomes some kind of a unclear one. So, I mean this is particularly with reference to how do we know our mind. So, the moment I bring language the moment I try to express myself there is some kind of a you know gave found but when I try to know myself there is no such gap. So, that kind of you know mind is something is advocated by the mentalist. Mentalist find that mind is real and mind represents the world and the other question which is important how essentially meaningless world contains meaning is as if the world is constituted of material particles then there is no meaning exist in this particles there will be meaning if and only if there is meaner there is a knower it is the existence of the knower which you will talk about the meaning. So, meaning is meaning with reference to the existence of a person who means it. So, there is some kind of a epistemological concern John Searle here that Searle is not only talking about the ontology of the mind because unless the mind is real it cannot represent the world. The other one is that there is a kind of an epistemological significance associated with this semantic enterprise which Searle is looking for that without the knower knowledge about the world is impossible in the in other words without a knower the existence of world is meaningless. So, all this meaning that we talk about is it is with reference to the human society with reference to human life as a whole it is nothing to do with the world in itself. Now, there is of course, Searle says this discussion has some kind of a spill over effects. So, people have tried to locate human mind from the perspective of computer science or artificial intelligence. Now, people have really taken the question seriously is mind a machine is a question do we think like machines or there is a ghost in the machine what we say there is a little man in the brain which is thinking. So, this kind of a debate is something very interesting and we will be definitely talking about it in our future classes. So, Searle says does digital computer give us a right picture of the human mind is a question because most of the cases when we find that at mind is been studied from the perspective of artificial intelligence and the cognitive science claim is this that mind is like a digital machine and the way digital machine operates mind operates in a similar way and we will be discussing about it particularly Prof. Nath will be dealing extensively on this issue when he talks about why computer cannot think and what kind of creativity computers will have and what kind of creativity computers cannot have or probably may not have you know the way we have seen computers. Now, coming back to Searle's discussion on dualism Searle says mind body dualism has something to do with a kind of a stomach digestion problem. So, mind body problem is like a stomach digestion problem. Now, when we talk about stomach when you say that foods are digested in the stomach now digested through a particular biological process. So, similarly mind is a reality to us because there is a brain. So, mind body problem for Searle is not a mind body problem rather mind brain problem and that is analogous to stomach digestion problem. The way brain processes things it gives birth to consciousness. So, consciousness is in fact caused by the brain processes. So, that is why Searle says it is a mind brain issue. So, mind brain problem and the other problem that he finds problematic is this that in Descartes we are you know finding a different kind of vocabulary. Descartes and the critiques of Descartes are concerned with some kind of categories like either you are a monist or a dualist either you are a materialist or a mentalist. If you are a materialist then either you are a behaviorist or you know you are a physicalist or you are a functionalist. Now, this kind of categories the way the philosophers have you know have explained mind with the help of these categories are to be abandoned are to be you know rejected because those categories create now mind body problem. So, this is you know an enormous problem to us and therefore, we do not see mind as it is and it is for that mind body problem still remains a kind of an interesting philosophical problem to us. Now, once we start knowing about how the mind probably will not have the difficulties in understanding the concept of mind. So, Descartes is certainly concerned with the existence of mind. Now, the question is for the Searle is concerned with the mind as I mentioned about these two questions before that now how mind human beings represent the world. Now, certainly Searle is not eliminating ontology of mind. Searle is also not avoiding the epistemological issue that is embedded in the discourse of mind. What is Searle's interest here? Searle is raising a different problem and the problems are very important because there is a enormous development has happened in the scientific understanding of mind and scientific understanding of mind gives a materialistic picture of mind and that picture is like this. So, there is subjective consciousness mental states are not real. In fact, they are reducible to anything else in the universe quoted Searle's words they can be reducible to and this reduction is a causal reduction and there are several kinds of reduction Searle talks about it in his work. The rediscovery of mind will come back to those criticism of Searle's against materialism, but Searle says materialism is somehow rejected the notion of mind is as undermined the existence of mind and that is what is not acceptable. Therefore, Searle is a quote consciousness is the central effect of specifically human aspects of our existence language, love, human and so on would be impossible unquote without consciousness. So, without consciousness all our human aspects of life is really meaningless and that gives a clue how to talk about the ontology of mind. So, that is something very problematic. So, as I mentioned earlier that Searle says there are four things we need to talk about because these four things are important to us and they are consciousness, intentionality, subjectivity and mental causation. Now, all four things are problematic and they are yet to be given proper scientific account, they are yet to be explained away by the materialists. So, as I mentioned earlier that mind is caused by brain processes or consciousness is caused by brain processes. And Searle's famous hypothesis is this that mind is caused by brain processes and realized in brain processes. So, Searle says it is the brain processes which causes mind or consciousness and again these conscious mental states which are caused by brain processes are realized in the brain processes. So, there is a kind of a now causal connection Searle is talking about when he talks about mind and body relationship. Now, this causal connection is certainly different from the kind of causal connection which other emergentists are talking about. We will have now exclusive discussion on the problem of emergentism when we will discuss the famous emergentist Zagun Kim and Searle how do they differ? Does Searle agree with emergentist notion of mind or his notion of mind is something different that we will see in a different context. But for today let us accept this proposition of Searle that mind is caused by brain processes and that is how consciousness is being caused and consciousness includes all kinds of now mental states conscious or unconscious. Now, all these mental states are intrinsically intentional mental states like belief, desire, hope etcetera are intentional mental states. Now, they are intentional because consciousness has this property called intentionality and intentionality is intrinsically associated with consciousness and otherwise how can we say that the mind is about anything? How does a mind represent things? Now, this aboutness or offness is nothing but to talk about the intentionality of the mind because certainly the brain the stuff inside my head is not representing things directly. They do not really mean what they represent they are just kind of a facility dating the representation. So, the second question look at the second question how can it refer to anything? How can the brain refer to anything? So, there is certainly something that is consciousness and it is that conscious mind which makes the reference claims and that reference happens if and only if there is intentionality intrinsic to the mind. So, therefore, it is the mind which represents the world. So, Searle is talking about intentionality and you know his famous work intentionality which is published in Cambridge University Press in 1983 is something very important a text on the philosophy of mind and that is one of the original text of Searle. Now, there is a title of the text is intentionality and essay in philosophy of mind. Look at the next problem that Searle is talking about Searle says it is not the problem of intentionality alone. Intentionality gives birth to another problem that is subjectivity. So, human mental states are subjective. They are subjectively associated with mind or our self. So, for example, when I say I have pain I look at this sensation from my own point of view. When I say that I have pain I am looking at it from my own point of view. So, all the feelings sensation and experiences that we are having or all the mental states that we are having are looked at from the subjects point of view and that constitutes subjectivity. So, subjectivity is an epistemic category for Searle. We will come back to that how Searle talks about ontology and epistemology of the mind later in our discussion on when we talk about the structure of mental states or the structure of mind. But the very fact that I am aware of myself, my intentional mental states which are internal to me are different from the mental states of yours or the mental states of other people is something very significant. He says those mental states are subjective. They are part of my consciousness and similarly your conscious states or your intentional mental states or could be seen from your own point of view. So, there is some kind of a subjectivity which is associated with the problem of consciousness the problem of mind and that cannot be eliminated and the other problem which Searle is talking about is the mental causation. Searle says there is bodily activity say for example, look at Wittgenstein's famous statement the hand is moving upward and I raise my hand. Now, the second statement I raise my hand is a kind of a voluntary action and the reason for making this statement is that I intend to raise my hand up by doing this by performing this action I am giving or I am generating a kind of a meaning to my action. But when I say that the hand is moving up probably I am not voluntarily doing that I am not voluntarily performing the action. Think of myself lying on the bed and I am conscious of it that the hand is going up and down, but I have no control over it. So, the bodily actions bodily movements are performed there without having any control over it digestion is performed without my control over it. So, digestion, palpitations are not voluntary actions they are biological actions. So, of the human organism. So, now similarly brain processes is happening. It is natural biological fact that brain processes will produce some amount of consciousness some amount of mental state. So, brain processes do cause mental states and Searle says when we talk about voluntary actions we explain or voluntary action with reference to a particular mental states or with reference to a collection of mental states. So, that is the reason for my action. So, my action is intentional and there can be an intentional causal explanation of this voluntary action that my hand is going up and whereas the bodily movements or the existence of my body is possible because there is a gravitational force operating around me that is making my making this possibility that I can sit on the chair and I will not fly in the sky. So, I am not going my body will not go up. So, there is a certain gravitational force operating in me. So, Searle is saying that there is a world and the world has a causal influence on the material body and there is also an world called mind which is part of that world and that is causing voluntary actions. So, when he talks about meaning when he talks about representation it is at the second world. Of course, Searle does not speak in terms of this world. Searle does not say that there is a first world second world or third world, but it is for our understanding I am making this statement that it is the mind it is through mind that we make representations and mind has a special role to play when it comes to our semantic activities, when it comes to our knowledge forming capacities, when it comes to our building of institutions, etcetera. So, Searle is talking in the language of 21st century. Searle is of course, not really talking the way Descartes starts in 17th century. So, one of the problems that Searle says that let us do not talk about those categories of dualism, monism, pluralism, etcetera, etcetera. Let us talk about the kind of a reality which we are encountering. I think Searle's criticism against Descartes is something very significant in this context. Searle is not eliminating dualism. Searle probably does not believe in that kind of a categories, but Searle is interested in this question and many people have questioned Searle that Searle is committing a kind of a property dualism. We will see that in our next classes, but with this I would like to conclude that how Reyl's criticism is significant in the direction of understanding the concept of mind and how Searle's criticism makes a fruitful exercise in analyzing the problem of mind. Thank you.