Philosophy of Religion: Argument from Design

In Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, Hume uses a discussion between three fictional characters to outline his views on the theory of design and god. This theory is championed by the character Cleanthes and dispelled by Philo (the other character Demea doesn't have much to say). The argument goes something like this:

Cleanthes; Cause equals effect. If an effect we see is similar to another effect then the causes should be similar also. The world looks like a complicated machine. Complicated machines in real life are designed by intelligent human beings. The world must also have been designed by an intelligent entity which is god. God is like a human mind but more complex.

Philo; analogy is weak.
(a) Cause equals effect only if similar articles are discussed. For instance knowledge of a leaf growing will not tell us much about the vegetation of a tree. Also in most cases the operation of a smaller part.
(b) operation of a part does not tell us about operation of a whole. For instance you could not use a peasant economy as a paradigm for the economy of a state.
(c) Uses the human mind as an analogy for the mind of god is not very impartial.
(d) We have no idea in many instances of how nature works now let alone at the start of the universe.
(e) Therefore, only when objects are the same can an analogy be suitably applied. Hence we would need to see the origin of worlds similar to ours to see a suitable analogical example.

Cleanthes repost; but we do not need to see the origin of another world to see that the Copernican system is valid in this world. You can prove the origin of the universe based on your experiences.

Philo: but there are other worlds that prove the Copernican system which are directly observed- the Moon, Venus, etc. He concludes that the nature of the origin of the world exceeds all human reason and enquiry.
-------------

Some time late, the philosopher William Paley wrote 'Natural Theology'. This modified the argument from design to make it more palatable for non believers.



My views:

It seems without the theory of evolution we would be logically inclined to believe that there was a designer of the world. How else would complex things come into being.

Philosophy of Religion: Aquinas

The Self and Personal Identity: Derek Parfit

The 'same' or not the 'same': That is the question!!

Personal identity can mean two things. The first refers to the connection between the mind and the body. The second, and the aspect most relevant to personal identity, refers to what makes you the same person over time.

Then we have to consider what we mean by the same. There are two types of sameness, numerical and qualitative.

Numerical similarity means that something is ‘one and the same’, it is made up of the same stuff.

Qualitative refers to something that you are similar too.

Some philosophers such as David Hume have made a mistake in using these terms (also I made this mistake too). He thought that personal identity cannot be continuous, we are lots of different persons over time who perceive ourselves as different because we have a bundle of continuous perceptions which we are consciously aware off. However this is a mistake. He is taking the idea of sameness quite too literally.

For instance, you could take the view that you are not the same you as you were when you were 8 years old because you do not weigh the same. When I was 8 I was 6 stone, today I am 36 and I am 14 stone. Therefore I am not the same weight. However we need to adjust the variable. You could say that in 1983 I was 8 stone and this would be true. I would be numerically similar because the 8 year me and the 36 year old mean would be eight stone in 1980.  

The Self and Personal Identity: David Hume.

Hume: 'The Self as a Bundle'

'A Treatise of Human Nature'

Humes paper was provoked by what he saw as certain philosophers taking for granted the idea of the enduring self. He was particulary focussed on attacking Joseph Butler. Hume believed his idea of an enduring self was a fiction.

Like Locke Hume was an empiricist. He believed sensory experience is the source of our thoughts. He termed these sensory inputs as impressions. Impressions are basic things derived from our perceptions (such as pain, pleasure, etc). When we think about these impressions we are then provided with ideas of them. Thus if we see a Rhino this is an impression. When we close our eyes we have a idea of this impression. Ideas then are weaker than impressions as they are only weaker versions (or footprints).

Because the idea of the self was described as a elemental or simple idea it must be based on a it must come from a unchanging impression, but, for Hume, this was not the case. When you look inside your mind you only see a constant flux of perceptions such as pleasure, pain, misery; but you do not see the self itself. It is this bundle of constantly changing perceptions that make the self. But there is no string, or platform, to tie these strings of perceptions together.

Therefore the enduring self, as proposed by Butler, is a myth.

Now Hume believes he knows why people are often confused when they naturally think they have an enduring self. This comes from the confusion of the terms 'sameness'.

Hume distinguishes between two types of sameness (similar to numerical and qualative). There is exact sameness and related sameness, which while they are distinct, are often confused. For example , if we see a tree today and a tree tomorrow we often think this exactly the same object, yet it would only be closely linked- the tree would have grown, insects would have made a home in it, leaves would have fallen from branches, etc.  The mind lazily tricks itself into thinking that these are two discreet objects when in fact they are merely related.

This fraudulent belief that this sameness exists is  comfounded when you view identity of self. The perceptions of the senses are in constant flux but because they arise in quick succession  appear seamless, hence there must be a enduring self through time. People invent terms for this connectedness such as the soul, spirit, or whatever but this is a false trick!! In fact there is no enduring self only related objects.

This view led Hume to conclude that death is the ultimate annililation, because the perceptions cease to persist.

An counter view is that of Kant. He thought the self was not an empirical idea, rather it was structural. A person always has the frame of reference of self. You always say 'I am.....'

Memory; Surrendering to an Algorithm.

http://www.wired.com/medtech/health/magazine/16-05/ff_wozniak

This was a very interesting article about Piotr Wozniak, the inventor of the SuperMemo. This is a programme which mathematically works out the best revision times for memory retention. Expanding on a theory of Hermann Ebbinghaus it looks at the dimishing returns of memory over time (called the 'spacing effect) and apparently provides you with a method to better your retention.

One of the problems with a lot of education and learning is that it is designed to give the perception of progress, but psychologists suggest that this individual perception of progress should be mistrusted. The Rosetta Stone language series has excellent reviews on Amazon, because their students feel they are progressing. But how do they know they really have retained the language they are trying to learn.

I will have to try it (maybe the trial version first).

http://www.supermemo.com/

There is also an off shoot called SugarMemo

http://sourceforge.net/projects/sugarmemo/