--- On Tue, 6/1/09, ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC automatic digest system <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> From: ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC automatic digest system <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC Digest - 4 Jan 2009 to 5 Jan 2009 (#2009-6)
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Date: Tuesday, 6 January, 2009, 12:01 AM
> mandrake wrote:
> > steve ash wrote:
> >> The issue in parapsychology is that some
> scientists have already decided certain things are
> impossible and no amount of "evidence" will make
> them change their minds - that's why its dogmatic -
> > see the Dawkins vs Sheldrake piece on the internet for
> a good example of that
> > 
> > I don't want to carry a torch for Cartesian
> Dualism, as I said my own influences are more in Samkhya
> Dualism than the western version -
> > but even so Descartes is a naturalistic approach - the
> connection between mind and body is via the Pineal gland -
> > which is an remarkably intriguing theory although
> Descartes was wrong in his assumption that the pineal gland
> distinguished humans from other creatures.
> > It's this bit of the theory that is usually
> attacked - on the basis that it models consciousness as some
> sort of "control room" scenario
> > ("The Ghost in the Machine") - Not sure if
> that's the refutation - just a question of whether this
> is the best way to model the mind / body split -
> > does it really feel this way - ie: to move my hand i
> dont contract my biceps  - i move my hand and my biceps
> contract??
> > 
> > bb/93
> > 
> > Mogg
> > 

I suspect the way things actually feel to us may be an illusion created by the brain though. On a more positive note I'd agree scientific dogma is a very bad thing, I certainly wouldn't use it, but as a philosopher I believe that if something doesn't have a rational explanation it doesn't exist (nothing to do with science, just logic). Fortunately I can explain the paranormal and occult entirely rationally, but Descartes no... Samkhya is far more interesting and I'm currently looking at that.

One thing I can suggest immediately, after ready your summary and some Indian philosophy studies, is that Samkhya isn’t really Dualism in the Western sense, as this doesn’t really exist in Indian Philosophy (except perhaps some forms of Dvaita Vedanta, which under some interpretations is similar to Descartes). Western Dualism is a doctrine about the separation of mind and matter, and that's where the problem lies. Indian Dualism is a doctrine of the separation of Consciousness and its Object. The Object is both Mind and Matter, founded on a Psycho-Physical substance (with 3 aspects). The Cartesian gap doesn't exist here as there are no causal relations between Consciousness and its Object (unlike the causality  between Mind and Matter). But Consciousness (as we experience it) cannot exist without an Object so the two are entwined. In this respect its identical to my position of Property Dualism (aka Western Non-Dualism) because this is a position
 within Natural Philosophy and ignores the Transcendental as irrelevant, dealing with Consciousness only as it is manifest in Nature. So our positions only differed semantically I suggest.
The Cartesian position is totally at odds with Samkhya. I'd say Samkhya was also equivalent from a naturalistic perspective to Visuddhadvaita Vedanta of pure Non-Dualism (as the non-dualism here is really between Brahman and Self). The interaction between Consciousness and Object is still problematic however, but I'm studying this in an excellent study by Pratima Bowes (Consciousness and Freedom: Three Views (London 1971)) who sympathetically analyses Samkyha from a Western Philosophical perspective. Its quite hard to get hold of that, but there's a good summary by Prof Paul Williams, of Indian Philosophy at Dept of Bristol Uni, in Grayling's Philosophy 2 textbook. I'm also impressed by it similiarity not only to Post-Spinozan Property Dualism but also Quantum notions of Causality.
  
 
As for Descartes pineal gland idea, maybe something he inherited from his Rosicrucian contacts perhaps, he speculates about this in his writings but doesn't explain how it works, therefore its not usually taught in academic philosophy, only his logical arguements are acknowledged, certainly none of  his early philosophers took it seriously. The pineal gland is interesting though, as its linked to DMT, and I've sometimes thought Serotonin might be the substance that consciousness adheres in. But Descartes himself is an entirely religious philosopher, his whole system is rooted in the existence of God, for whose existence he offered new theological and philosophical proofs (all now redundant though). Only his material domain was naturalistic.