 . To see in the last class we discussed about the nature ofind in the philosophy of Renite and Decart, Decart as you all saw is deriving a kind of athesis which is called substance dualism, as you know for Decart mind is an independent substance and the body is indipendent of the mind. Bod y un mind are two indipendent substances and the existence does not need the help of the other. Meaning thereby the existence of mind does not require the existence of the body and the existence of body does not require the existence of mind. osely ministrars of Chronix f  beverages. Today, we will discuss little further how alligator gutha kabasiko ĕ'anas? Is it simply that Deckard is dediciing from this hypothesis that I think Howard exists or there for I am ? Is it a simple assumeephetic claim that Douihad is making or is something else? What is the epistemological clue and dekat prorides us to understand the nature of the mind or the nature of the self is there a metaphysical necessity to talk about the nature of self. What is the epistemic access to this notion of the self that is what we would like to discuss and at the later half of this talk I will be also talking about critiques of dekat particularly Gilbert and John Searle, Ḩ I have accepted them as critiques because as you know, the Gilbert Wright's famous essay Descartes's myth is very important contribution to the contemporary debate on philosophy of mind. And so also it is true in the case of John American jaunsel appropriate so talking about how mind body problem is no more mind body problem . Rether what is mind body problem today environments like this that taking mind brain problem. So, you come back to this world. shai isong, ƒa thete warindri. Spには ƒ precisely mark, f w obvious I am so nif so I... e r h parse d tro eas සතම මිතලයග කරතුන්තු වන්ත ද� hangුන ගණාධෙ, විතලය බෙතාලයුන්තු. that is what is the kate is claiming why because I am a thinking thing is not accessible to the other I am not an object rather I am the subject which is thinking all the time and hence from this notion of thinking I can very well derive that I exist so I existence the existence of this is not all the ? ?", ?", ?",  Britney ', ?", ?", ?", ?", inin, chuck ?", ?", %, Hey ?", %,  shel  gusta choice cook will  nominations  對啊 ason  acoust есon   think considerations of  你 The two focus on the concept talks about the fact that of mind  Ó Mind is  świat. It does not avía mention the mind is something like ihi material entity is one érieur Tr�fing inassening so that paragus  picture that kind of. Des Sans be one to make and minds are represented in a kind of unitary principle. when I say I have acting I am given the li lust struck like audiences. I said I κάθε, I gave the lecture, and this I represents the entire activities of Madras. They represent mind as a self, and it is something very significant in the garnition theory of mind, theory of mind, where Descartes makes an ontological claim. So, substance dualism talks about the ontology of mind, mind that is really there and when Descartes talks about mind that is really there it is there independent of the objects that are there in the world, so the ontology of the object or the ontology of the world is also not clear. Descartes was questioned by Descartes because Descartes knows, I mean in the sense that Descartes quite convinced with this mechanistic world view which was proposed by Kallinu and many others that the object or the things in the world have an ontological status and their ontology is something which is clear and observable, I mean which also talks about the a self-evident truth. So, the ontology of the world is self-evident because it is observable, it is publicly accessible, etcetera, etcetera. Similarly, the ontology of the mind is also real and it exists and it is accessible from a private sense, it is directly accessible meaning thereby I can directly access my mind, you do not have a direct access to my mind, whether I have direct access to mind, so everyone who thinks have a direct access to their respective minds, I can immediately know that what I am thinking, I am aware of what I am thinking right now, so that state of my mind is immediately accessible, whereas it is not immediately given to your observation. So, what you observe is probably my actions, my behaviors, etcetera, etcetera, but my behaviors, actions are part of the body, it is the body which is performing my behaviors, it is the body which is you know making utterances, it is the body which you know makes this expressions possible, but what is important for direct access to my mind, it is the body which is performing my behaviors, it is the body which is you know making utterances, it is the body which you know makes these expressions possible, but what is important for direct access to my mind, it is the body which is performing my behaviors, it is the body which is you know making utterances, it is the body which you know makes this expressions possible, but what is important for direct access to my mind, here is this that it is not the body alone is real, it is something which is presupposed here is to be looked very carefully that there is a mind which causes certain voluntary actions,  imagination and given this lecture to you all talks about my voluntary action. When you read my behaviors, it gives you reactions. Now, this lectures are already made public a new towas not before, there is a lot of private action. But in Crout ind Framework there is some times of privacy still prevail. In the feeling Madison initial sessions. In the sense that how does one know about the mind? How does one have the access to his or her mind? So in that sense when you look at this question you会 f esas the meant that there is some element of privacy that has still led to Decate and that is because has been criticise for this notion of privacy. That mind is immediately accessible to an individual who is a thinking thing and the thinking subject, he alone is aware of what is thinking. So there is a kind of a inner mind. Chana ped  sunt bi te ​gge pa conformā with pamañi ṇu sanāga  usando ṇu… G� ​, ṇu ṇu Ṭi Ṭi possibili ṇu Ṭa unha inate ṇu le gada durosci T Newsown Rtha Parubhadaaran берdem pongi ṇu lnda su uncles English Jakeda y milligrams ṇu Ṭi chāni Pen 28 acada talit Packard Pall breeding knです that it isha It isha Dosge off Doctor God it isha the existence of God, power of omnipotence this kind of interaction is Possible between this Two tudo the mind and the body lтакиli see ot the fromp こpb deteri I am observing all of you in the class. I am invigilating your examinations, et cetera, et cetera. I am performing voluntary actions and we all perform voluntary actions in our everyday life. When we talk about voluntary actions, human actions in particular, we don't really bother about the mind-body interaction. Rather, this is a very theoretical question and indeed a very philosophical question. It is not a general question in that sense. So, when Lily Allenen points out very recently on his text, Descartes' concept of mind, he says, the mind-body interaction is not questioned at all when we talk about our everyday life phenomena. So, it is questioned only when we talk about when mind is not interacting with the body. If that interaction is possible at all and what is Descartes' response to this? Descartes said this interaction is possible because there is an omnipotence God. So, Descartes gives a kind of a religious answer to the thesis. I mean beyond these two substances, mind and body, Descartes, in fact, many of the historians of philosophy of mind have quoted that Descartes presupposing another kind of a substance. The substance is probably primary substance of God. That comes at the end of his, you know, meditations. Let us not talk about the concept of God. I will come back to this idea when we will talk about Ryle. But let us see if mind and body are interacting, then what is this mechanism of interaction? So, for example, when I came to your class, I thought about what I am going to say today. Now, this thinking or deciding to talk something relevant is a kind of a decision that I am making. So, I am already in conversation with my own self that I will be doing this. Now, when I say I am already in conversation with myself, I am presupposing that there is a self or I am rather talking to me. Now, Descartes says that this kind of intervention and the intervention that happens from language makes a kind of a confused relations. I mean, in the sense that it gives a confused idea about my own being, my own self. Why this confusion? What kind of confusion it is? Now, Descartes, as I mentioned earlier in the previous class, that Descartes is in fact interested in a kind of a knowledge claim, which is clear, distinct and self-evident. Now, knowledge must guarantee clarity. Knowledge must guarantee that it is distinct and clear. Knowledge must guarantee some kind of a certainty to all of us. Hence, it should be self-evidently true. So, the intervention of language does not make things clear according to Descartes, but still Descartes is arguing a kind of a presentational thesis where the existence of mind is presupposed. But my knowledge about my mind is such an immediate knowledge where I do not really require the help of language to know it. Now, look at this idea of making a decision or a judgment or saying something to you presupposes a thought or a thinking mind. For Descartes, this thinking mind is a kind of ontological reality and this ontological reality controls all our voluntary actions. It executes these ideas, these decisions and that is how we are able to perform voluntary actions. Now, where does Descartes locate the mind? As I have mentioned earlier, I would like to repeat it here, that Descartes locates the mind at the centre of the pelion gland and this gland is somewhere at the middle of the brain. Now, the pineal gland is the immediately is a place where the soul or the mind is located. In Descartes' meditation, you will find there is no mention of mind, whether Descartes is again mentioning the concept of soul. I am using the concept of mind and the soul interchangeably. So, here it is the soul which has the power of intervening to the domain of mind and the body has the power, has the ability to sense things and pass this information to the mind. The mechanism through which this information is passed through is something very significant. Descartes says there are animal spirits and there are animal spirits stored in the cavities and these animal spirits are transformed into some kind of sensations and further by actions. So, there is a kind of a elaborate discussion on this biological function of the body, how the animal spirit is transformed into some kind of a behavior, how this animal spirit controls our muscles. Now, how this animal spirit causes voluntary actions, bodily movements. So, that is what is explained in the Cartesian biological or physiological framework. So, there is a complete explanation of that. Let us not go deep into that kind of questions. Let us accept in brief that the body is an organic system and this organic system is controlled certain mechanical function of the organisms. Therefore, we can explain the behaviors of the body by using the mechanical laws. So, human body is like any other material body. So, like any other matter. So, that is why this mind and the matter dichotomy in the Cartes. Because my access to my body is like my access to the objects out there. So, as I said, the body exist out there. I am not having kind of immediate access to this particular entity, as I am having in the case of the mind. So, that is what is something very significant in the Cartes. Now, the other two things which I would like to mention in this context is this. One is, do animals think and the other is, what is the status of animal? One of the brief answer to this question would be, in the Cartes, animals do not think. Now, why I am posing this question in between? I am posing it because, are these animals treated like any other objects in the world? The answer is yes. In the Cartes philosophical framework, we will find that animals do not think. They are like the material bodies. They are like trees, plants and any other objects like stones, etc. Now, what is the capacity of human thinking? Now, according to Descartes, human beings are having higher order consciousness and there are two important features of this higher order consciousness. One is imagination and another is reasoning. So, imagination and reasoning are two important features of human consciousness. Human beings can imagine what would happen in future. With the help of imagination, we can grasp things. Now, you might have learned something about this Descartes example of the wax. Now, when Descartes talks about the objects, talks about things or the material bodies, what does he says? He says the material bodies are having certain fundamental or essential properties. And like thinking is an essential property of consciousness or the mind or the soul. Similarly, the matter has an essential property and that essential property is extension. So, extension is an essential feature. Here, Descartes gives an example of wax. When he says, let us go and collect wax from the honeycomb and bring that wax. And when you bring that wax to the table and you will find the wax has particular fragrance and it has particular color, particular shape, etc. But if you light the flame and bring that wax near to the flame and burn it, you will find colors is changing and shape is also changing. Now, what remains with the object? And Descartes says it is extension. Extension is something that which tells us that something which occupies space. The body as an extended entity must occupy a space. So, that which occupies space is the extension of the body. So, Descartes saying that there is a kind of a rest cositance and rest extension. Rest cositance is about the existence of the mind and the mental events, the mental states and processes, whatever is there in the domain of the mental life. Rest extension talks about whatever exists in the domain of the material world. So, this kind of dichotomy is very much there. And the very fact that I am able to grasp it is the same wax. Descartes said it is my imagination which helps me to comprehend that it is the same wax. So, with the help of imagination and reasoning, I can talk about the existence of the wax or the identity of the wax. So, the identity of the being is captured by my imagination and rationality. Now similarly, how do I say that 2 plus 2 is equal to 4 and this 2 plus 2 is equal to 3 plus 1? This kind of identity is comprehended through my reasoning and through my imagination. So, human beings have a kind of a higher order consciousness and this higher order consciousness is different from mere sensibility. Animals have this power of sensing things. They show us some reflexive behaviors. Look at the pets. Pets are very sensible animals. I should say that pets are very sensible beings. And what is it to you that when they roll tears, if you beat them, if you are being very harsh to them, what is that? Are they not thinking? Now for Descartes, they are not thinking. Obviously, because they are not aware of what they are doing. Now, this awareness for Descartes is a kind of a self-awareness. The awareness of one's own individuality, the awareness of one's own being is something very important. And it is that awareness which confirms that we are a metaphysical subject. We are a subject which exists to perform certain moral actions. So, all our voluntary actions are to be morally evaluated. They are evaluated either good or bad precisely because we are responsible for our actions. Now, this kind of a responsibility is attributed to human beings, human actions, particularly because human actions flows from a conscious mind. Human beings know what they are doing. We do not hold responsible to the animals when we say that they are performing voluntary actions. Of course, they have some beliefs or of course, they have the sense of fear, doubts, etc. It is quite possible to me personally, they do have certain belief states. But what is not immediately given or what is not given at all to them is this idea of self-consciousness. The existence, the consciousness about their own individuality is something very significant. Now, Descartes is trying to talk about the existence of one's own being with reference to introspection. He says how do I understand my own individuality? How do I understand that I am the same person because my physical body has changed and is changing or in future we all will grow up. But still I consider myself as the same individual. So, Descartes says introspection is something which talks about how do I reflect on my own being and this reflection is a reflection on my consciousness. That is what gives me a clear and distinct ideas about my own self. This is where Descartes is claiming that we can introspect, analyze the phenomenal mind. We can very well study the phenomenal mind, reflect on our thoughts and see how distinctly they are appearing to all of us. So, the existence of mind is not questioned in the Cartesian theoretical framework. Neither Descartes questions the existence of the body. The body has an essential property called extension and the mind has an essential property called thinking, thought. Now, with these two essential qualities or attributes, I mean Descartes never called it properties, mind is not a property for Descartes. I am saying it probably. I still believe that mind is, you know, caused by certain brain processes which is the claim of Jean Searle. Let us conclude about Descartes' theoretical positions. Now, Descartes for me is a dualist who accepts that mind and body are independently conceivable. The existence can be independently conceivable. Mind is a thinking substance where the body is an extended substance. So, they belong to two different categories. Now, this word category is something significant. We will come to see what kind of significance it has when we will go to the critiques of Descartes. Let us go back to the critiques of Descartes. Gilbert Reil, one of the 20th century philosopher, raising an important point with regard to Descartes' substance dualism. According to Reil, Descartes' theory is an official theory. It is an official cause. It is widely accepted. People accept it and though they find that there is some problem about the interaction between mind and body. I mean religious thinkers, the scientists and many others. They often find that it is not a problematic one, but with some modification this position can be held. Now, Reil calls this one of the official theory. It is one of the established theory. Reil does not accept Descartes' theoretical positions. I would come to some of the questions which Reil is raising in this context. Now, let us look at these questions from the slide. How can the mental events will be part of the physical events? Because as you know, for Reil, mental events are different from physical events. Mental events are private. They are accessible directly to all of us. Whereas physical events are the events which are there in the world. They are observable and therefore mental events are not part of the physical events. Now, the question is how can the mental events will be part of the physical events? The second question talks about how does body influence the mind and vice versa. Is there an interaction between mind and body? Because we are an embodied being. We think Descartes is posing this question. And as I mentioned, a philosopher Lili Allenen in her book Descartes' concept of mind, published in 2003 by Harvard University Press, says that Descartes is talking about an embodied being. And this embodied being is being where the embodiment of mind is not questioned at all in our everyday life. So then how does Descartes explain to us the mind-body interaction is a logical interaction? I think Reil is raising the question because there is some amount of mysticism left there. The third question talks about how can we be entirely blind and deaf about the working of other mind? For I say that my mind is available to me as a person and it is private. I can take only the cognizance of its activities, so what I am thinking right now. But how can you be not aware of all this when I am living in this world? How can you be entirely blind and deaf about the workings of other minds? Is there something hidden then? So Reil is certainly referring to Freud who says there is something called an unconscious mind and that unconscious mind is something very much hidden to the conscious mind. So Reil brings Freud, Sigmund Freud, one of the 20th century famous psychoanalysts who lived in Vienna. Now how does the last question talks about how does one talk about the authenticity? Now when we talk about the objectivity of mind, it is very important that how do I confirm this objectivity? How do I confirm that this is something very significant? This is something really there and because that makes my claim very circular in the sense that I know that I am and I know that I am thinking being. So my thinking defines or explains my existence to me and I will not have any kind of a clue on the basis of which I can confirm that others are thinking. So in that sense this question is something very interesting. Now Descartes says that mind and body are two independent substances. Mind is an inner phenomenon and it is real, it does not exist in space whereas body is something which exists in space. Now the existence of mind in the body, taken the case of an embodied mind, mind that is there in the body and performing voluntary actions or experiencing performing things. So that mind is a mind like a ghost. Ghost in the machine is something Ryle's one of the favorite concept. According to Ryle, mind exists in the body like the ghost exists in the brain or the machine. Mind and body is like a machine and it is functioning following the natural laws, the law of causalities. So the mechanical laws can explain how does the body function. So but mechanical law would not explain how my body acts according to my will, my intention to act. So the mechanical action does not explain the mind because mind is something outside there. Look at Ryle's favorite example of a ghost in the machine where he says how can we locate an university. Now a foreigner visiting an university, I will just read out this quotation. It has then to be explained to him that the university is not under a collateral institution. Some ulterior counterpart to the colleges, laboratories and offices which he has seen. The university is just the way in which all that is already seen is organized. Now this is very important in the sense that he says when we talk about mind, mind is nothing but a kind of a collateral organic bodies which are there. So mind cannot exist independent of the body like when a foreigner visits to a university he would find that there are departments, there are schools, there are laboratories, libraries, there are gymnasiums. Now he would see all this. Now where does the university exist when you say that there it exists when we put all this thing together. It is a kind of a collateral institution where the ulterior counterpart is a university. So when you say that mind and body are two different things then you are really making a category mistake. So according to Ryle they are not two categorically independent substances. They are one and that can be analyzed. Ryle gives various examples one is how we can talk about a system. And how we can look at now there are different divisions within the systems. I mean say there is a system and there are subsystems and how the subsystems are functioning. So that is important. Once you know the function of the subsystems you will understand how the entire system is functioning. So that is one kind of example when he tried to give how pointing out to the periods of the military. And he also talks about team spirit. What is this concept called team spirit? Pointing out to a cricket match. In a cricket match the bowlers are bowling to the batsmen. Do face the balls the bat well go for six fours singles etc. There is a case of a run out. There is a kind of a bold. Now all these are the concepts when you talk about the cricket match happening out there. But where do we locate this concept of team spirit? When the entire team is very enthusiastically playing the cricket. Trying to defeat the other. So team spirit is part of everybody. It is not with the bowlers. It is not with the fielders. It is not with the captain. It is exhibited in the performance of everyone's actions. So it is not something hidden. So mind is similarly exhibited when we perform voluntary actions. Mind is not something hidden. So there is nothing called private about this concept of mind. There is another thing which riles makes it very clear to all of us. Now what are the reasons why Descartes concludes the substance dualism? What are the reasons behind it? Now look at this. The origin of this category mistake. Descartes was very much aware of Galenios' mechanical theory of the universe. Now the mechanical theory of the universe talks about there is a mechanical law. There is a causal law which prohibits everything. And that can explain the nature of things that are existing in the world or existing in the universe. But Descartes was a bit uncomfortable when it comes to the explanation of the mind. Descartes showed that there is something beyond the mechanical function of the universe. Now rile is also referring to Hobbes. Hobbes did not much bother about the existence of mind. Rather he was quite comfortable with Galenios' mechanical theory. Now mechanical theory is explained by Galenios with an example of a clock, how the machinery is in the clock function. When you look at the wheels of the clock, they are all connected with each others. As I mentioned earlier that there are subsystems. And subsystems are having a kind of a coordinated function. And that exhibits that a system is functioning. So in a mechanistic world view you will find that mind is part of the world. And Hobbes accepts this world view. Hobbes is committed to this world view. But Descartes is not. Descartes had this religious and moral feeling which was the reason probably for not feeling comfortable with this mechanistic world view. Descartes thought that mind is something which cannot be explained with the mechanical laws, the law of the universe. And these are the, I think mind is not governed by a non-mechanical laws. Now the question is whether mind is governed by a non-mechanical laws at all. The later Cartitians have this view that mind is governed by a kind of a non-mechanical laws. Like you have a kind of a livenies idea of a universal law of reasons where principles which governs our actions, which are different from the causal laws. One can look at a livenies world and look at sea where the things are there. The other problem which we find is this, that the reason for a category mistake is that how do we relate freedom of will with a deterministic world. Because the universe which is governed by the mechanistic principles or the principle of causality, which gives a kind of a closure in the sense that puts a kind of a closure to the entire system. And that is a kind of a, you know, a determinism which Descartes is contemplating. And how does one explain freedom with relation to the determinism. So, these are the questions which we will come back to in our next classes. May be in the future we will have a special topic on the freedom of will. And there I will be discussing the relations between free will and the world. Or when we will talk about souls, we will try to see how souls try to define this relationship. Those are the questions. So, to conclude this, Descartes is a substance dualist. And mind is a substance can be immediately known. One can have a privileged access to the mind through introspection. And similarly, on the other hand, we will find that the body is an extended entity. Extension is the essential feature of the body and that exists. And the function of the body can be explained through the mechanical principles of the universe. And Reil is being very much critic to this idea of dualism. And according to Reil, this is a category mistake. So, mind is not an entity which exists independent of the body. Mind is, you say that, then it is like a ghost existing. So, the presence of mind is an epiphenomenon for Reil. But probably Reil will not say that. Reil accepts that there is mind. But in Reil's philosophical analysis, you will find Reil accepts that the mind is rather exhibited in the behaviors in our voluntary actions. So, Reil does not really eliminate the notion of mind when he identifies mind with the behaviors or voluntary actions. So, with this, I will end this lecture. And we will come back to Searle's criticism in the next lecture and see how does Searle do justice to Dakar's substance dualism. Thank you.