I enjoyed your personal ghost anecdotes throughout the piece.
The kids' brains (minds? head-ghost-entities? intangible-animal-spirits?) work in curious ways.
The other day my son Nathan (8) asked what a "hypothesis" was. My wife explained it patiently, at which point he said: "But what if it's low?" (In his mind, it was "high-pothesis.")
Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go and contend with the duality of both "Day-Cart" and "Dess-Car-Tess" existing simultaneously in my head.
Kids are the best, aren't they!? I want to say age 8 is one of my favourites, but honestly they are all wonderful. I think there's something special about the pre-teens though. The curiosity is wild and the wonder is insatiable.
Now I'm wondering how we should define our new word -- low-pothesis. Maybe it's those ideas that aren't that groundbreaking -- they don't make the headline news or win Nobel Prizes? or maybe low-pothesis is the underdog theory -- those ideas that seems highly unlikely or hold little esteem in the community?
Alternatively, "low-pothesis" could be the anti-hypothesis? It's something that's so obvious you don't even need to subject it to testing to know it's true.
What's that? "Axiom" is already a thing? Then I say "axiom" missed out on being called a low-pothesis. Too bad, axiom.
It’s never too early to get enthusiastic about philosophy! Long ago (>10y), I very much enjoyed “The Philosopher At The End Of The Universe” by Mark Rowlands, which was based on his generosity in mapping some aspects of popular cinema onto philosophy in a fin way. I’d like to think it helped me talk on ethics - but nowadays it’s a well supported method of introducing students into the realms of philosophical thought. Ghostbusters works well here. I’m enjoying your pieces very much. Thank you.
Brilliant exposition. I love the story about Princess Elizabeth vaporizing Descartes ego with such a clever question. My oldest daughter (2yo) is named Elizabeth after Elizabeth of Bohemia (her mother thinks it was her idea).
For me, any fundamental comment on the nature of conscience shall be made in relation to the autonomy of matter. If we are simply a particles system under the Laws of Physics, conscience is purely passive. It is not only Descartes, but also Laplace who matters here.
There’s a body problem, too. A brain is a condition of consciousness. But the brain functions to regulate the body and to receive sensations from the physical world. Can consciousness exist apart from a body without decontextualizing the brain for academic purposes?
Another good post. Do you know the joke about Descartes? He was hanging out in his neighborhood bar one day. The bartender comes up to him and asks, “Hey, René, would you like another drink?”
“I think not,” answers Descartes. Who then disappears!
I've asked the same question about ghosts. What are the rules for when they're substantial and when they're invisible? And how do they see or hear when invisible? Why doesn't gravity make them sink into the center of the Earth?
Epiphenomenalism would be right if flipped; the brain/mind relationship is indeed one-way, just that the brain is the structure that projects the mind function. There can be no function untethered to the structure. So, materialism.
"Mat" ..oh. We see why the philosophy bros don't like that. They need to just admit that women beget men and sit down and call it a day. Sheesh. This is like, the only place men are good at gymnastics.
Thanks for yet another engaging deep dive, Suzi.
I enjoyed your personal ghost anecdotes throughout the piece.
The kids' brains (minds? head-ghost-entities? intangible-animal-spirits?) work in curious ways.
The other day my son Nathan (8) asked what a "hypothesis" was. My wife explained it patiently, at which point he said: "But what if it's low?" (In his mind, it was "high-pothesis.")
Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go and contend with the duality of both "Day-Cart" and "Dess-Car-Tess" existing simultaneously in my head.
Thanks Daniel!
Kids are the best, aren't they!? I want to say age 8 is one of my favourites, but honestly they are all wonderful. I think there's something special about the pre-teens though. The curiosity is wild and the wonder is insatiable.
Now I'm wondering how we should define our new word -- low-pothesis. Maybe it's those ideas that aren't that groundbreaking -- they don't make the headline news or win Nobel Prizes? or maybe low-pothesis is the underdog theory -- those ideas that seems highly unlikely or hold little esteem in the community?
I like the underdog take!
Alternatively, "low-pothesis" could be the anti-hypothesis? It's something that's so obvious you don't even need to subject it to testing to know it's true.
What's that? "Axiom" is already a thing? Then I say "axiom" missed out on being called a low-pothesis. Too bad, axiom.
It’s never too early to get enthusiastic about philosophy! Long ago (>10y), I very much enjoyed “The Philosopher At The End Of The Universe” by Mark Rowlands, which was based on his generosity in mapping some aspects of popular cinema onto philosophy in a fin way. I’d like to think it helped me talk on ethics - but nowadays it’s a well supported method of introducing students into the realms of philosophical thought. Ghostbusters works well here. I’m enjoying your pieces very much. Thank you.
Thanks John!
Thanks for the book recommendation too. I hadn't heard of it, but a quick google search tells me I'm going to love this one! So, thank you
Brilliant exposition. I love the story about Princess Elizabeth vaporizing Descartes ego with such a clever question. My oldest daughter (2yo) is named Elizabeth after Elizabeth of Bohemia (her mother thinks it was her idea).
Oh! I love that! Princess Elizabeth of Bohemia was a smart woman. Sounds like your wife is too 😉
For me, any fundamental comment on the nature of conscience shall be made in relation to the autonomy of matter. If we are simply a particles system under the Laws of Physics, conscience is purely passive. It is not only Descartes, but also Laplace who matters here.
Well, yes. You might just be right! 😉
There’s a body problem, too. A brain is a condition of consciousness. But the brain functions to regulate the body and to receive sensations from the physical world. Can consciousness exist apart from a body without decontextualizing the brain for academic purposes?
Another good post. Do you know the joke about Descartes? He was hanging out in his neighborhood bar one day. The bartender comes up to him and asks, “Hey, René, would you like another drink?”
“I think not,” answers Descartes. Who then disappears!
I've asked the same question about ghosts. What are the rules for when they're substantial and when they're invisible? And how do they see or hear when invisible? Why doesn't gravity make them sink into the center of the Earth?
Oh, that's gold! I'm definitely using that one.
Come for Suzi's articles and stay for the comments. This is S tier commenting.
Epiphenomenalism would be right if flipped; the brain/mind relationship is indeed one-way, just that the brain is the structure that projects the mind function. There can be no function untethered to the structure. So, materialism.
"Mat" ..oh. We see why the philosophy bros don't like that. They need to just admit that women beget men and sit down and call it a day. Sheesh. This is like, the only place men are good at gymnastics.