Locke Soul

Locke says the soul begins to have ideas when it begins to perceive. It's essence is not to think, and it does not always think, like the body does not always move. I do not think Locke thinks the soul has any innate ideas either. He says there is something within humans that has the power to think, but he believes it is not always functioning in this way. It seems to me that Locke believes the soul acts like the mind, it thinks, it reason, and has the ability to think and reason in degrees. He does believe it exists separately from the mind and body also. I think the mind operates as it does in accordance to how it is supposed to physically, and the ideas are reasoned by the soul, which understands the universe in a way that the mind and body cannot. I think Lock thinks the soul thinks like the body thinks. When a new sensation is shown to the body it reacts as it should, and the mind tries to understand the sensation as it should. So, too, the soul reacts to the mind and body as it should, in accordance to the universe.

Locke Origin of Ideas

Locke says all ideas come from sensation or reflection. Sensation is the affect of external objects. It is from our perceptions of the external world that we feel sensations. Reflection is the operation of the mind after the ideas have entered our minds. These include: perception, thinking, doubting, believing, reasoning, knowing, willing, and all different actings of the mind. It is from these two areas that all our ideas originate. From these operations of sensation and reflection sometimes passions arise which leave us feeling certain ways about the ideas. Why do we feel differently about different ideas? What makes us believe a certain idea is right or not? Can that be the action of the soul?

Locke Innate ideas

Locke argues that many me believe that ideas that are universally agreed upon by all mankind are innate and are stamped upon the mind of man, which the soul receives in its very first being, and brings into the world with it. Locke argues this is not the case to prove ideas are innate because there are ways to come to these ideas that all men consent in. He says no ideas that are universally agreed upon. Children and idiots would have these ideas imprinted on them, like all humans, but they do not understand the ideas, and there is no reason to imprint the ideas on minds that would not understand them. Besides the known ideas of hunger, pain, cold, etc., Locke says there are no innate ideas. No innate ideas of principles or morals.

Locke Identity

Locke explains that what is, is, and what is not, cannot be. When we see anything to be in any place in any instant of time, we are sure that it is that very thing, and not another, which at that same time exists in another place. And this is identity, because it is inconceivable that two things of the same kind should exist in the same at the same time; therefore all things that exists anwhere at anytime is there itself alone. He goes on to talk about the identity of substances, and there are three sorts of substances: God, Finite intelligences, and Bodies. First, God is without beginning, eternal, unalterable, and everywhere; and therefore His identity is undoubtable. Finite spirits have their own determinate time and place, and the relation to that time and place will always determine to each spirit its identity. Lastly, the same will hold true of every particle of matter, to which no addition or subtraction of matter be made. Locke says when concerning a living object there is something else that determines its identity. For an oak is the same oak when it is cut, and a man is the same man as he changes.

locke xxvi human views of existence

locke here explains the reason to believe anythig exists is because everything has a cause and an effect. so any idea that enters our mind is study by us and therefore the idea exists. he goes on the explain that everthing that exists has a relation to something else. humans know "old" in relation to something of similar attirbutes being "young". they know "big" in relation to something that is "small" that is known to be the same thing in question, like a small dog compared to a big dog. and humans understand space and time because in relation to events happening in other space and at other times. when dealing with absolute terms, that which is being described can be compared to anything. it is sensation and reflection that compares all ideas. he says that time and space are described by other time and space, but does not talk about the first time or the creation of space. i think he is just trying to prove what exists because for there to be an effect there must be a cause, and that cause must exist.

Locke XIX mind/body and will

Locke begins this chapter by defining the modes of thinking. he says thinking occurs when the mind turns its view inwards. "Sensation" is any impression on the body made by an external object, which is the entrance of any idea into the understanding of the senses. "rememberance" is the reoccurance of the sensation without the external object. ideas that float in the mind without any understanding are "reverie". Ideas that are taken notice of are "attention". ideas that the mind takes great interest in are "study". These are some instances that Locke says the mind may observe itself. then he goes on to explain attention. there are ideas that are always present in the mind, and some ideas that are so earnest that the mind shuts out all other thoughts, and takes no notice of the ordinary impressions made then on the senses, at other times the mind barely observes the train of ideas that succeed in the understanding without directing and pursuing any of them, and at other times it lets them pass almost unregarded.
he concludes by saying thinking is the action of the soul and not the essence. if thinking has so many modes and the mode of attention has different degrees, then it is probable that the soul is acting and thinking is not its essence. because the essence of any agent is not capable of variation. i think he is explaining that even though the mind is constantly working and thinking there still exists a will that choose how the mind studies certain ideas. and so this will cannot be a prisoner of its own function if its function is to reason.

Descartes function of the soul

descartes believes in free will as regards to right and wrong. he believes the soul and body are separate and body functions as it does because of it's parts, but humans can reason and this ability is separate from the body. Ibn Sina, the islamic philosopher, believed the function of man is to praise God. Locke says thinking is the action of the soul and not the essence. i think all of them believed humans can choose their actions, but not the consequences. will exists within the universe, which is infinite.

descartes discourse 5 in regards to machines

Descartes says that machines can be made by humans in all the likeness of humans, but a soul cannot be created for them. Only God can create a soul. So therefore, machines cannot function as a human, only mimic one. A machine can be programmed to adhere to a vast amount of functions, but still finite. where a machine fails a certain task that a human has asked of it, the human can choose an alternative approach. Humans cannot do everything, but this is not their function as intended by God. God created a human to be able to choose to change themselves. Like machines can understand their function as bestowed on them from their creator, but never understand the reason for the intention, so too can humans understand their function, but never the understand the reason of God's intent. Therefore, humans do have a will and a function, and both include choice.