Rene Descartes’ argument for substance dualism (the theory that the mind and body are two separate substances) and an immaterial mind is as follows. It is conceivable for me to be a mind without a body, but not vice versa, so the mind must be independent of the body. Logically this argument is valid such as that if it is possible for a mind to be without a body then the mind must be independent. The problem with this argument is on the premise that it is conceivable to be a mind without a body. Theodore Schick criticized this argument well by asking if is truly possible to be a mind without a body. A mind without a body would not have any physical properties, so feelings from our senses could not be experienced. What form could a non-physical mind take? The more questioning …show more content…
The problem of interaction. How can a physical body interact with a non-physical mind? It is obvious that the physical affects the mind when you look at reactions in the mind caused by physical stimuli. Alterations of mental states by drugs and mental states such as pain are clear indicators. It is also obvious that the reverse is true as well. If the mind was truly non-physical it seems to be impossible that there would be no trace in the physical world of this interaction. Because of this, it is very unlikely that the mind is a separate substance. If there was a good reason to believe in substance dualism it would most likely have to do with maintaining the possibility of an afterlife. Many religions believe in something happening to a person’s mind or consciousness after death. Your soul passes on to heaven or you’re reincarnated are two examples. For these to be possible it would require your mind to be separate from the body. Your physical body is not reincarnated, and it is never taken to heaven. The thought of an afterlife does not explain how the mind would be separate, but it would be enough cause to believe for many
Therefore, Descartes argues that the mind and the body must be two logically distinct
Student’s Name Professor’s Name Course Name 13 October 2015 Topic 1. Dennett, “Where Am I?” The narrative by Dennett poses a discussion in the area of identity perception.
Conclusion: The mind is substantively different from the body and indeed matter in general. Because in this conception the mind is substantively distinct from the body it becomes plausible for us to doubt the intuitive connection between mind and body. Indeed there are many aspects of the external world that do not appear to have minds and yet appear none the less real in spite of this for example mountains, sticks or lamps, given this we can begin to rationalize that perhaps minds can exist without bodies, and we only lack the capacity to perceive them.
He reasons that the idea of the body is the ideas of something extended like shape and size. This predicts the mind and body dualism, and the regulation of essential and supplementary qualities. Descartes found the essence of the mind which is to think; and the embodiment of matter, which is to be expanded. He also infers that despite his underlying beliefs, the psyche is a far superior knower than the body and that it is more realistic than the material world. Descartes infers that he must know his mind more than anything.
I will explore this question by looking at how this question has developed into two key schools of thought: Dualism and Monism. Dualism states that the mind is not physical and exists separately while Monism states that the mind and body are not separate. There are arguments for both theories and these dichotomous ideas have brought to light the mind-body problem, which I will analyse below. There are sub-forms of both schools of thought and one of the key sub-schools of thought under Dualism which I will discuss is Interactionism; that the mind and body are separate but both influence each other The Mind-Body Debate Rene Decartes believed that the mind
For example, if the brain stops working it doesn’t affect the mind because the mind continues to exist. The Body-Mind Problem is the philosophical question of how the mind and body are related and if the mind is a non-physical substance. We
Same as humans, we also don’t need a mind. We are just physical things. Churchland also says that there is no way to prove that there is a mind/ soul. Science can’t prove it. We can think of our mind as a software and you’re brain as a hardware.
I think the author was a dualist, because of the characters he created. If he was a monist he would have gone against his own beliefs of the mind body problem. Gestalt and Myfanwy both show how the mind is separate from the body. Gestalt is able to control five bodies with one mind and the conscious can jump from one body to the next. Gestalt’s mind is not a part of the body but connected to it in another way.
Various philosophers and scientists have inquired about the mind and body issue for a long time. The mind-body philosophies try to explain the way a person’s mental state and processes are linked to the physical state. The core of the mind and body is that individuals have a biased experience of an inner life that appears detached from the physical world. Although they are separated, they need to work together in some way. Individuals may appear to have physical properties and mental properties.
The wax argument is straightforward and can appeal even to the most ordinary person. However, there is a weakness in this as the argument is entirely descriptive. Descartes only states the existence of a part of the brain that enables a person to perceive things. This part is not specified either in name or in a number of the parts of the mind that are responsible for this ability.
Hume (1738) aptly challenged Descartes in claiming that it is impossible to conceive of a disembodied mind. He argues that for an idea to be legitimate it must be traceable back to sense impressions that have been acquired through experience (The Copy Principle). However, it is not possible to gain an impression of the mind, so it is not possible to have a legitimate idea of the self. We cannot gain an impression from our outer senses, since the mind is non-physical; or through introspection, since I can only introspect a given impression, not the thing that possesses it. While I am introspectively aware of e.g. feelings of anger, I am never aware of the self (the mind, the thinking thing) that contains the anger.
Referring it back to human, the particular feel to a conscious experience such as sensations, desire, and pain in human is only explainable under the prerequisite that the mind is nonphysical, but impossible to be
To begin with, Dualism is the philosophical doctrine, first introduced by Rene Descartes, that the Mind and Body are two distinct separate entities. Rene Descartes believed that the Mind and Body were separate entities that were not only independent from one another, but that both were composed of dissimilar elements. Descartes explains that the body, and all its physiological attributes, are composed of “Physical” matter, and as such, dwells in the material realm and abides the laws of Physics or the laws of nature. Conversely, the Mind and all its attributes, thoughts, emotions and qualia, are composed of “Spiritual” matter, and as such, dwells in the immaterial realm and does not abide to the laws of physics or nature.
The mind just is behavior. Behavior is physical thus is the mind is physical. Objections To Identity Theory There are a few objections when it comes to the identity thoery. The Leibniz's Law of Identity says that if two objects are identical, then they have all of the same properties.
In his philosophical thesis, of the ‘Mind-Body dualism’ Rene Descartes argues that the mind and the body are really distinct, one of the most deepest and long lasting legacies. Perhaps the strongest argument that Descartes gives for his claim is that the non extended thinking thing like the Mind cannot exist without the extended non thinking thing like the Body. Since they both are substances, and are completely different from each other. This paper will present his thesis in detail and also how his claim is critiqued by two of his successors concluding with a personal stand.