Metacognitive Reading Report # 2

Trainee: BONAGUA, Jian Jezequiel G. Date: February 23, 2019

Understanding the Self/ Pag-unawa sa Sarili

GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS
      
BEFORE
USE THIS DO NOT
COMPLETING
TEMPLATE PLAGIARIZE!
THIS REVIEW
RESPOND TO FOR YOUR
ASSESSMENT, YOUR
FOLLOW THE THE ANSWER ANSWERS BUT PLAGIARISM
PLEASE READ WORK
INSTRUCTIO REQUIREMEN IN ESSAY DO NOT LIMIT IS A MAJOR
ALL OF THE BEFORE
NS. TS OF THE FORM. YOURSELF OFFENSE
INSTRUCTIONS SUBMITTI
TASK. WITH THE THAT LEADS
THOROUGHLY NG IT.
LINES TO
AND
PROVIDED. EXPULSION.
CAREFULLY.

Ryle’s Behaviorist View of the Mind

Topic/Lesson
1. Difficult Concepts (What concepts did you find difficult to understand?)
i. At first, I was confused by what Ryle meant by calling Descartes’ dualism “the dogma of the
ghost in the machine”. However, I learned that he was implying that the existence of the
“mind” is like a ghost, cannot be seen, nor touched, and there are means to prove its
existence. However, this said “ghost” was controlling the machine (i.e., the body). Therefore,
I believe Ryle is implying that the idea of dualism lacks enough evidence.
ii. I also found it difficult to understand what “category mistake” meant, so I looked for other
references to understand it better since in the article, the definition was not explicitly stated,
and the examples were not expounded.
iii. Lastly, it was unclear if the idea of “mind” was completely debunked by Ryle since he failed
to explain some of the few things that only the mind can do, for instance, having beliefs and
preferences.

2. Insights (What new insights or learnings did you gain in discussion/ activity?)

i. Before reading the article, I simply thought that I am responsible for all my own actions, and
it is I that control my body as well as my brain, therefore proving the existence of a “mind”
within me, and the existence of it. However, after reading the article, I now realize that it is
impossible to prove the existence of “minds” simply because we do not have the capacity to
do so. One could easily say that there is such thing as “mind” (or as referred by Ryle, the
“ghost in the machine”) that controls the body, however, it would be subjective since we do
not have the means to prove it.

ii. Before reading the article, I thought that the mind and the brain are two separate entities.
However, reading the article, I now realize that maybe, one is just a branch of the tree. As
proposed by Lyle, the “mind” could probably be something constructed out of the idea of
something, making the dualism a “category mistake”. Now I realized, there is a possibility
that there really isn’t a “mind” at all, and everything my body do must be solely because of
the brain only.
iii. Before reading the article/understanding the lesson, I thought the “mind” and my body must
coexist, so each could function properly. However, after reading the article, I have found
 myself questioning the existence of “mind”. I believe it could be something just within my
brain (which is, therefore, a part of my body), thus dismissing the idea of dualism.

3. Questions (What questions would you want answers for? Or vague areas you want more
explanations about?
i. First, I would like to know what or who is responsible for our actions since Ryle implies
that the mind isn’t a separate entity at all.
ii. Second, I would also want to know whether the concept of individuality is still possible if
the existence of the “mind” is not.
iii. Lastly, I would like to know if Descartes’ dualism is only pertains to a metaphor.