Reply to comment

I've pretty much concluded that I prefer Descartes mind/brain/soul model, because it works for my own personal happiness.  I've been in therapy for awhile now (I think this is okay to just throw out there in the open...I wish it wasn't such a big deal) and the most beneficial part of this experience for me has been developing a sense of "mindfullness", awareness, and presence.  It has taught me to focus in and flush out all the bull shit affecting me.  This experience has suggested to me that it is possible to control the workings of a so-called mind, but perhaps this mind does not have to be distinctly separate from the brain and perhaps it isn't immaterial.  Maybe the mind is embedded in the brain and maybe we do exert an element of control over it.  It is difficult for me to accept the premise that the inner workings of our brain are simply uncontrollable chemical reactions. If I accepted this premise, I feel like I would be saying that meditation, "mindfullness", and any attempt to establish control over negativities and psychological issues is futile.  I do not believe that.  I cannot believe that. Like someone said in class, it is comforting to believe that you have a mind and a soul.  It would be disheartening if it was all brain because it would be accepting that one cannot control thoughts and actions.  This would suggest that drugs are the answer because a drug is a material thing that can allegedly solve material interferences.  It would mean that material explanations and solutions are the answer to psychological issues in all circumstances and that would just be a bummer.  I think humans can alter their minds and transform their perspectives through a will power that is perhaps not accounted for in any material form. However, perhaps the mind is the part of the brain where we have some say and where we have the power to reverse some things and change some of the chemical reactions inducing unfavorable outcomes.  Maybe mind and brain don't have to be such divided ideas.   

As for our discussion and description of science, I am satisfied with it.  I think the reformed scientific approach model is the best I have encountered.  I think when science is considered as this unending process of "getting is less wrong", it is more fun, less intimidating, and more approachable.  I have always believed it unrealistic to assume that because this or that has scientific evidence, it is true.  I am always proving theorems in math and accepting them as total truth because I have been programmed to operate in that way.  I wish we were introduced to theorems and proofs as partial truths.  I think it should be acknowledged that this seems to be the best way to prove this so far, and it seems true, but of course there is always room for further inquiry. I feel like my generation is losing that inquiry instinct because we've been taught science and math in a very structured and closed fashion.