Someone just viewed: Fwd: unsure

Mind–body problem

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

See also: Philosophy of mind

René Descartes‘ illustration of mind/body dualism. Descartes believed inputs were passed on by the sensory organs to the epiphysisin the brain and from there to the immaterial spirit.

Different approaches toward resolving the mind–body problem

The mind–body problem is a philosophical problem concerning the relationship between the human mind and body, although it can also concern animal minds, if any, and animal bodies. It is distinct from the question how mind and body can causally interact, since that question presupposes an interactionist account of mind-body relations.[1] This question arises when mind and body are considered as distinct, based on the premise that the mind and the body are fundamentally different in nature.[1]

The problem was addressed by René Descartes in the 17th century, resulting in Cartesian dualism, and by pre-Aristotelian philosophers,[2][3] in Avicennian philosophy,[4] and in earlier Asian traditions. A variety of approaches have been proposed. Most are either dualist or monist. Dualism maintains a rigid distinction between the realms of mind and matter. Monism maintains that there is only one unifying reality, substance or essence in terms of which everything can be explained.

Each of these categories contain numerous variants. The two main forms of dualism are substance dualism, which holds that the mind is formed of a distinct type of substance not governed by the laws of physics, and property dualism, which holds that mental properties involving conscious experience are fundamental properties, alongside the fundamental properties identified by a completed physics. The three main forms of monism are physicalism, which holds that the mind consists of matter organized in a particular way; idealism, which holds that only thought truly exists and matter is merely an illusion; and neutral monism, which holds that both mind and matter are aspects of a distinct essence that is itself identical to neither of them.

Several philosophical perspectives have been developed which reject the mind–body dichotomy. The historical materialism of Karl Marx and subsequent writers, itself a form of physicalism, held that consciousness was engendered by the material contingencies of one’s environment.[5] An explicit rejection of the dichotomy is found in French structuralism, and is a position that generally characterized post-war French philosophy.[6]

The absence of an empirically identifiable meeting point between the non-physical mind (if there is such a thing) and its physical extension has proven problematic to dualism, and many modern philosophers of mind maintain that the mind is not something separate from the body.[7] These approaches have been particularly influential in the sciences, particularly in the fields of sociobiology, computer science, evolutionary psychology, and the neurosciences.[8][9][10][11]

An ancient model of the mind known as the Five-Aggregate Model explains the mind as continuously changing sense impressions and mental phenomena.[12] Considering this model, it is possible to understand that it is the constantly changing sense impressions and mental phenomena (i.e., the mind) that experiences/analyzes all external phenomena in the world as well as all internal phenomena including the body anatomy, the nervous system as well as the organ brain. This conceptualization leads to two levels of analyses: (i) analyses conducted from a third-person perspective on how the brain works, and (ii) analyzing the moment-to-moment manifestation of an individual’s mind-stream (analyses conducted from a first-person perspective). Considering the latter, the manifestation of the mind-stream is described as happening in every person all the time, even in a scientist who analyses various phenomena in the world, including analyzing and hypothesizing about the organ brain.[12]



Mind–body interaction and mental causation[edit]

Philosophers David L. Robb and John F. Heil introduce mental causation in terms of the mind–body problem of interaction:

Mind–body interaction has a central place in our pretheoretic conception of agency… Indeed, mental causation often figures explicitly in formulations of the mind–body problem…. Some philosophers… insist that the very notion of psychological explanation turns on the intelligibility of mental causation. If your mind and its states, such as your beliefs and desires, were causally isolated from your bodily behavior, then what goes on in your mind could not explain what you do… If psychological explanation goes, so do the closely related notions of agency and moral responsibility… Clearly, a good deal rides on a satisfactory solution to the problem of mental causation [and] there is more than one way in which puzzles about the mind’s "causal relevance" to behavior (and to the physical world more generally) can arise.

[René Descartes] set the agenda for subsequent discussions of the mind–body relation. According to Descartes, minds and bodies are distinct kinds of substance. Bodies, he held, are spatially extended substances, incapable of feeling or thought; minds, in contrast, are unextended, thinking, feeling substances… If minds and bodies are radically different kinds of substance, however, it is not easy to see how they could causally interact… Princess Elizabeth of Bohemia puts it forcefully to him in a 1643 letter…

how the human soul can determine the movement of the animal spirits in the body so as to perform voluntary acts—being as it is merely a conscious substance. For the determination of movement seems always to come about from the moving body’s being propelled—to depend on the kind of impulse it gets from what sets it in motion, or again, on the nature and shape of this latter thing’s surface. Now the first two conditions involve contact, and the third involves that the impelling thing has extension; but you utterly exclude extension from your notion of soul, and contact seems to me incompatible with a thing’s being immaterial…

Elizabeth is expressing the prevailing mechanistic view as to how causation of bodies works… Causal relations countenanced by contemporary physics can take several forms, not all of which are of the push–pull variety.[13]— David Robb and John Heil, "Mental Causation" in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Contemporary neurophilosopher, Georg Northoff suggests that mental causation is compatible with classical formal and final causality.[14]

Biologist, theoretical neuroscientist and philosopher, Walter J. Freeman, suggests that explaining mind–body interaction in terms of "circular causation" is more relevant than linear causation.[15]

In neuroscience, much has been learned about correlations between brain activity and subjective, conscious experiences. Many suggest that neuroscience will ultimately explain consciousness: "…consciousness is a biological process that will eventually be explained in terms of molecular signaling pathways used by interacting populations of nerve cells…"[16] However, this view has been criticized because consciousness has yet to be shown to be a process,[17] and the "hard problem" of relating consciousness directly to brain activity remains elusive.[18]

Cognitive science today gets increasingly interested in the embodiment of human perception, thinking, and action. Abstract information processing models are no longer accepted as satisfactory accounts of the human mind. Interest has shifted to interactions between the material human body and its surroundings and to the way in which such interactions shape the mind. Proponents of this approach have expressed the hope that it will ultimately dissolve the Cartesian divide between the immaterial mind and the material existence of human beings (Damasio, 1994; Gallagher, 2005). A topic that seems particularly promising for providing a bridge across the mind–body cleavage is the study of bodily actions, which are neither reflexive reactions to external stimuli nor indications of mental states, which have only arbitrary relationships to the motor features of the action (e.g., pressing a button for making a choice response). The shape, timing, and effects of such actions are inseparable from their meaning. One might say that they are loaded with mental content, which cannot be appreciated other than by studying their material features. Imitation, communicative gesturing, and tool use are examples of these kinds of actions.[19]

— Georg Goldenberg, "How the Mind Moves the Body: Lessons From Apraxia" in Oxford Handbook of Human Action

Neural correlates[edit]

Main article: Neural correlates of consciousness

The neuronal correlates of consciousness constitute the smallest set of neural events and structures sufficient for a given conscious percept or explicit memory. This case involves synchronized action potentials in neocortical pyramidal neurons.[20]

The neural correlates of consciousness "are the smallest set of brain mechanisms and events sufficient for some specific conscious feeling, as elemental as the color red or as complex as the sensual, mysterious, and primeval sensation evoked when looking at [a] jungle scene…"[21]Neuroscientists use empirical approaches to discover neural correlates of subjective phenomena.[22]

Neurobiology and neurophilosophy[edit]

Main articles: Neurobiology and Neurophilosophy

A science of consciousness must explain the exact relationship between subjective conscious mental states and brain states formed by electrochemical interactions in the body, the so-called hard problem of consciousness.[23] Neurobiology studies the connection scientifically, as do neuropsychology and neuropsychiatry. Neurophilosophy is the interdisciplinary study of neuroscience and philosophy of mind. In this pursuit, neurophilosophers, such as Patricia Churchland, [24][25] Paul Churchland[26] and Daniel Dennett,[27][28] have focused primarily on the body rather than the mind. In this context, neuronal correlates may be viewed as causing consciousness, where consciousness can be thought of as an undefined property that depends upon this complex, adaptive, and highly interconnected biological system.[29] However, it’s unknown if discovering and characterizing neural correlates may eventually provide a theory of consciousness that can explain the first-person experience of these "systems", and determine whether other systems of equal complexity lack such features.

The massive parallelism of neural networks allows redundant populations of neurons to mediate the same or similar percepts. Nonetheless, it is assumed that every subjective state will have associated neural correlates, which can be manipulated to artificially inhibit or induce the subject’s experience of that conscious state. The growing ability of neuroscientists to manipulate neurons using methods from molecular biology in combination with optical tools[30] was achieved by the development of behavioral and organic models that are amenable to large-scale genomic analysis and manipulation. Non-human analysis such as this, in combination with imaging of the human brain, have contributed to a robust and increasingly predictive theoretical framework.

Arousal and content[edit]

Midline structures in the brainstem and thalamus necessary to regulate the level of brain arousal. Small, bilateral lesions in many of these nuclei cause a global loss of consciousness.[31]

There are two common but distinct dimensions of the term consciousness,[32] one involving arousal and states of consciousness and the other involving content of consciousness and conscious states. To be conscious of something, the brain must be in a relatively high state of arousal (sometimes called vigilance), whether awake or in REM sleep. Brain arousal level fluctuates in a circadian rhythm but these natural cycles may be influenced by lack of sleep, alcohol and other drugs, physical exertion, etc. Arousal can be measured behaviorally by the signal amplitude required to trigger a given reaction (for example, the sound level that causes a subject to turn and look toward the source). High arousal states involve conscious states that feature specific perceptual content, planning and recollection or even fantasy. Clinicians use scoring systems such as the Glasgow Coma Scale to assess the level of arousal in patients with impaired states of consciousness such as the comatose state, the persistent vegetative state, and the minimally conscious state. Here, "state" refers to different amounts of externalized, physical consciousness: ranging from a total absence in coma, persistent vegetative state and general anesthesia, to a fluctuating, minimally conscious state, such as sleep walking and epileptic seizure.[33]

Many nuclei with distinct chemical signatures in the thalamus, midbrain and pons must function for a subject to be in a sufficient state of brain arousal to experience anything at all. These nuclei therefore belong to the enabling factors for consciousness. Conversely it is likely that the specific content of any particular conscious sensation is mediated by particular neurons in the cortex and their associated satellite structures, including the amygdala, thalamus, claustrum and the basal ganglia.

Historical background[edit]

The following is a very brief account of some contributions to the mind–body problem.

The Buddha[edit]

See also: Gautama Buddha, Buddhism and the body, and Pratītyasamutpāda

The Buddha (480–400 B.C.E), founder of Buddhism, described the mind and the body as depending on each other in a way that two sheaves of reeds were to stand leaning against one another[34] and taught that the world consists of mind and matter which work together, interdependently. Buddhist teachings describe the mind as manifesting from moment to moment, one thought moment at a time as a fast flowing stream.[12] The components that make up the mind are known as the five aggregates (i.e., material form, feelings, perception, volition, and sensory consciousness), which arise and pass away continuously. The arising and passing of these aggregates in the present moment is described as being influenced by five causal laws: biological laws, psychological laws, physical laws, volitional laws, and universal laws.[12] The Buddhist practice of mindfulness involves attending to this constantly changing mind-stream.

Ultimately, the Buddha’s philosophy is that both mind and forms are conditionally arising qualities of an ever-changing universe in which, when nirvāna is attained, all phenomenal experience ceases to exist.[35] According to the anattā doctrine of the Buddha, the conceptual self is a mere mental construct of an individual entity and is basically an impermanent illusion, sustained by form, sensation, perception, thought and consciousness.[36] The Buddha argued that mentally clinging to any views will result in delusion and stress,[37] since, according to the Buddha, a real self (conceptual self, being the basis of standpoints and views) cannot be found when the mind has clarity.


See also: Plato and Theory of forms

Plato (429–347 B.C.E.) believed that the material world is a shadow of a higher reality that consists of concepts he called Forms. According to Plato, objects in our everyday world "participate in" these Forms, which confer identity and meaning to material objects. For example, a circle drawn in the sand would be a circle only because it participates in the concept of an ideal circle that exists somewhere in the world of Forms. He argued that, as the body is from the material world, the soul is from the world of Forms and is thus immortal. He believed the soul was temporarily united with the body and would only be separated at death, when it would return to the world of Forms. Since the soul does not exist in time and space, as the body does, it can access universal truths. For Plato, ideas (or Forms) are the true reality, and are experienced by the soul. The body is for Plato empty in that it can not access the abstract reality of the world; it can only experience shadows. This is determined by Plato’s essentially rationalistic epistemology.[citation needed]


Main article: Aristotle

For Aristotle (384–322 BC) mind is a faculty of the soul.[38][39] Regarding the soul, he said:

It is not necessary to ask whether soul and body are one, just as it is not necessary to ask whether the wax and its shape are one, nor generally whether the matter of each thing and that of which it is the matter are one. For even if one and being are spoken of in several ways, what is properly so spoken of is the actuality.

— De Anima ii 1, 412b6–9

In the end, Aristotle saw the relation between soul and body as uncomplicated, in the same way that it is uncomplicated that a cubical shape is a property of a toy building block. The soul is a property exhibited by the body, one among many. Moreover, Aristotle proposed that when the body perishes, so does the soul, just as the shape of a building block disappears with destruction of the block.[40]

Influences of the religions of "The Book"[edit]

Main articles: Dualism and Gnosticism

In religious philosophy of the people of the book dualism denotes a binary opposition of an idea that contains two essential parts. The first formal concept of a "mind-body" split may be found in the "divinitysecularity" dualism of the ancient Persian religion of Zoroastrianism around the mid-fifth century BC. Gnosticism is a modern name for a variety of ancient dualistic ideas inspired by Judaism popular in the first and second century AD. These ideas later seem to have been incorporated into Galen‘s "tripartite soul"[41] that led into both the Christian sentiments [42] expressed in the later Augustinian theodicy and Avicenna’s Platonism in Islamic Philosophy.


Main article: René Descartes

René Descartes (1596–1650) believed that mind exerted control over the brain via the pineal gland:

My view is that this gland is the principal seat of the soul, and the place in which all our thoughts are formed.[43]

— René Descartes, Treatise of Man

[The] mechanism of our body is so constructed that simply by this gland’s being moved in any way by the soul or by any other cause, it drives the surrounding spirits towards the pores of the brain, which direct them through the nerves to the muscles; and in this way the gland makes the spirits move the limbs.[44]

— René Descartes, Passions of the Soul

His posited relation between mind and body is called Cartesian dualism or substance dualism. He held that mind was distinct from matter, but could influence matter. How such an interaction could be exerted remains a contentious issue.


Main article: Immanuel Kant

For Kant (1724–1804) beyond mind and matter there exists a world of a priori forms, which are seen as necessary preconditions for understanding. Some of these forms, space and time being examples, today seem to be pre-programmed in the brain.

…whatever it is that impinges on us from the mind-independent world does not come located in a spatial or a temporal matrix,…The mind has two pure forms of intuition built into it to allow it to… organize this ‘manifold of raw intuition’.[45]

— Andrew Brook, Kant’s view of the mind and consciousness of self: Transcendental aesthetic

Kant views the mind–body interaction as taking place through forces that may be of different kinds for mind and body.[46]


Main article: Thomas Huxley

For Huxley (1825–1895) the conscious mind was a by-product of the brain that has no influence upon the brain, a so-called epiphenomenon.

On the epiphenomenalist view, mental events play no causal role. Huxley, who held the view, compared mental events to a steam whistle that contributes nothing to the work of a locomotive.[47]

— William Robinson, Epiphenomenalism


Main article: Alfred North Whitehead

A. N. Whitehead advocated a sophisticated form of panpsychism that has been called by David Ray Griffinpanexperientialism.[48]


Main article: Karl Popper

For Popper (1902–1994) there are three aspects of the mind–body problem: the worlds of matter, mind, and of the creations of the mind, such as mathematics. In his view, the third-world creations of the mind could be interpreted by the second-world mind and used to affect the first-world of matter. An example might be radio, an example of the interpretation of the third-world (Maxwell’s electromagnetic theory) by the second-world mind to suggest modifications of the external first world.

The body–mind problem is the question of whether and how our thought processes in World 2 are bound up with brain events in World 1. …I would argue that the first and oldest of these attempted solutions is the only one that deserves to be taken seriously [namely]: World 2 and World 1 interact, so that when someone reads a book or listens to a lecture, brain events occur that act upon the World 2 of the reader’s or listener’s thoughts; and conversely, when a mathematician follows a proof, his World 2 acts upon his brain and thus upon World 1. This, then, is the thesis of body–mind interaction.[49]

— Karl Popper, Notes of a realist on the body–mind problem


Main article: John Searle

For Searle (b. 1932) the mind–body problem is a false dichotomy; that is, mind is a perfectly ordinary aspect of the brain.

According to Searle then, there is no more a mind–body problem than there is a macro–micro economics problem. They are different levels of description of the same set of phenomena. […] But Searle is careful to maintain that the mental – the domain of qualitative experience and understanding – is autonomous and has no counterpart on the microlevel; any redescription of these macroscopic features amounts to a kind of evisceration, …[50]

— Joshua Rust, John Searle

See also[edit]




sig?u=a_mishraAjay Mishra
My Latest Gig

On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 10:36 PM, Streak <notifications> wrote:

Someone just viewed your email with the subject: Fwd: unsure
Device: Unknown Device
Location: astrakhan, ast


Dream argument From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia The Dream of Life, by unknown Mannerist painter, ca. 1533 T he dream argument is the postulation that the act of dreaming provides preliminary evidence that the senses we trust to distinguish reality from illusion should not be fully trusted, and therefore, any state that is dependent on our senses should at the very least be carefully examined and rigorously tested to determine whether it is in fact reality. Content s 1 Synopsis 2 Hutton’s paradox 3 Simulated reality 4 Critical discussion 5 See also 6 Notes 7 References Synopsis Engra ving of Descartes Part of a series on René Descartes Cartesianism · Rationalism Foundationalism Doubt and certainty Dr eam argument Cogito ergo sum Trademark argument Causal adequacy principle Mind–body dichotomy Analytic geometry Coordi nate system Cartesian circle · Folium Rule of signs · Cartesian diver Balloonist theory Wax argument Res cogitans · R es extensa Works The World Discourse on the Me

Dream argument

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Dream of Life, by unknown Manneristpainter, ca. 1533

The dream argument is the postulation that the act of dreaming provides preliminary evidence that the senses we trust to distinguish reality from illusionshould not be fully trusted, and therefore, any state that is dependent on our senses should at the very least be carefully examined and rigorously tested to determine whether it is in fact reality.




Engraving of Descartes
Part of a series on
René Descartes
Cartesianism · Rationalism
Doubt and certainty
Dream argument
Cogito ergo sum
Trademark argument
Causal adequacy principle
Mind–body dichotomy
Analytic geometry
Coordinate system
Cartesian circle · Folium
Rule of signs · Cartesian diver
Balloonist theory
Wax argument
Res cogitans · Res extensa
The World
Discourse on the Method
La Géométrie
Meditations on First Philosophy
Principles of Philosophy
Passions of the Soul
Christina, Queen of Sweden
Baruch Spinoza
Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz
Francine Descartes

While people dream, they usually do not realize they are dreaming (if they do, it is called a lucid dream). This has led philosophers to wonder whether one could actually be dreaming constantly, instead of being in waking reality (or at least that one cannot be certain, at any given point in time, that one is not dreaming).

In the West, this philosophical puzzle was referred to by Plato (Theaetetus 158b-d) and Aristotle (Metaphysics 1011a6). Having received serious attention in René DescartesMeditations on First Philosophy, the dream argument has become one of the most prominent skeptical hypotheses which clearly has an archetype in elements of Plato’s Allegory of the Cave also.[citation needed]

This type of argument is well known as "Zhuangzi dreamed he was a butterfly" (莊周夢蝶 Zhuāng Zhōu mèng dié): One night, Zhuangzi (369 BC) dreamed that he was a carefree butterfly, flying happily. After he woke up, he wondered how he could determine whether he was Zhuangzi who had just finished dreaming he was a butterfly, or a butterfly who had just started dreaming he was Zhuangzi. This was a metaphor for what he referred to as a "great dream":

He who dreams of drinking wine may weep when morning comes; he who dreams of weeping may in the morning go off to hunt. While he is dreaming he does not know it is a dream, and in his dream he may even try to interpret a dream. Only after he wakes does he know it was a dream. And someday there will be a great awakening when we know that this is all a great dream. Yet the stupid believe they are awake, busily and brightly assuming they understand things, calling this man ruler, that one herdsman—how dense! Confucius and you are both dreaming! And when I say you are dreaming, I am dreaming, too. Words like these will be labeled the Supreme Swindle. Yet, after ten thousand generations, a great sage may appear who will know their meaning, and it will still be as though he appeared with astonishing speed.[1]

One of the first philosophers to posit the dream argument formally was the YogacharaBuddhist philosopher Vasubandhu (fl. 4th to 5th century C.E.) in his ‘Twenty verses on appearance only’. The dream argument features widely in Mahayana Buddhist and Tibetan Buddhist thought.

Some schools of thought in Buddhism (e.g., Dzogchen), consider perceived reality ‘literally’ unreal. As a prominent contemporary teacher, Chögyal Namkhai Norbu, puts it: "In a real sense, all the visions that we see in our lifetime are like a big dream […]".[2] In this context, the term ‘visions’ denotes not only visual perceptions, but appearances perceived through all senses, including sounds, smells, tastes and tactile sensations, and operations on received mental objects.

Hutton’s paradox[edit]

A paradox concerning dreams and the nature of reality was described by the British writer Eric Bond Hutton in 1989.[3] As a child Hutton often had lucid dreams, in which everything seemed as real as in waking life. This led him to wonder whether life itself was a dream, even whether he existed only in somebody else’s dream. Sometimes he had pre-lucid dreams, in which more often than not he concluded he was awake. Such dreams disturbed him greatly, but one day he came up with a magic formula for use in them: "If I find myself asking ‘Am I dreaming?’ it proves I am, for the question would never occur to me in waking life." Yet, such is the nature of dreams, he could never recall it when he needed to. Many years later, when he wrote a piece about solipsism and his childhood interest in dreams, he was struck by a contradiction in his earlier reasoning. True, asking oneself "Am I dreaming?" in a dream would seem to prove one is. Yet that is precisely what he had often asked himself in waking life. Therein lay a paradox. What was he to conclude? That it does not prove one is dreaming? Or that life really is a dream?

Simulated reality[edit]

See also: Simulated reality and Simulation hypothesis

Dreaming provides a springboard for those who question whether our own reality may be an illusion. The ability of the mind to be tricked into believing a mentally generated world is the "real world" means at least one variety of simulated reality is a common, even nightly event.[4]

Those who argue that the world is not simulated must concede that the mind—at least the sleeping mind—is not itself an entirely reliable mechanism for attempting to differentiate reality from illusion.[5]

Whatever I have accepted until now as most true has come to me through my senses. But occasionally I have found that they have deceived me, and it is unwise to trust completely those who have deceived us even once.
— René Descartes[6]

Critical discussion[edit]

In the past, philosophers John Locke and Thomas Hobbes have separately attempted to refute Descartes’s account of the dream argument. Locke claimed that you cannot experience pain in dreams. Various scientific studies conducted within the last few decades provided evidence against Locke’s claim by concluding that pain in dreams can occur but the pain isn’t as severe. Philosopher Ben Springett has said that Locke might respond to this by stating that the agonising pain of stepping in to a fire is non-comparable to stepping in to a fire in a dream. Hobbes claimed that dreams are susceptible to absurdity while the waking life is not.[7]

Many contemporary philosophers have attempted to refute dream skepticism in detail (see, e.g., Stone (1984)).[8] Ernest Sosa(2007) devoted a chapter of a monograph to the topic, in which he presented a new theory of dreaming and argued that his theory raises a new argument for skepticism, which he attempted to refute. In A Virtue Epistemology: Apt Belief and Reflective Knowledge, he states: "in dreaming we do not really believe; we only make-believe."[9] Jonathan Ichikawa (2008) and Nathan Ballantyne & Ian Evans (2010) have offered critiques of Sosa’s proposed solution. Ichikawa argued that as we cannot tell whether our beliefs in waking life are truly beliefs and not imaginings, like in a dream, we are still not able to tell whether we are awake or dreaming.

Norman Malcolm in his monograph "Dreaming" (published in 1959) elaborated on Wittgenstein’s question as to whether it really mattered if people who tell dreams "really had these images while they slept, or whether it merely seems so to them on waking". He argues that the sentence "I am asleep" is a senseless form of words; that dreams cannot exist independently of the waking impression; and that scepticism based on dreaming "comes from confusing the historical and dream telling senses…[of]…the past tense". (page 120). In the chapter: "Do I Know I Am Awake ?" he argues that we do not have to say: "I know that I am awake" simply because it would be absurd to deny that one is awake.

See also[edit]


  1. Jump up^ 莊子, 齊物論, 12. Zhuàngzi, "Discussion on making all things equal," 12. from Zhuàngzi, Burton Watson trans., Chuang Tzu (New York: Columbia University Press, 1996), 43. ISBN 978-0-231-10595-8 [1]
  2. Jump up^ Chögyal Namkhai Norbu Dream Yoga And The Practice Of Natural Light Edited and introduced by Michael Katz, Snow Lion Publications, Ithaca, NY, ISBN 1-55939-007-7, pp. 42, 46, 48, 96, 105.
  3. Jump up^ "Adversaria V," Write Justified, Spring 1989. For Hutton’s definitive statement on the subject see "Hutton’s Paradox," Fortean Times, April 2015, archived online here.
  4. Jump up^ Joseph Barbera, Henry Moller, Dreaming, Virtual Reality, and Presence.
  5. Jump up^ Giuliana A. L. Mazzoni and Elizabeth F. Loftus, When Dreams Become Reality.
  6. Jump up^ René Descartes, Meditations on First Philosophy.
  7. Jump up^ "Dreaming, Philosophy of – Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy".
  8. Jump up^ Stone, Jim (1984). "Dreaming and Certainty" (PDF). Philosophical Studies. 45 (3): 353–368. doi:10.1007/BF00355443.
  9. Jump up^ Sosa, Ernest (2007). A Virtue Epistemology: Apt Belief and Reflective Knowledge. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-929702-3.


Malcolm, N. (1959) Dreaming London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 2nd Impression 1962.


Philosophical paradoxes (list)



Descartes denied that animals had reason or intelligence. He argued that animals did not lack sensations or perc eptions, but these could be explained mechanistically.92 Whereas humans had a soul, or mind, and were able to feel pai n and anxiety, animals by virtue of not having a soul could not feel pain or anxiety. If animals showed signs of distres s then this was to protect the body from damage, but the innate state needed for them to suffer was absent. Although Des cartes’ views were not universally accepted they became prominent in Europe and North America, allowing humans to trea t animals with impunity. The view that animals were quite separate from humanity and merely machines allowed for the mal treatment of animals, and was sanctioned in law and societal norms until the middle of the 19th century. The publication s of Charles Darwin would eventually erode the Cartesian view of animals. Darwin argued that the continuity between huma ns and other species opened the possibilities

Descartes denied that animals had reason or intelligence. He argued that animals did not lack sensations or perceptions, but these could be explained mechanistically.[92] Whereas humans had a soul, or mind, and were able to feel pain and anxiety, animals by virtue of not having a soul could not feel pain or anxiety. If animals showed signs of distress then this was to protect the body from damage, but the innate state needed for them to suffer was absent. Although Descartes’ views were not universally accepted they became prominent in Europe and North America, allowing humans to treat animals with impunity. The view that animals were quite separate from humanity and merely machines allowed for the maltreatment of animals, and was sanctioned in law and societal norms until the middle of the 19th century. The publications of Charles Darwin would eventually erode the Cartesian view of animals. Darwin argued that the continuity between humans and other species opened the possibilities that animals did not have dissimilar properties to suffer.[93]

About 1,760,000 results (0.98 seconds)

Search Results

Pashupatinath Temple – Wikipedia

The Pashupatinath Temple (Nepali: पशुपतिनाथ मन्दिर) is a famous, sacred Hindu temple dedicated toPashupatinath and is located on the banks of the Bagmati River 5 kilometres north-east of Kathmandu Valley in the eastern part of Kathmandu, the capital of Nepal. This temple is considered one of the sacred …‎History · ‎Temple complex · ‎Priest · ‎Entry and Darshan












More images for PASHUPATINATHReport images

Pashupatinath – Wikipedia

Pashupatinath may refer to: Shree Pashupatinath, the Hindu God; Pashupatinath Temple, Kathmandu, the holiest place in Nepal and the temple of the most revered God of Nepal; Pashupatinath temple, Mandsaur, temple of Shree Pashupatinath in India …

Pashupatinath Temple in Kathmandu, Nepal – Naturally Nepal

Pashupatinath Temple. Dedicated to Lord Shiva, Pashupatinath is one of the four most important religious sites in Asia for devotees of Shiva. Built in the 5th century and later renovated by Malla kings, the site itself is said to have existed from the beginning of the millennium when a Shiva lingam was discovered here.

Pashupatinath Temple

One of the most sacred Hindu temples of Nepal – Pashupatinath Temple is located on both banks of Bagmati River on the eastern outskirts of Kathmandu. Pashupatinath is the most important temple dedicated to god Shiva. Every year this temple attracts hundreds of elderly followers of Hinduism. They arrive here to find …

Pashupatinath Temple, Kathmandu – TripAdvisor › … › Kathmandu › Things to Do in Kathmandu

Rating: 4.5 – ‎3,517 reviews
Book your tickets online for Pashupatinath Temple, Kathmandu: See 3517 reviews, articles, and 2028 photos of Pashupatinath Temple, ranked No.5 on TripAdvisor among 188 attractions in Kathmandu.

Pashupatinath Temple (Kathmandu) – All You Need to Know Before … › … › Kathmandu › Things to Do in Kathmandu

Rating: 4 – ‎14 reviews
Pashupatinath Temple, Kathmandu: See 14 reviews, articles, and 18 photos of Pashupatinath Temple, ranked No.86 on TripAdvisor among 188 attractions in Kathmandu.

Pashupatinath Temple – Kathmandu, Nepal – Sacred Destinations

Pashupatinath, or Pashupati, is a Hindu temple on the banks of the Bagmati River in Deopatan, a village 3 km northwest of Kathmandu. It is dedicated to a manifestation of Shiva called Pashupati (Lord of Animals). It attracts thousands of pilgrims each year and has become well known far beyond the Kathmandu Valley.

Kathmandu Pashupatinath Temple Nepal: Transportation,Structure … › Nepal Tibet Tours › Nepal Tours › Kathmandu

Pashupatinath Temple, a world cultural heritage on the banks of the Bagmati River of east Kathmandu is a sacred Hindu temple complex with architectures & cremation ceremony.

Pashupatinath travel – Lonely Planet

Explore Pashupatinath holidays and discover the best time and places to visit. | Nepal’s most important Hindu temple stands on the banks of the holy Bagmati River, surrounded by a bustling market of religious stalls selling marigolds, prasad (offerings), incense, rudraksha beads, conch shells, pictures of Hindu deities and …

Colorful Death: A Day at Pashupatinath Temple in Kathmandu, Nepal ……/colorful-death-pashupatinath-temple-kathmandu-nepal...

Aug 14, 2017 – Pashupatinath is considered to be one of the holiest and most important Hindu places in all of Nepal. After spending a morning there, this is my take on its interesting rituals.

Pashupatinath Temple in Kathmandu – Nepal – YouTube


▶ 2:02

Jul 27, 2016 – Uploaded by Vivere Viaggiando
Up next. नेपाल में स्थित पशुपतिनाथ मंदिर के हैरान कर देने वाले रहस्य | PashupatinathTemple Nepal – Duration: 5:48. Adbhut TV India 589,018 views · 5:48 …

Pashupatinath Temple in Kathmandu, Nepal – YouTube


▶ 2:54

May 27, 2015 – Uploaded by Stef Hoffer
The Pashupatinath temple complex is located on the holy Bagmati river in Kathmandu, and is the most …

Pashupatinath Temple Hotels, Kathmandu – Book Hotels in ……/pashupatinath_temple-hotels.html

Get the best hotel deals for hotels in Pashupatinath Temple, Kathmandu. ✓ Use coupon code.

About Famous Temple Pashupatinath Temple – Speaking Tree

Apr 15, 2014 – About Famous Temple Pashupatinath Temple – Pashupatinath Temple (Nepali: पशुपतिनाथको मन्दिर) is one of the most significant Hindu temples of Shiva in the world, located on the banks of the Bagmati River in the eastern part of Kathmandu, the capital of Nepal. The temple serves as the seat of …

PASHUPATINATH – Home | Facebook

Rating: 4.7 – ‎21 votes
PASHUPATINATH, Kathmandu,Nepal. 136K likes. ॐ नम शिवाय। हर हर महादेव !!!!!

The Story that links Kedarnath of India and Pashupatinath of Nepal

Pashupatinath is the guardian spirit and the holiest of all Shiva shrines in Nepal. Pashupatinath Temple is One Part of among one of Dwadash Jyotirlinga of Kedarnath Jyotirlinga Temple. In Chapter 11, titled as ‘Pashupatinath Linga’, of “Koti Rudra Samhita” in Shiva Purana, Pashupatinath has been described as:

Pashupatinath Temple: Of Life and Death | Work the World

Kathmandu has been a Himalayan haven for travellers for decades. The city moves with human life and is famed for its chaotic hustle and bustle. The existence of Pashupatinath crematoria is a reminder that all life eventually comes to an end. Pashupatinath temple is a huge structure that looms over the banks of the …

#Pashupatinath – Twitter Search

22h ago @UjjwalAcharya tweeted: “The life of the dead is placed in the me..” – read what others are saying and join the conversation.

How Did Pashupatinath Temple Survive the Great Earthquake of ……/how-did-pashupatinath-temple-survive-the-great-earth...

May 31, 2015 – Despite the cruel dance of nature in Nepal the age old Pashupatinath still stands strong on the banks of river Bagmati. We take a look at both the scientific.

Pashupatinath Hindu Temple Of Nepal –

One of most popular Hindu pilgrimage sites in the Indian subcontinent, the Pashupatinath temple is located in Kathmandu, Nepal on the banks of the Bagmati River. The temple is associated with centuries of ancient history and culture that amazes all who visit the temple for pilgrimage or tourism. The Hindu supreme deity, …

Pashupatinath Temple, History, Culture,Visiting Timings

Pashupatinath Temple. Located on the banks of river Bagmati River in Kathmandu Valley, Nepal;Pashupatinath got the Grace of God when it went almost unharmed given the range of earthquake hit the roads of valley. Scientific reasons say it happened due to its bricks being held together by strong metal sheets in its roof; …

The 10 Best Pashupatinath Tours & Tickets – Kathmandu | Viator › Nepal › Kathmandu › Attractions

Rating: 4.5 – ‎41 reviews
Pashupatinath – Kathmandu Attractions on

Pashupatinath Temple in Kathmandu Self-Guided Tour – GPSmyCity…/pashupatinath-temple-in-kathmandu-self-guided-tour-...

Pashupatinath Temple is situated near the Tribhuvan International Airport in Kathmnadu. The area in which it is located is truly picturesque – surrounded by virgin jungle. Though you may not be allowed to enter Pashupatinath, you can admire it from the other bank of the river, or you can visit some famous temples situated in …

The Pashupatinath Temple in Kathmandu – Nepal. A sacred site for …

Dec 22, 2014 – Pashupatinath is the most prominent sacred temple for Hindu’s in Nepal . The holy shrine is the greatest place among the Lord Shiva sites. Pashupatinath temple is located in north-east of Kathmandu valley about 5 km away in the bank of Bagmati river. Bagmati is represented as the pious river by religious …

Start of our Nepal Tour at Pashupatinath temple, Kathmandu – Thrilling …

May 19, 2017 – One of the oldest temples, the Pashupatinath temple is a place that every traveler in Kathmandu visits. A travel guide to discovering what makes it special.

Witnessing Open Cremation at Pashupatinath Temple in Kathmandu

Aug 2, 2017 – Read about the open cremation at Pashupatinath temple in Kathmandu, Nepal, which is one of the most visited ancient temples of Nepal & its history.

Babas congregate for Mahashivaratri at Pashupatinath…/babas-congregate-mahashivaratri-pashupatinath/

Feb 13, 2018 – On the eve of the Mahashivaratri festival, which falls today, Sadhus and Babas have started congregating at Pashupatinath temple area.

Pashupatinath temple unharmed in Nepal quake – The Hindu…/article7146853.ece

Apr 27, 2015 – The famous 5th century Pashupatinath Temple in Kathmandu survived the massive 7.9 magnitude earthquake that flattened several World Heritages like iconic Dharhara tower and Darbar Square in Nepal. “The Pashupatinath Temple is safe, we have checked the shrine many times and it has developed …

Go to Pashupatinath And Enjoy Monkey Business | HuffPost…/

Jun 3, 2016 – Have you ever been at Pashupatinath in Kathmandu, Nepal? You would not be allowed to go into all the temples unless you are a Hindu. Only Hindus are allowed to enter inside the main temple of Pashupatinath where a Shiva’s Nandi bull can be seen from the rear. The Pashupatinath Temple, with its …

Searches related to PASHUPATINATH

pashupatinath shivling

pashupatinath temple photos

importance of pashupatinath temple

pashupatinath temple darshan timings

pashupatinath god images

pashupatinath temple nepal official website

a project report on pashupatinath temple

pashupatinath temple image

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next


A rainbow is a meteorological phenomenon that is caused by reflection, refraction and dispersion of light in water droplets resulting in a spectrum of light appearing in the sky. It takes the form of a multicoloured circular arc. Wikipedia

HELLO OLGA AND OBAMA HAPPY HOLI – AND BUBBA -> Descartes also made contributions to the field of optics. He show ed by using geometric construction and the law of refraction(also known as Descartes’ law or more commonly Snell’s l aw) that the angular radius of a rainbow is 42 degrees (i.e., the angle subtended at the eye by the edge of the rainbow and the ray passing from the sun through the rainbow’s centre is 42°).111 He also independently discovered the law of reflection, and his essay on optics was the first published mention of this law.112

Descartes also made contributions to the field of optics. He showed by using geometric construction and the law of refraction(also known as Descartes’ law or more commonly Snell’s law) that the angular radius of a rainbow is 42 degrees (i.e., the angle subtended at the eye by the edge of the rainbow and the ray passing from the sun through the rainbow’s centre is 42°).[111] He also independently discovered the law of reflection, and his essay on optics was the first published mention of this law.[112]

Texas, have you voted?

From: Organizing for Action <info>
Date: Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 8:32 PM
Subject: Texas, have you voted?
To: ajay mishra <ajayinsead03>

There’s an important primary election happening — and there’s still time to vote early.

Texas: Early voting is underway. Cast your ballot before Friday's deadline. Get to the polls and vote today -- remember to bring identification. Have you voted yet? Make a plan.

Paid for by Organizing for Action.
Contributions or gifts to Organizing for Action are not tax deductible.
This email was sent to: ajayinsead03.
If that is not your preferred email address, you can update your information here. We believe that emails are a vital way to stay in direct contact with supporters. Click here if you’d like to unsubscribe from these messages.
Paid for by Organizing for Action, P.O. Box 618120 Chicago, IL 60661