Philosophy is a widely debated field of study because there are many prominent philosophers and theorists, each with their own individual perspective on the way that humans and the world work. For this reason, it is difficult to satisfy every question and concept. Where consciousness, the body, the mind, the nature of the mind, and their connections are concerned, there are two prominent schools of thought: dualism and materialism. Dualists believe that the body and the mind are two separate elements. Materialists believe that this is not the case. These dueling theories inspire the inquisition: which theory clearly explains the nature of the mind and the way it works? In short, materialism is the more adequate of the two
Rene Descartes, an
…show more content…
The mind-body problem is a sort of paradox that involves the causal relationships between the mind and the body and produces a plethora of existential questions. If the mind is separate from the body as Descartes says, why is something physical, like the body, able to produce an effect on something nonphysical like the mind or consciousness? How can something mental produce an effect on something physical? How is it possible for a person to decide to raise their arm in their mind, and then for their arm to physically rise up if the body and the mind are indeed separate? Some answers to these questions may be found in materialistic thinking. Materialism is a philosophical school of thought that encompasses the way the mind, body, and consciousness are actually parts of one whole being. It is well described in philosopher John Searle’s work Mind: A Brief Introduction. Searle writes about many materialistic theories that counter the Cartesian dualism theory. These theories connect the mind and the body through the relationships between the brain, its functions, the mind, and its awareness of the world in ways that Cartesian dualism …show more content…
First, it violates Leibnitz’s Law, which fundamentally states that if any two things are identical, then all of their properties must be in common. If there were mental states with properties unique from brain states and vice versa, then the identity theory would be disproved. The mental state of having pain in one’s hip, for instance, would have to be false, since the brain state that correlates with the hip pain is in the brain (not the hip) and is not the same as the mental state. Moreover, the human body is a system. Therefore, some things, like hip pain, would not be solely located in the brain. Secondly, it does not account for awareness. The theory adheres to the idea that consciousness can be expressed through various physical states of the brain, but awareness cannot really be expressed or determined physically because it is not physical. Thirdly, the question is raised that if mental states are indeed just brain states and can be “reduced” to as such, what happens when one has a mental state that cannot be reduced to its brain state? This would render the argument invalid because the mental state is irreducible (Searle,
Richard Taylor explained why the body and the mind are one, and why they are not two separate substances. In the article “The Mind as a Function of the Body”, Taylor divides his article in a number of sections and explains clearly why dualism, or the theory that the mind and the body are separate is not conceivable. In one of these sections it is explained in detail the origin of why some philosophers and people believe in dualist metaphysics. As stated by Taylor “when we form an idea of a body or a physical object, what is most likely to come to mind is not some person or animal but something much simpler, such as a stone or a marble”(133). The human has the tendency to believe a physical object as simple, and not containing anything complex. A problem with believing this is that unlike a stone or a marble a human (or an animal) has a brain and the body is composed of living cells (excluding dead skin cells, hair, and nails which are dead cells). The f...
The mind-body problem can be a difficult issue to discuss due to the many opinions and issues that linger. The main issue behind the mind-body problem is the question regarding if us humans are only made up of matter, or a combination of both matter and mind. If we consist of both, how can we justify the interaction between the two? A significant philosophical issue that has been depicted by many, there are many prominent stances on the mind-body problem. I believe property dualism is a strong philosophical position on the mind-body issue, which can be defended through the knowledge argument against physicalism, also refuted through the problems of interaction.
In this essay, I plan to defend Descartes ' theory of Substance Dualism against the objection made by Princess Elizabeth. Substance Dualism is theory which states that there are two fundamental substances, mind and body. Princess Elizabeth 's objection against Substance Dualism is based off of her idea of how the mind and body interact in order for mental causation to occur. I defend Descartes 's theory by offering my own objection against Princess Elizabeth 's idea of what causation is.
existed in life, the physical and the nonphysical. He broke his theory of Dualism into two
René Descartes was the 17th century, French philosopher responsible for many well-known philosophical arguments, such as Cartesian dualism. Briefly discussed previously, according to dualism, brains and the bodies are physical things; the mind, which is a nonphysical object, is distinct from both the brain and from all other body parts (Sober 204). Sober makes a point to note Descartes never denied that there are causal interactions between mental and physical aspects (such as medication healing ailments), and this recognition di...
The mind-body problem has astounded philosophers since the beginning of time, but many researchers actively searching for solutions to the problem are nearing their final conclusion. Many have based their theories on the mind being a nonphysical thing that simply interacts with the body, known as interactionism, and many others have used physicalism as their brand of choice, where theories claim the mind and body are both physical entities and interact with one another. Even though both theories have received high remarks from top-notch philosophers and scientists, physicalism is my preference due to modern technological advances which exhibit neurological processes occurring in the brain, the physical interaction that must occur between humans’
Despite having contrary qualities and fundamentally opposing natures, the mind and body are intertwined and interact with one another. Interactive dualism hold the idea that the mind is eternal and has the ability to exist apart from the body. Descartes holds the idea that if the physical realm in which the body material body exists ceased to exist, the mind would still be. However, if a circumstance arose which annihilated his ability to think, he would cease to exist. Interactive dualism explores the idea that the body is simply an extension of the forms of the individual in the physical world, that the demise of the material body does not render its fundamental nature to be obsolete. Interactive dualism can seem to diminish the importance of the material body, but it does not. Descartes states that the mind and body are united and interact so closely that it seems to create one whole. This unity is expressed by when the physical body experiences pain. If the mind simply related to the body in the manner a sailor relates to a ship, the mind would simply perceive pain through
Humans are characterised as having both a mind (which is the nonphysical part) and a body/brain (which is the physical part). This is recognized as dualism. Dualism is the supposed aspect that the mind and body exist as individual entities. The mind-body problem is about: what is the relationship between mind and body? Are we able to define the difference between and the relationship between these two things? Is it fair to say that they are separate,
. There are two kinds of dualism. One is Substance dualism which holds that the mind or soul is a separate, non-physical entity, but there is also property dualism, according to which there is no soul distinct from the body, but only one thing, the person, that has two irreducibly different types of properties, mental and physical. Substance dualism leaves room for the possibility that the soul might be able to exist apart from the body, either before birth or after death; property dualism does not. A substance dualism is something with "an independent existence". It can exist on its own. This holds that each distinct non-physical entity mind composed a different kind of substance to material objects. Substance dualist believed only spiritual substances can have mental properties. It is “soul” along with certain memory and psychological continuities that constitutes the survival of the person. Physical properties of property dualism are properties like having a certain weight, conducting electricity and mental properties are properties like believing that 1+1=2, being in love, feeling pain, and etc. Property dualism allows for the compatibility of mental and physical causation, since the cause of an action might under one aspect is describable as a physical event in the brain and under another aspect as a desire, emotion, or thought; substance dualism usually requires causal interaction between the soul and the body. Dualistic theories at least acknowledge the serious difficulty of locating consciousness in a modern scientific conception of the physical world, but they really give metaphysical expression to the problem rather than solving it.
Mind-body interaction and the problems associated with it lie at the heart of much of modern philosophy, despite having been discussed for many centuries. A formal definition for mind-body interaction is hard to establish, but it generally implies the existence of communication or an interface between the immaterial mind and material body. The idea of mind-body interaction and its obstacles are virtually only of concern for dualists since, “dualism and the mind/brain identity theory share the assumption that the mind is a thing, a non-physical Cartesian substance…” (1). Physicalists are unconvinced that the mind is anything but physical; therefore, they see no problems with a physical-physical interaction.
Since Descartes many philosophers have discussed the problem of interaction between the mind and body. Philosophers have given rise to a variety of different answers to this question all with their own merits and flaws. These answers vary quite a lot. There is the idea of total separation between mind and body, championed by Descartes, which has come to be known as “Cartesian Dualism”. This, of course, gave rise to one of the many major responses to the mind-body problem which is the exact opposite of dualism; monism. Monism is the idea that mind and body one and the same thing and therefore have no need for interaction. Another major response to the problem is that given by Leibniz, more commonly known as pre-ordained harmony or monadology. Pre-ordained harmony simply states that everything that happens, happens because God ordained it to. Given the wide array of responses to the mind-body problem I will only cover those given by Descartes, Spinoza, and Leibniz. I will also strive to show how each of these philosophers discuss what mind and body are and how each accounts for God’s influence on the interaction of mind and body, as this is an interesting distinction between them, as well as the important question of the role of substance. This is important, I believe, because it helps to understand the dialogue between the three philosophers.
While the great philosophical distinction between mind and body in western thought can be traced to the Greeks, it is to the influential work of René Descartes, French mathematician, philosopher, and physiologist, that we owe the first systematic account of the mind/body relationship. As the 19th century progressed, the problem of the relationship of mind to brain became ever more pressing.
This paper will address the Mind/Body Dualism by comparing and contrasting Cartesian rationalism and empiricism and the responses to the Mind/Body Problem by comparing contrasting Kantian Idealism and Phenomenology. It will explain how each attempt to respond/resolve the mind/body problem confronted by both empiricists and rationalists and my own philosophical response to this epistemological problem by sharing my own views are similar to the theories.
But, “human persons have an ‘inner’ dimension that is just as important as the ‘outer’ embodiment” (Cortez, 71). The “inner” element cannot be wholly explained by the “outer” embodiment, but it does give rise to inimitable facets of the human life, such as human dignity and personal identity. The mind-body problem entails two theories, dualism and physicalism. Dualism contends that distinct mental and physical realms exist, and they both must be taken into account. Its counterpart (weak) physicalism views the human as being completely bodily and physical, encompassing no non-physical, or spiritual, substances.
Now if mental events and brain events (i.e., physical events) are one and the same thing, then research into the mental events would be reduced to research into the brain. Even if mental events are taken to be properties of brain events then ultimately we are forced back to look to the physical for the explanation of the mental. This will get us nowhere for two reasons.