Core theme – The Mind-Body Problem

IB Philosophy: Core theme – The Mind-Body Problem Core Theme: The Mind-Body Problem > Dualism: The theory that mind and body form two separate entities (linked or related) – more generally, the term refers to a set of philosophical theories which see the world or object in two parts. – (assumption #1) – “Both our minds and our bodies, as well as our mental and physical characteristics, make up who we are.” – (assumption #2) – “physical substances are characterized by properties such as extension or mass.” – (assumption #3) – “mental substances do not have extension, mass, solidity and cannot occupy 3D space.” – (assumption #4) – “people act through the means of their bodies, e.g. in speech and movement.” – (assumption #5) – “we ‘feel’ emotions, we think, reflect, dream, reason and experience non-physical sensations.” Dualism fits into a religious view of the world, and many theist philosophers subscribe to dualism as they cannot see how physicalist account of human beings is compatible with the survival of the soul. For: > Descartes: Developed a dualist argument in response to the mind-body problem – he was a rationalist who began his argument with ‘rational doubt’. – (argument #1) – “I think, therefore I am.” 1. “What am I?” (introspection) 2. “I am I thing that thinks.” (the true self is engaged in thought, so the mind is known to exist) 3. “I cannot doubt this yet I can doubt whether I have a body.” (however the existence of the body has not been proven) 4. “The mind is a separate substance from the body.”(a ‘real distinction’ can be made between the mind and the body). – there is a certain simplicity and appeal in his argument. (Rational doubt => introspection => inability to doubt => real distinction between body and mind.) – (argument #2) – “The argument from indivisibility.” 1. “The body is divisible into parts.” 2. “The mind is not divisible into parts.” 3. “Therefore the mind must be of an entirely different nature from the body.” – while it is not possible to cleave the mind into two with an axe (if it is non-spatial), one can perform such a deed to the body – therefore they must be two different types of things. – yet, to assert that the mind cannot be ‘divided’ appears to fly in the face of the categories that we impose on thoughts. Against: > Descartes: Many have argued that the syllogism (logical deduction) does not stand up. – (criticism #1) – “just because Descartes can think of his mind existing without his body, this does not mean that his mind really can exist without his body.” – the ‘fallacy of intentionality’ where an argument refers to the arguer’s beliefs and not to the object of those beliefs has been committed. – (criticism #2) – “there is a fallacy in his introspection, as one cannot speak objectively about oneself, but only about things that are external to them.” – he is alleging that there is a part of him within him which is neutrally observing and one that is being observed – this seems an arbitrary distinction and may lead to the homunculus fallacy. – (criticism #3) – “the mind is not a genuine entity in its own right – we speak of them but that does not mean that they exist.” – however a dualist might claim that the interaction between the mind and the body is analogous to that between an orchestra and music: the instruments are the only way music can be presented. (problem of classification) – (criticism #5) – “Gilbert Ryle accuses substance / Cartesian dualists of making the ‘category error’, or a mistake in classification.” – one cannot say that the mind exists in addition to the mental activity and behavior displayed: ‘ghost in the machine theory’ – he asserts that all talk about mind and thoughts ‘inside’ are metaphorically and not literal truth – e.g. someone searches for the ‘university’ (the mind) but is presented with colleges and libraries (the body). (Please refer to the note on ‘Philosophical Behaviourism.’) – (criticism #6) – “many scientific studies show the dependency of the mental on the neurological, consciousness can be explained without reference to the soul.” – this thought experiment does not help us understand the nature of the mind, but simply that there is a non-physical substance in us which ‘thinks’. (problem of interaction) – (criticism #7) – “it has not been stated how one body and one mind come together to compromise one person, and how they succeed in interacting, if they do: it is overly ambiguous.” – it is hard to fathom how there could be causation between immaterial minds and material bodies, this also contradicts a basic assumption of science of physical causality – are they not too fundamentally different to interact? – (criticism #8) – “the brain chemistry argument, in that increasing knowledge of the brain and its functions allow us to understand mental conditions – we can see them as being physiological states of the brain.” – therefore, it might be said that this argument is akin to ascribing illnesses to curses, when now we know they are caused by viruses. – (criticism #9) – “it is generally accepted that humans being have evolved from simpler life forms; Descartes believes that animals do not have souls – how is it then, that the soul had suddenly ‘appeared’ within humans during evolution?” – a dualist could argue that amoebae have minds of a very limited sort, and the mind developed in parallel to the evolution of the animal body. The problem of other minds. – (assumption #1) – “we have direct experiences of our own sensations, feelings and perceptions.” – if we consider the experiences of others, we do not have access to such directness. – this raises the ‘problem of other minds’ which constitutes that we can never know whether other human beings have minds, or whether their inner mental life is the same as our own. a. “I cannot know exactly what sorts of experience other people have, but can only observe their behavior. There is no necessary connection between mental states and behavior; therefore we cannot possess knowledge of other people’s mental states.” b. This conclusion leaves the door open for some hard-line skeptics to advance an extreme position of solipsism . > Solipsism states that nothing exists but one’s mind. (Two rival camps (mental philosophy verses the empirical sciences) emerge as to how consciousness can be explained – the first view is that consciousness is non-physical, while the other expresses that it is purely physical.)