What is the main issue of Med VI?

He is trying to find out whether material things exist outside of himself( himself being a thinking thing). This has a lot to do with what our sensory perception can actually tell us.

Does an analysis of the nature of imagination prove that matter must exist? Why or why not?

While it allows for a probabilistic argument that the body exists, it doesnt definitely prove it. To figure out whether it actually does, we have to analyze the senses. This is because, the way those feelings and ideas have reached my imagination in the first place is through my senses. So, if they cant be trusted at all, then my imagination cant be trusted to prove matter exists.

"In this way I easily convinced myself that I had nothing at all in the intellect which I had not previously had in sensation" ( 6). Are there things in the Meds which Descartes believes which are not "previously had in sensation"?

His will, right? Or that part of himself that makes the core of himself, the thing that allows him to Think.

Why, at this point in the Meds, does Descartes think that not everything should be called into doubt? Do you agree with him? Relate to his original program of systematic doubt.

Because there are certain things on which there can be No doubt, and those are the things that he can perceive clearly and distinctly. This is because God, he has determined, is not a deceiver, and so he must have let him see some truth(thats paraphrasing)

What follows from the fact that mind and matter have distinct essences?

Since they have distinct essences, then they can also exist without each other, which means that you, as a thinking thing, can exist without your body

How does the fact that we have a passive faculty of sensation ( 10) relate to an argument for the existence of matter?

It is a passive faculty in that I am not actively getting it, I am simply receiving it. But, for it to come from something, there must also be an active part. The active part can not be me, as I am only a thinking thing, and sensation has no part in thinking, as it happens even when you dont want it to. Then, it can either be from a deceptive God, or from its own body.

Of what relevance to the above argument is the fact that God isn't a deceiver?

The active component of sensation can not be from a God as that would obviously be deception from God.

What does Descartes mean by "nature"? Are the teachings of nature never, always, or sometimes true? Why? What three general things does nature teach me?

Nature is God, or the system of things created by God. His own nature is that which is bestowed on him by God(really, Im having a hard time giving his argument value because he relies so much on God, and I already had problems with his original conception of God in the first place). Nature teaches that I have a body which has needs which are shown to me by certain sensations, that my body and myself(which is my mind) are very closely related and form a unit, and that there are other bodies around me that may cause me help or harm.

In what way(s) does my nature (as a combination of mind and matter) lead me to or cause errors? How can I avoid these errors?

Examples are errors are of assuming that a space without anything happening in it is actually entirely empty, or that the color I see in an object is actually inherent to that object or that something tasting sweet to me makes sweetness inherent to that object. To avoid these errors, you have to realize that the purpose of sensation is simply to be able to tell what is good or bad for you, it is not meant to be so that we can obtain information Question: If we dont get information from objects that is correct, then where do we get the correct things that are within our imagination? Or is it that nothing in our imagination is inherently correct? For example, I can imagine a triangle or imagine a color. Where do I get them if they are not real? Further, what is the purpose of the imagination then? Because if everything in your imagination is not real, then it obviously cant help you with figuring out what is good or bad for you in the real world, so why do we have it>

How does Descartes finally distinguish dreaming from wakefulness? Could he have made this distinction in Med I? Why or why not?

By use of the memory and checking his senses against each other. If something is appearing and disappearing, like it often does in a dream, then it is not real, because we know that our senses tend to report the truth. He could not say this in Med 1 because he was doubting everything, including his memory and sensation.

In the objections and replies (and in 19), Descartes insists that mind and body are distinct, such that each can exist independently of the other. Why is this important to him? Does maintaining this distinction pose any problems for him?

Its important because, at its core, everything he says is founded off of the assumption that we are Only thinking things that are not extendable. If we Were extendable, then his argument that there are objects separate from himself would not work, at least not in its current form, as those objects would then not necessarily be distinct from him. I cant say any specific problem is poses for him, possibly because Im still stuck on several things from earlier meditations that he said that I dont agree with. His whole thing with the senses though, it just seems to approximate and generalized Like, if the main purpose of the senses is to tell what hurts or helps us, then what about color and every other sensation that seems to be better at giving us information about what is external to us.Somethings brightness, its color, the way it sounds most of the senses are informational, except for pain. At the moment though, Im not functioning well enough to figure out what other problems it poses for him.