 |
Alex Wylie, Avicenna
On the subject of Avicenna's 'Floating Man' thought experiment and its similarity to Descartes' cogito: surely even the 'cogito ergo sum', which presents itself as instantaneous and super-historical, is a formulation in language? If so, then it is not instantaneous and therefore it is historical. Without the 'otherness' of language, surely it is unthinkable to posit selfhood, which without language is indefinable and must remain unanalysed?
Festus Byrne - Avicenna
This thought experiment regarding the ‘Floating Man’, may be better compared to the brain creating a single brain cell. Although the single cell is not capable of any complex functions such as thought, it will be self aware and able to communicate with other cells. Its true functionality can only be realised by the sum of all the cells within the brain it is a part. The way I understand this theory is that the ‘Floating Man’ - is a necessary component for its creator’s to functioning properly, just as a cell is a necessary part of the brain to function correctly. This is a paradox, which states that both the creator and the ‘Floating Man’ must to come into being for them to be completely whole. The creator helps ‘Floating Man’ into being while a number of the ‘Floating Men’ helps bring the creator into being. Thus, this is theory of Evolution and Creation working together hand in hand.
Roger Bull - Avicenna
Please correct the typo in my recent post. "impossible" in the penultimate line, should, of course, read "possible".
Jon Wainwright: Avicenna
Another excellent programme. Peter Adamson outlined Avicenna's "proof" of the existence of god and was about to give an objection to it when Melvyn cut him off. There's never enough time, of course, but it would have been worth hearing why this proof fails. Apologies to any professional philosophers out there, but my understanding (culled from Simon Blackburn's book "Think") is that, because it relies on an argument by analogy, it fails for two reasons. First, it compares a radio (artefact created by the mind of man) and a universe (supposed artefact created by a supposed god). It's hard to imagine two more unlike objects and so any analogy (which relies on some resemblance between the objects compared) breaks down. Second, while we have experience of how radios come into existence, we have absolutely no experience of how universes come into existence, so again the analogy breaks down. Such "proofs of god" and their historical and cultural impact would make a fascinating programme!
Roger Bull - Avicenna
I am not convinced by the conclusions that Avicenna drew from his thought experiment about the flying/floating man.[I note I'm not alone in this. See Tom Milner-Gulland below]. Surely a man just created and being deprived of all sensory imput could not be self aware? Further, he would, crucially be without language (no chance to learn it)and without that, especially when coupled with sensory deprivation, self-awareness/self-consciousness would not be possible. I was surprised that no one challenged this. I'd be interested to learn what others think of this.
Terry Baker
I had not previously heard of Avicenna’s thought experiment regarding the ‘Floating Man’, the man born in adult form, suspended in mid air, blindfolded and totally without any sensory input. Avicenna claimed that he would nonetheless be aware of his own existence. I simply do not understand how this could possibly be the case. Surely without any sensory input at all, there would be no reason for him to be aware of ‘selfhood’ (or anything else)nor could he differentiate between himself and not-himself or even, without such concepts and some form of symbolic language in which to express them (none of which could possibly be innate), conceive of existence and non-existence. If this is correct, then it would seem to put an end to Descartes cogito. If it is not so, would someone like to suggest why. TeB…
Guy Potter - Avicenna
I very much enjoy In Our Time although I've never wished to write in before. Yet, here I am, and I do so as a Buddhist. There are many important Buddhist 'thinkers' that have introduced new ideas/ways of perceiving or seeing that have had a profound effect upon the lives of millions of people. One example is Nagarjuna, believed to have lived around the first century CE, to whom is attributed what is known as 'sunyata', the doctrine of emptiness, in that all thoughts, feelings, views, experiences, are empty of fixed self or self-nature and do not exist separate from our experience of them. If you wish to know why this is important: philosphically, metaphysically, ethically, socially, and economically, then I'd be happy to pass on more information. In addition to this there is a whole myth associated with Nagarjuna, of how you 'discovered' or was given these teachings, which is fascinating in itself. Although Buddhism has not emerged our of a Judeo-Christian or Greco-Roman tradition it can certainly offer an alternative to them that has shaped the lives of millions of people throughout the last 2,500 years. Indeed, the fact that it is peripheral to western culture may mean that it has most to teach us.Best wishesGuy Potter/Padmakumara (member of the Western Buddhist Order)
Ian Fenn. IOT Avicenna
Thank you for an excellent programme that focussed on such an important philosopher that is usually overlooked. Might I suggest further forays into the world of the Muslim heritage that has so influenced European thought and technology.
John Collins - Avicenna
Any chance we can get this bloke for our pub quiz team.Cheers John
Alex Bellamy on Avicenna
Oh dear, dear ! Just as with its programme on Averroes that completely failed to mention his most important scientific innovation for classical mechanics in his notion of 'inertial' resistance to motion in the celestial spheres, in the 'In Our Time' programme on Avicenna yet again the major innovative and founding scientific importance of the medieval Arabic tradition in natural philosophy to classical mechanics (in originating its fundamental key notions of 'inertia' and of 'momentum') is completely overlooked. Recounting Avicenna's achievements without ever mentioning his theory of impetus dynamics or mail is like recounting Newton's many and varied achievements from chemistry to economics at the Mint without ever mentioning his theory of gravity. Insofar as it is argued, as Pierre Duhem did and rightly so, that specifically medieval impetus dynamics was a key origin of Newtonian classical inertial-dynamics, then as its apparent originator, Avicenna is thereby the medieval father of classical dynamics, rather than say Buridan or Galileo, who both adopted his distinctively medieval impetus dynamics rather than its ancient precursor due to Hipparchus, which Galileo had adopted in his 1590 early Pisan dynamics but abandoned in favour of the Avicennan theory in his later Paduan dynamics of his 1632 'Dialogo' and 1638 'Discorsi'. To supplement the programme with its cardinal omission by giving a brief sketch of Avicenna's impetus theory and its innovative historical importance, it was a solution to the Aristotelian problem of what is the mover in projectile motion against gravity after the projectile, such as a stone thrown upwards, has left its original projector, given the basic principle of Aristotelian dynamics that all motion needs a conjoined mover, but none can be seen in this kind of motion. In general impetus dynamics was an auxiliary theory of Aristotelian dynamics that was thought to be a better solution to this problem of identifying the conjoined mover in projectile motion than Aristotle's suggestions, which tentatively identified the air as its propellant. In its first version due to Hipparchus and adopted by Galileo in his 1590 'On Motion', upward projectile motion against the force of gravity is enabled by an evanescent self-decaying incorporeal motive force impressed within the projectile by its original projector that keeps the body moving upwards but decelerating whilst it is greater than the downward force of gravity, until it weakens to the point of only being equal to or less than its own weight, whereupon the motion has a turning point after which it accelerates downwards as its upward impetus decays further until it is totally exhausted and the body then assumes a terminal and constant speed thereafter, even in a vacuum. But in the 10th century Avicenna's innovative radically different impetus theory (called mail) posited that (i) impetus is not self-decaying, but rather essentially permanently conserved and would be so in the absence of any corruptive resistance to motion such as that of gravity and the medium, thus predicting potentially endless projectile motion in a void, (ii) impetus is co-terminous with motion and the amount imbued is proportional to the weight/mass and speed of the body and (iii) the gravity of a body is itself a primary projector (downwards) and constant creator and impressor of impetus within the body, whereby gravitational fall in a void would be endlessly accelerated in principle without any terminal speed as the body accumulates more and more conserved impetus. A major innovative historical importance of Avicenna's impetus theory was that it predicted that a canonball dropped down a tunnell through the centre of the earth would have the motive force required to pass beyond the centre and rise again in violent motion against its gravity to the opposite height and then oscillate to and fro around the centre of the earth, as distinct from stopping at the centre because it has no conjoined force to carry it beyond as predicted by Aristotle's and Hipparchus's theorie
tony woodd.......avicenna
I think therefore I am? or I am aware therefore I am? Whether thought is going on or not I am aware that I am. Whatever contortions thought goes through it can go no further than the awareness "I am" The most thought can do is to discover it's own limitations. At that point in the evolution of consciousness it will be interesting to see the change in the dynamics of human relationships..
Tom Milner-Gulland - Avicenna
I don't think Avicenna's conclusion in the thought experiment about the 'floating man' follows. The man would have an innate sense of proprioception and, furthermore, it is surely doubtful whether he could be self-conscious in the absence of sensory experience, even if it be exclusively kinaesthetic and the results of the internal operations of the body; these will suggest to him his substantive, bodily being.
in our time on 'avincenna'
when you want to go howling in the desert, this programme comes along every week and NEVER fails. at 9am it is what the BBc is/was ever about. thanks.
Peter Harris AVICENNA
Another wonderful programme, but I do wish Melvyn would restrain himself over really quite minor matters. I am particularly thinking, in this episode, over the "salacious" matter which he wanted mentioned. After it had been referred to, Melvyn could not restrain himself and conceal his irritation. There are examples almost every week, often involving the female contributor. It distracts somewhat from one of the best radio programmes ever. Come on, Melvyn. Grow up!
Royden Hunt , Avicenna
What an excellent topic and discussion from Melvyn and his guests today, given current interest in relationships between science, philosphy and religion. For example, in Paul Davies' latest book 'The Goldilocks Enigma - why is the universe just right for life?' he discusses (p230f) the concept of God as a 'necessary' being and therefore outside a contingent universe or multiverse. At the end of the book he admits that 'most scientists ... get on with their work, leaving the big questions to philosophers and theologians'!(p303) That's why a programme on Avicenna and his examination of the questions about 'being' or 'existence' are still relevant today. Well done Melvyn.
|
|
