Reply to comment

I agree with Eve's comment: we need to define our terms, even if productivity isn't what we're after. Our discussion topics are focused on everyday words like 'brain,' 'mind,' and 'universe,' but from class, I could tell that everyone else's definitions differed from mine.

And the animal discussion--I think humans are way too species-centric. I read this article over the summer called "Watching Whales Watching Us," and it talked about how whales have started for forgive humans for the damages we've inflicted upon them: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/12/magazine/12whales-t.html?_r=1&pagewanted=2 . The author spoke about how 'human' whales seem to be: "Whales, we now know, teach and learn. They scheme. They cooperate, and they grieve. They recognize themselves and their friends. They know and fight back against their enemies. And perhaps most stunningly, given all of our transgressions against them, they may even, in certain circumstances, have learned to trust us again." Many of these observations would be cited to prove that humans have not just a brain, but a mind or a soul--but what about whales? They have complex social structures, language, and love. Should we open the Descartes vs. Dickinson argument up to whale brains, too?

This sounds sort of hokey, but I'm amazed at the difference of opinion in the Dickinson vs. Descartes debate. For me, the concept of an abstract 'mind' just doesn't make any sense. I don't get it the idea--you 'think' with your mind? ...which is in your brain? which is part of/equivalent to your soul? I know we said in class that observation can't prove one or the other, but you can open a skull, see a brain, and examine the neurons and connections and see how different behaviors and functions are wired to different parts of the brain. But a mind? You can't dissect that.