Rene Descartes vs. Daniel Dennett in Mind-Body Problem

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
Rene Descartes
Daniel Dennett
Eye Witness Testimony
Conclusion
References

Introduction

While Descartes says that we know the mind’s nature better than the body’s, Dennett argues that we do not know our mind’s nature very well. To tell whose argument is more superior, a careful evaluation needs to be carried out of the two points of view. Further, the paper will look at what this debate has to do with eye-witness testimony.

Rene Descartes

Rene Descartes, first of all, gives his argument for the existence of God. He talks about the idea of substance and considers himself a substance. That is why he argues that if he is a finite being, then he must have been given that finite quality by some substance. Looking at this argument then one sees that Descartes could be affirming the idea of the existence of God. In his meditation II, Descartes says that he knows he thinks and, therefore, asks himself what kind of a thing he is. This discussion of identity makes him delve into the properties of a thing. By this the question “What am I” comes in. Descartes in this meditation is struggling to find those features that make him Descartes. These are the qualities if lost; he would not be Descartes (Kenny, 1968).

Thus, he says that he can doubt whether he has a body as such a belief is just but based on perceptual experiences. He feels there must be a false genius (demon) who could be deceiving him that he has a body. Despite this, Descartes, however, confirms he cannot doubt that he has a mind since he thinks. He, therefore, feels that there could be a possibility of his existing minus the body. In other words, he is just a mind and not a body. Thus, while he had no body he was deemed to stay himself, on the other hand losing his mind might have stopped him from being himself. The issue of dualism comes in. Though his argument was that it is possible to exist without the body, mind on its own cannot be possible. Thus, bodies do exist, the only thing is that their nature is not like that of the mind (a thinking thing).

In fact, Descartes does not argue for the existence of bodies until Meditation VI in which the issue of dualism comes in place. God’s omnipotence comes in his arguments. He says thought is what makes the mind while the body is just but an extension, quite distinct from the mind. Further, God in creating mind would not be obligated to create the body and vice versa. However, this should not mean that Descartes is suggesting that God can create mind and body to exist independently, but just to show that the two are distinct substances (Kenny, 1968). Indivisibility of the mind is another distinction advanced by Descartes’ argument. He says that, unlike the body, the mind cannot be divided into parts. This means that one cannot distinguish parts of the mind as one would do with the body.

Daniel Dennett

Dennett in his argument “The illusion of consciousness” says that though many feel that consciousness cannot be explained it is possible to explain it. He says consciousness, or rather our human mind, is composed of millions of small parts he refers to as robotics. The robotics constitutes elements of our consciousness. Dennett adds that real consciousness is not a bag of tricks. He says the magicians play without consciousness. Magicians make us believe what they say they will do when they do not do those things. He further illustrates that unless we concentrate, we may not be able to notice what we see. He shows this by use of colors changing in a grid. Further, he gives a painting that if viewed from far; one may think they are people crossing a bridge. However, on moving closer the images prove to be something else (Dennett, 2003).

The brain behaves in a unique way when it picks a suggestion. It makes one expect a detail, even if the detail is not there. The brain computes things that are not there at times. The experiment of the plane engines, one also sees that when something happens in quick succession, we may not get the real picture. What we see and what is implanted in the brain are two different things.

Between the two philosophers’ arguments, I tend to feel that Dennett’s argument is more convincing that Descartes’. First of all, Descartes’ argument that the mind can exist without the body is not tenable, it just does not work. He “thinks” that his mind can exist without his body and tries to qualify it. There must be some other connections that are beyond his perceptive claim. The connection could, for instance, be metaphysical in nature. The metaphysical connection could be one connecting that mind and body; something that he does not consider in his argument. Also, Descartes just uses his thought to draw his conclusions. The grounds of indivisibility are a good attempt at explaining the difference, but he should have gone further to exemplify the argument. Just using what we can conceive as a test of possibility does not suffice. This is where Descartes’ argument falls short.

Dennett on the other hand, explains his case with clear exemplification using several experiments such as the color grid, bridge painting as well as airplane engine pictures, among others (Dennett, 2003). He illustrates that the consciousness records the suggestion it picks. Just like Descartes, he seems to view the mind to be superior to the body as what it decides; the body has to follow suit. Modern science further rebuffs Descartes’ claims. Different parts of the mind are usually said to suffer when one suffers from mental illness or accidents.

Eye Witness Testimony

Eyewitness testimony relies on perception. As had been seen earlier, perception is deceptive at times. Following Descartes’ argument, the mind is independent of the body yet eye witness testimony relies on a judgment that has to be internalized as memory on the mind. What happens is usually physical, thus imprinting it exactly on the mind can be tricky. Dennett, on the other hand, clearly shows that one cannot be their authority on their consciousness (Dennett, 2003). He says explicitly that our consciousness tells us what it expects, which may not be what is the actual being or occurrence. That is why eyewitness accounts cannot be trusted. Such witnesses may not give accurate events but what their conscience suggested and recorded. That is why in scenes of crime, it is difficult to trust any eye-witness testimony that a person may give. Also, accuracy may be compromised as facts are being recalled. Thus, we can conclude that eye-witness testimony is not reliable.

Conclusion

It can be concluded that the issue of body and mind explanation is quite controversial. Though Descartes views the body and mind as being distinct things, Dennett feels that body and mind are separate but the mind can commandeer the body into desirable or undesirable activities. This debate has a bearing on eyewitness testimony. The reliability of eyewitness testimony is questionable since what is perceived may not necessarily be what is imprinted on the conscious.

References

Dennett, D. (2003). The illusion of consciousness. Web.

Kenny, A. (1968). Descartes: A Study of His Philosophy. New York: Random House.

Click Here To Order Now!

Rene Descartes vs. Daniel Dennett in Mind-Body Problem

Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?

We have qualified writers to help you.

We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.

You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)