As one of the most valuable human inventions, artificial intelligence is a phenomenal issue in terms of the applied science that is progressively evolving in the current technology-based society. For a better comprehension of the artificial mind, it is essential to examine the notion of the mind itself. Considering the philosophical and psychological approach, the concept of mind is classified as mental states, functions or processes (such as thinking, remembering or believing) (Erden, 2015, p.111). Besides, the intertwining of the mind and brain are bases upon two critical approaches of dualism and materialism. The dualist concept implies the fundamental division between the mind and brain, where mental and physical are the contrary notions. Materialism is the alternative perspective that believes only in material things. According to Erden (2015), there are three materialist theories, such as identity theory, eliminative materialism, and functionalism, that might facilitate the idea and possibility of the artificial mind.
The particular importance is given to the implications of functionalism as the possible outcomes of artificial minds. As biologically, the human brain can maintain specific mental processes at the current moment. There is a chance for them to be supported by any other material processes until they have proven to be the same in the functional sense. The development of the artificial mind was a time-consuming goal of scientists, engineers, philosophers, and psychologists. Artificial intelligence is the theory that implies the developmental process of computer systems responsible for performing tasks that generally involve human intelligence. Artificial intelligence (AI) consists of two central concepts, strong AI and weak AI (Erden, 2015).
Strong AI is the idea that artificial intelligence is eventually able to create intelligence equal to or surpassing the human mind. Some arguments suggest a possibility to fully reproduce human intelligence and the human mind with the help of technology. The most common prototypes of strong AI are presented in science fiction stories or films, including robots and machines that are endowed with special skills to think and act with an objective, logic, and intelligence. Besides, those technological inventions perform their tasks regardless of regular or consistent programming by a human.
The weak AI implies the idea that artificial intelligence is only able to simulate a mind. The followers of this idea, however, do not admit the resemblance of this technological intelligence to the human mind, as the followers of strong AI believe. They also might be less inclined to accept the possibility of artificial intelligence. The in-depth examination of this simple distinction between strong and weak artificial intelligence is essential to understand the impact intelligence and thinking have on the emergence of artificial intelligence. There are two critical concepts concerning human intelligence, such as reason and creativity, which means that the mind operates due to the human ability to reason and a certain amount of creativity.
It is crucial to analyze the perspectives and research approaches to human and machine thinking to understand their close interaction. One of the approaches was made by Alan Turing, who raised the most important and influential question in the history of computing: can machines think? (Erden, 2015, p. 120). The ideas in his seminal paper, written in 1950, are known as the Turing test that presents an imitation game involving three participants. One of them serves as an interrogator who asks questions in a separate room and is obliged to identify a man and a woman among two other participants based on the gender-neutral labels provided.
The typewritten communication is applied, excluding any visual or tactile contact, or hearing their voices. Male and female participants were allowed to give false answers. The key elements of this game include a possibility for imitation and deception to consider the artificial intelligence concerning mechanical participants, as one of the human participants was replaced by the machine later in the test. This approach helps to examine if the machine can imitate intelligence and the overall possibility of the artificial mind and has a direct linkage with the concept of strong and weak AI, obviously supporting strong AI. Turing test is the general modern understanding of machine intelligence and is vital in the philosophy of artificial intelligence.
Another yet controversial approach to the issue of the human and artificial mind is the 1999 Searles Chinese room thought experiment. It aimed at presenting machines as the clever processors of symbols (syntax) and human minds that can process syntax as well as meaning (Erden, 2015). This serves as a response to the computational theory of mind (CTM), where the minds performance is seen as analogous to a computer. Searles Chinese room argument implies imagining oneself locked in a room together with a rulebook and cards with squiggles (Chinese symbols that Searle is not acknowledged with). More squiggles with questions are passed to him under the door by Chinese people and are meant to be answered according to the rulebook. Eventually, Searle succeeds in following the books instructions, although he still could not understand the content of the symbols and the games idea. He performs the tasks by following the instructions, however, without interpretation.
Searles experiment is an argument against strong AI that displays the way a digital computer uses syntactic rules to manipulate symbols, pretending it is a language. It refutes the Turing test, as it did not demonstrate the machine using a language in any meaningful way, even when it managed to deceive the interrogator. Based on these two contrary research approaches, one may conclude that programs manipulate symbols according to the rules and structure provided. However, the mind involves meaning (semantics) since it can understand and interpret those symbols, match them by pattern, and use them meaningfully. As such, human and machine minds differ because humans can understand the symbols and words they manage, as well as make decisions not based on the rulebook. Nevertheless, there are multiple attempts to study other problems for developing an artificial mind based on less traditional ideas of intelligence, which leaves the question of the possibility of the artificial mind open for future discussions.
Reference List
Erden, Y. (2015). Artificial minds. In: J. Turner, C. Hewson, K. Mahendran and P. Stevens, ed., Living Psychology: From the Everyday to the Extraordinary. The Open University, pp. 109146.
The 21st century has become the era of freedom, as people in many places have almost eradicated social disapproval of gender, values, bodies, or skin color. However, in 2020, the topic of racism has captured the U.S. with strikes, riots, and cruelty. Oladipo states that racism puts a burden on the society that artificially crafted it (9). The rise of movements like Black Lives Matter requires demands equal treatment but uses its otherness to provoke conflicts. The reason for the confrontation lies in peoples minds, and people of color still tend to have and use colonized attitudes. This paper aims to discuss why people of color need to decolonize their minds and the ways of doing it.
Education affects minds and builds society, so it is reasonable to dig into pedagogy to discover how the colonized mind was developed. Paolo Freires Pedagogy of the Oppressed provides valuable lessons about teaching the representatives of minority groups and reveals how their mind works. The book divides people into those with oppressed consciousness and the ones with oppressor consciousness and teaches how to educate the oppressed. Its central point is that such people are afraid of freedom, which affects their behavior and, thus, their whole life. The book includes pedagogy strategies like objectivity of reality, critical view, reflection, and dialogue. These practices, applied to the oppressed, would force them to stop fearing freedom of choice. Freire states that the oppressed must be their example in the struggle for their redemption (54). Thus, all of the kinds of manipulations are oppressive, and racism might be conquered if the oppressed change their minds and prevent the oppression from happening.
Pedagogy of the Oppressed describes banking education narrative behavior in the teacher-student relationship that increases the oppressed consciousness of some. To solve the problem of oppressiveness, education must work in the teacher-student relationship by reconciling the two and emphasizing that both sides are simultaneously students and teachers (Freire 46). Such an approach turns learning into a dialogue that has no room for domination between its participants. The opposite of banking education is problem-posing training when students feel more independent in self-expression and are taught to respect diversity. Representatives of minorities will have to admit that their skin does not define them in the equity environment. Thus, they will need to become brave enough to liberate themselves from stereotypes and false expectations of how they must be treated. Pedagogy of the Oppressed shows that it is human consciousness that causes oppressions, and, to stop them, the oppressed must decolonize their minds.
Freires concepts, strategies, and statements formed critical pedagogy based on viewing educational theory as built on ideology, cultural backgrounds, and political influence. Education is capable of helping to lead minds in the decolonizing direction. If it adapts the process to modern realities by analyzing the factors mentioned above, it can find weak points of society, and work on them. However, Drozdowicz claims that tackling the problem also requires raising the need of internal dialogue and critical reflection on the hitherto applied solutions, existing socio-cultural, economic and political conditions in the teaching milieus (16). Critical pedagogy reveals the importance of education as it forms ones mind, and its practices must be well-developed for society to thrive.
Freires book and critical education statements claim that minorities provoke others to mistreat them by acting weak and fearful. Moreover, the colonized mind lets such people highlight their specialty to get attention and achieve something. In a world where the ideas of equity are being built to allow diversity to prosper, its representatives behave like they prefer being more special than the average. These collisions have to end, and only changes in peoples minds can force them to stop.
As for the people of color, the colonized mind has an enormous impact on their lives. All U.S. citizens have the same rights and opportunities to live a fulfilling life, yet people of color tend to deny it and blame racism for their failures. Moreover, the colonized mind of a person lets them seek dependence and work for the privileged class instead of aiming to become a part of it. People of color with a colonized mind teach their children that the world is unfair and racism is to blame. Roberts and Rizzo claim that while parents of color often speak out against those lessons to prevent their children from internalizing them, White parents often remain silent, allowing White children to internalize them (18). All of these factors, if taken away, will significantly change society and the way how people are treated in it.
People of color need to decolonize their minds for the sake of the equity that is widely supported to make them feel full of value. There were dark chapters of history, yet today, the situation is different, and new conditions must be considered. The colonized mind not only slows down progress but also it harms modern society. Education is the primary social institution that has to adapt to the new reality and value equity by improving teacher-student relationships and preventing any oppression from appearing in the classroom environment.
Works Cited
Drozdowicz, Jarema. Teaching to Transgress: Subjective Educational Experience in the Model of Engaged Pedagogy of Bell Hooks (Gloria Jean Watkins). Culture-Society-Education, vol. 15, no. 1, 2020, pp. 7-16.
Freire, Paulo. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Penguin Books, 2017.
Oladipo, Caleb O. Construction of Racism: The Challenges and Opportunities for Promoting Justice and Modeling Race-Transcending Societies. Review & Expositor, vol.117, no. 1, 2020, pp. 9-16.
Roberts, Steven O., and Michael Rizzo. The Psychology of American Racism. OSF Preprints, 2020.
Global challenges are important as they affect multiple people and the whole planet. When asked about global problems, people often conceive climate change, health, education, clean water, poverty, and tolerance. Identifying the challenges shows people are aware of the many issues the world faces. The consequences of not solving global obstacles on a large scale are universal; thus, it is critical to examine why the worlds best minds do not solve the biggest global problems.
The biggest problems in the world are not solved by the best global minds for several reasons. First, most people in the world think experience is needed to invent solutions that tackle global difficulties. However, experience is not always needed to innovate and eliminate global troubles. Bill Gates founded the worlds largest non-profit organization which has failed to eradicate global issues on a large scale. Influential people like Bill Gates and Steve Jobs could have solved the worlds biggest setbacks if they wanted; yet, they did not. Both have experience in innovation and problem-solving. Prasoon Kumar thus argues that passion and enthusiasm are required to handle the worlds challenges without resources.
Second, many individuals believe that resources are needed to eliminate global problems. While the statement may be partially correct, it is not wholly correct. People who attend the best schools in the world become smarter in their fields and are employed by large technology and e-commerce companies. In such companies, they solve hitches that only generate corporate profits but do not tackle the most fundamental issues facing society. Many companies such as fast-food chains can feed about one percent of the worlds population each day. However, they do not solve any of the worlds darkest snags. Instead, they are only concerned about their corporate objectives of making or increasing profits. Kumar argues that it is not resources that people or companies need rather they require the ability to take risks in innovating in fields that are considered less profitable.
Third, Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) is not working in major companies. Kumar argues that companies cannot be altruistic when doing business. The singular focus of businesses is making profits that align with shareholders interests. Although major firms adhere to certain CSR standards, they do not solve many of the biggest global challenges. Kumar further argues that some corporations violate various regulations set by governments but do not lose customers because of their strong brand value. The top management of such companies often knows something is wrong but takes decisions that endanger the worlds population. For instance, a German automaker made cars that emitted emissions of poisonous gases that exceeded the legal maximum requirement. Focusing on CSR is essential since it improves society and businesses.
Fourth, poor solutions are developed for problems facing people of the lower class. Kumar gives an example of a workshop started by 25 leaders. They decided to design new ventures for the poor based on picking rags in certain cities and converting them into bags as well as other sellable products. The finished products would be sold in Paris and New York boutiques. Nevertheless, the net income earned from such simple ventures is only about $1 or $2, which is too little for people to move above the poverty line. As a result, the income inequality gap widens between the poor and the rich. Wage disparity can be reduced by increasing a persons salary. For instance, education can increase an individuals pay, reducing the income differences between the poor and the rich.
Fifth, the few foundations helping solve global problems are a monopoly and lack competition. Kumar offers an example of his non-profit organization, BillionBricks, which helps build houses for the homeless. BillionBricks built only 15 homes for the homeless but went viral on YouTube and social media. Most people commended Kumars efforts and labeled his initiative innovation at the finest . Still, Kumar argues that there are no benchmarks when attempting to solve global challenges since few specific organizations are working to reduce the worlds social difficulties. He calls for competition as it fuels innovation and encourages fast growth, which would solve the worlds biggest troubles. Sixth, the pressure for perfection limits the ability of the few foundations working on the end of global problems to achieve their goals. For instance, such organizations are pressured to solve every social issue while other major corporations do nothing. Instead of perfection pressure, other corporations should join the fight to end global setbacks to achieve large-scale effects.
I can form an initiative that educates people on the importance of education and provides support for poor students who need to apply for college. The resources would provide strategies on how to get scholarships and a list of tuition-free and inexpensive global schools. Education can reduce poverty and inequality in society by increasing the wages of many people. However, I think such an initiative would partially make a difference because even if students get full scholarships, they may not afford living and technology expenses.
In conclusion, global snags have universal effects; thus, it is critical to examine why the worlds best minds do not solve them. Most people often think experience is required to tackle global challenges; however, passion and enthusiasm can achieve a lot. The belief that resources are the component needed to eliminate global difficulties limits the chances of some people solving worldwide difficulties. Furthermore, the singular focus on profitability by corporations does not allow them to handle global challenges. Ultimately, innovative solutions are needed to reduce the worlds biggest problems and improve all peoples lives.
Theory of mind refers to ability to infer full range of mental states, such as desires, belief, emotions, intensions, knowledge, imaginations, and others that enables us to explain and predict others behavior (Trevarthen, 1995, p. 48). It is a broad construct that is reflected in numerous kinds of knowledge and skills.
Theory of mind develops gradually over time just like language. It builds from foundational, precursor skills to complex understanding of how mental states and behavior interact. Theory of the mind plays an important role in infant cognitive and social development. This paper highlights the importance of theory of mind by describing studies that have been done that have been able to measure theory of mind. The studies are described within three domains of language, attachment and emotion in relation to theory of mind.
Language and Relationship with Theory of Mind
Language development and theory of mind are interwoven in sophisticated ways. Children at infancy engage in joint attention and indicate appreciation of others intensions within the context of communicative acts. Toddlers commence to use mental state terms in more mentalist ways and engage in pretend play (Trevarthen, 1993, p. 48).
Young children begin to comprehend that different individuals have different access to information and desires. They listen to and get involved in conversations in individuals predict and explain behavior in terms of desires, beliefs and feelings. Language and theory of mind interact in some of ways.
Language and theory of mind both experience rapid and dramatic changes in development during the first 5 years of life. Theory of mind is important for communication through language; language may in turn provide a way to learn about theory of mind. Language is important in development of theory of mind because mental states are observable.
Several studies suggest that development of theory of mind in children is influenced by their exposure to speak about mental states. A study by Ruffman (2002, p. 734) discovered that mothers who speak about mental states predicted childrens later theory of mind performance, as did childrens language ability. The study indicates family context to be important in the emergence of talk about mind which begins in the second year.
It observes that maternal mental state talk to infants predicted a change in infants mental state language 12 months later. The purpose of the study was to analyze ways the family context influences development of infants language about mind. It examined factors related with infants exposure to language within the family. it also looked at the causal role of exposure to different modes of mental state talk within family in development of infants own mental state language.
Childrens earlier theory of performance, however, did not predict later mental state talk by mothers, suggesting a causal role for mothers talk about mental states in their childrens theory of mind development. It is not only mothers who may play a role in theory of mind development. Dunn (1991, p. 1352) found that theory of mind understanding at 40 months was correlated with engagement in family talk about feelings and causality, and cooperative interaction with a sibling, at 33 months.
This study provides evidence that infants with siblings are advantaged in theory of mind development because of the opportunities for discourse and experiences related to others thoughts and feelings that siblings provide (Dunn1991, p. 1355)).
The study sought to determine whether quality of relations and communication between families promoted theory of mind development over and above the influence given by presence of siblings. Siblings were found to exert positive effect on theory of mind reasoning. Their presence increases the application of mental state language by infants parents.
Emotional aspect and Relation to Theory of Mind
Theory of mind commences early, as children share common emotions with adults and start to talk about mental states. Toddlers are able to understand that people posses mental representations of the world based on experience when they become preschoolers.
They understand that these representations may be lies, and that behavior is driven by these representations in concert with these changes in theory of mind. The theory of mind assists forms the foundation of communication that involves rewarding exchange of ideas, feelings and information.
Social and emotional development has significant implications for infants developing awareness of self, and their knowledge of mental states of others. According to Trevarthen (1995, p. 227), studies by Legerstee show that development of theory of mind is gradual process for a child. It is a function that develops upon the infants preexisting ability to distinguish between people and objects. Infants identify with other humans and imitate their actions right from birth.
This is because they understand other people just like themselves. Legerstee posits that infants construct knowledge of self and others through social exchanges (Trevarthen, 1995, p. 227)). Partially, maternal emotion mirroring is responsible for development of emotional awareness in others and self and for emotion regulation.
Legerstee in study reviews recent studies with babies aged 2-3 months that supports the idea infants imitate peoples actions and not objects simulating these actions. Infants between 2-3 months old are capable of smiling and vocalizing more on responsible people than to interactive objects. However, infants become agitated when people to communicate or act responsibly to their responses, but not when they are objects refrain from responding.
Attachment aspect and Relation to Theory of Mind
Attachment relationships provide children the means by which to attend to and use mental representations of others to guide behavior. It shares similarities to theory of mind whereby children develop theories of individuals beliefs and desires that account for their behavior.
Theory of mind enables children to use information related to internal states, for instance, individuals beliefs and desires, to interpret behavior. Therefore, a secure attachment can improve childrens sensitivity to internal states initially within attachment partners and subsequently within others (Trevarthen, 1995, p. 227).
Studies on theory of mind development in typical situations that concentrate on the aspect of interaction indicate close relation between the quality of affective bond between child and care giver and theory of mind development. Positive relationship can be seen between secure attachment and better results in theory of mind tasks (Fonagy, 1997, p.51) considers in his hypothesis that secure attachment facilitates development of understanding of mind in children.
In addition to maturational processes, theory of mind development can influence by social means. The relationship of early care giver with a child can shape the childs expectations of others behavior.
This is because the construction of mental representations of surrounding social world is a natural consequence of early care giver relationship. Theory of mind later development can be influenced externally from the very beginning. Children learn about their social worlds by directly or indirectly listening to adults or aged children conversing events around them (Symons, 2004, p. 4).
Conclusion
As studies suggest, theory of mind is necessary to the social growth and development of children. Theory of mind enables children to interpret the thoughts and beliefs of others. it also enables children to attribute meaning to others behavior. The relationship of aspects of language, emotion, and attachment assists us to learn a number of things. For instance, language and speech pathologists in an effort to assist children become competent in communication would be assisted from consideration of their clients theory of mind abilities.
Works Cited
Dunn, J., Brown, J., Slomkowski, C., Tesla, C., & Youngblade, L. Young childrens understanding of other peoples feelings and beliefs: Individual differences and their antecedents. Child Development, 1991, 62, 13521366.
Fonagy, P., Redfern, S., & Charman, T. The relationship between belief-desire reasoning and a projective measure of attachment security (SAT). British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 1997, 15, 5161
Ruffman, T., Slade, L., & Crowe, E. The relation between childrens and mothers mental state language and theory-of-mind understanding. Child Development, 2002, 73, 734751.
Symons, D., & Clark, S. A longitudinal study of motherchild relationships and theory of mind in the preschool period. Social Development, 2000, 9, 323.
Trevarthen, C. The Function of Emotions in Early Infant Communication and Development. New Perspectives in early Communicative Development, 1993, 48-52.
Woolfe, T., Want, S., & Siegal, M. Signposts to development: Theory of mind in deaf children. Child Development, 2002, 73, 768778.
In this paper, I will speculate on Cartesian dualism and Darwinian monism. I will not undermine the postulates of science; instead, I will argue that Cartesian dualism offers a more common-sense explanation of reality compared to Darwinian monism.
My argument is based on the belief that the human body and mind are two distinct aspects of a human being. In this way, there are two dimensions of reality: a physical dimension with the body at its heart and a mental dimension that centers on the human mind. From this perspective, the relationship between body and mind can be compared to an aircraft and a pilot; although autopilot technologies are advanced, a successful flight is still impossible without the guidance of the human pilot.
A similar approach to determining the body/mind relationship is the foundation of dualism. According to Descartes, the body and mind are separate, meaning that as humans, we are able to perceive that our physical senses that should not always be trusted. From this perspective, we have a mind to analyze all of the signals sent by our body and make relevant conclusions about the reality in which we live. Nevertheless, the thinking process is not the attribute of the mind only. There is something bigger than the mind because the mind does not always operate according to biological patterns. This fact then points to the existence of a soul that is connected to a higher authority the omniscient god living in all of us and guiding our thinking processes. Moreover, each person doubts, understands, [conceives], affirms, denies, wills, refuses; that imagines also, and perceives. These acts are the foundation of the thinking process. In my mind, the array of these feelings is hardly associated with the operation of the human body strictly according to biological patterns, which are focused on more primitive needs. Therefore, all people are thinking things.
On the other hand, Darwin claims that the body and the brain operate under certain biological patterns, just like an aircraft operates according to certain mechanistic principles. In this way, the body is a mindless thing, the result of evolution, natural mutations, and hereditary tendencies. From this perspective, the satisfaction of primary physical needs and the following of instincts are the only objectives for a human. In fact, the body is inseparable from need to survive the essence of existing. If this is so, a human, as a purely biological machine, cannot exercise free will the ability to choose between different actions due to a sense of responsibility, guilt, righteousness, or any other judgment.
From my viewpoint, the idea that we are like machines is not right because we do exercise free will. In this way, the human mind is more than just a collection of neurons that follow a particular biological pattern. Let us return to the example of the airplane and the pilot. Machines cannot question their existence or the directions they were given, just like they cannot avoid catastrophes or change routes without such acts being predetermined by the code. If people were machines, they would live only to survive and create offspring, because these are the primary biological patterns as Darwin stated. However, unlike machines, humans are capable of reasoning and questioning their own existence, both of which go far beyond pure biology. So, just like a pilot navigates an aircraft, each person drives his or her life, avoiding unforeseen accidents to reach the destination.
The historical perception of the distinction between the body and mind is traceable back to the Greek philosophers. In a close link to Rene Descartes theory (1650), the principal of philosophy claims that the human being compromises for the mind and body, which seem to be two distinct and separate substances.
On comparison, the mind does the thinking and thus is the source of reasoning, recognizing, desiring, consciousness and willpower, but it is distinctively immaterial and physically un-extendable. Conversely, the body is material and extendable to accommodate feelings and sensation. Many theories distinguish the body and mind but in most instances end-up creating the mind-body problem, thus the need for discussions or counterarguments.
Thesis/Problem statement
To think that the mind and the body are distinct substances creates problems, yet to think that they are the same offers no solution either. This is a research investigating and analyzing the different arguments on philosophical nature of the mind and body by various philosophers, with the aim of providing a personal point of view regarding the subject matter.
Purpose/Significance of the study
The main purpose of this study is to evaluate the consequences and key concepts involved in the development of the mind-body philosophy and offer personal suggestions or opinions over the issue of relationship between the mind and body.
Objectives of the study
This term paper lays down the need for researching the background of the understanding of various theories over the relationship as presented by different great philosophers such as Rene Descartes, John Locke, Leibnitz and, Mauriee Merleau-Ponty. The study is equally an assessment of other issues in relation to personal understanding of the topic.
Significance of the study
The key topics to be covered entail the focus over relationship between the mind and the body. This is in the aim of finding the reasonable argument and conclusion
The Procedure of the Study/Research Methodology
The paper highly utilizes the literature reviews to enable better understanding of the topic. Preparation of the research over the chosen topic also enhances and quantifies the research as a study topic and prepare for respondents.
Information collected will equally tabulate and assist in ranking the findings form various philosophers over a wide period, and help to narrow the scope to the objectives of the study analysis. The analysis will then draw the conclusion from generally analyzed data in the literature review.
The research findings will entail data collected through websites analysing the concerns of some philosophers, as well as books concern with the study area and, observation of the proceedings over the specified data collection period. For the study analysis, the collected data and studies discerns patterns and formulate principles that might guide future action of the study subject.
In this case-study of mind and body the research checks the background information, progress, surveillance and examination of current state of matter and the involvement with other related cases. The analysis of records regarding internal as well as external consequences is equally important.
Comparison of various philosophical points of views offers better understanding and analysis. This term paper will therefore attempt to find or describe aspects of the relationship between the mind and body as theories of various philosophers explain.
Background of the union between the mind and body
There are various theories explaining how the treatment of exceptional aspects fit into Descartes theory of material dualism, which forms a strong basis, ever the debate concerning the relationship between the body and the mind. The theory however lacks full explanation of the interaction or union, thus the tentative results.
Various other philosophers have emerged with different perspectives concerning the debate nullifying or supporting the possible facet of Descartes philosophy. There are many misconceptions between the union of the body and mind, and the general casual interaction among the Descartes readers. Recent philosophers have indicated a strong curious expression with regard to the substantiated unison or intermingling of the body and mind, indicating the theory as un-credential in comparison to other arguments.
A consideration of the interpretation for the first view indicates that an event or substance belongs to the interconnection because of the immediate casual effects the substance has on the mind.
The twenty first century philosophers as well as readers may disagree with Descartes theory out of curiosity or opposition to the dualist theory of the body and mind. The philosophy of mind provides phenomenal character in the line of thoughts that provides a wide range of mental events, which keep stringing the difference between the physical events and conscious experiences.
Ability to consider the face value of these striking differences calls for support or agreement with the dualism. Today the readers and researchers have some interest on the philosophy of dualism and thus the work of Descartes as the person who represented the tradition to modern philosophy.
Literature Review
Rene Descartes arguments on mind and body
The comparison of the two elements of life seems to be the conflict of the inquiry of whether the mind and the body are distinct substances, or they are the same. Arguably, his mind causes the mental state of affairs while body causes the physical state. Then the question is on the correspondence regarding the physical and mental state.
The proposal by Rene Descartes is a theory of interactions gets the reference with the intention of asserting that the two are distinct states, which interact by mutually influencing over each other as a result of the function of the pineal gland based in the brain (Moyal, 289, 1991). According to Moyal on the theory of Rene Descartes (290, 1990), the mutual gland seems to be the focal point of influence between mind and the body.
Scientifically the gland produces a solution: melatonin, which is an important neurotransmitter that assists to regulate sleep and forms part of the brain or body. From the scientific point of view, the Pineal gland is not a bridge between the mind and other special material objects, and therefore it is not a real solution to interaction between the body and mind.
Considering various philosophical principals of Descartes, there are many confusing claims regarding body and mind. The claims initially indicates that everything in the world is classifiable into two states namely, thinking and bodily substance.
People react by thinking through things and properties while the other side of living comprises of the body and its characteristics such as shape, size, motion or position. Where would we place the emotions, sensations or passions such as joy, sadness, love, pleasure, smell, taste and feeling? The categorization of the aspects fumbles people, making them to wonder how to classify certain features to the union between the mind and body.
Considering Descartes definition of substance, in the practicable sense, the substances do not depend on other substances. Although not clearly indicated in the specification that there exist two distinct types of substances into which all other aspects falls into, the Descartes tries to indirectly or implicitly indicate that certain quality or attribute requires a precise substance for existence.
For instance, in line with Moyal (293, 1991), this means that each substance exists within a principal attribute that constitute its essence with all the other properties of the substance referencing this attribute. For instance, imagination, sensation and, will are intelligible properties referencing the mind or thinking.
According to Descartes definitions of the relationships between mind and body, thinking entails understanding, and being in charge of what occurs within. Being aware of the occurrence offers the consideration of ability for existence of meaning, which is a strong indication that there is a connection between thinking and the sensory mechanism.
John Locke arguments on mind and body
Considering John Locke argument regarding the body and mind, he conveys a constant idea that a human being comprise of the conscious mind and a memory, which can extend to reflect the past as a way of enhancing or finding the personal identity.
Through this argument, he does not imply that the human being has the ability to remember each and every minor detail of past experiences, but it means that ability to posses a personal identity can link the conscious understandings to physical state or appearance (Ashcraft, 220, 1991).
This is how the conscious mind joins the physical appearance of the body to come together and form the human experience of life. He places the mind and body as material substances, which come together to give one an experience nurturing human identity.
According to Ashcraft (221, 1991), on John Lockes theory, the existence of two material substances in the same mental substance as explained by Rene Descartes is inexistence. He specifies that consciousness unite action in the same physical being. The memory and material experiences are similar in a human being, although it is possible to distinguish consciousness from thinking, such as in the instance of Rene Descartes insinuation.
In line with Ashcraft (221, 1991), considering Lockes theory, thinking, reflection, memory and, intelligence, uniquely combine to form the human physique but this cannot occur without the presence of consciousness. Consciousness is therefore a unique attribute in each individual human being meaning that it is not possible to inherit or share anothers body or consciousness.
There is a huge gap between subjective and objective experience, (Ashcraft, 220, 1991). Ideally, the investigation pertain the relevance of the physical and mental connection in an individual or consciousness. The investigation of how well an objective processes to become subjective is still tentative among many philosophers.
According to Ashcraft (221, 1991), considering Lockes theory, subjectivity is the reality and immediacy of individual experience of consciousness, including memory and the capacity for reasoned reflection. The outside world is independent of the mind. Real sensation comes from the presence of real objects.
In line with Locke, the world is made of two kinds of substances namely the soul and body. The body provides an immediate idea of the soul. People understand the bodies through sensation while understand the soul through reflection. Contemplation infests in the soul as material nourishments while the soul is immaterial. From this perception, there is formation of mental operations and spiritual souls.
Lockes theory therefore supports the interaction between the body and the mind as real beings. All the ideas we posses are because of the actions of the body on the mind. This means that the body acts on the soul causing some changes. He argues out that peoples perception of existence lacks clarity over the reality of existing soul. They tend to be sure of the existing physical body and the soul.
The existence of the soul and its related actions is more realistic in nature than the material body. The reality of things regarding material bodies does not exist in the knowledge of the bodies we possess. The knowledge therefore comprises of secondary qualities lacking proper representation of reality (Ashcraft, 220, 1991).
The difficulty that Locke lacks solution for regards his perception of the effects on the bodies lacking interference on the mind or consciousness. His theory of representation, which indicates that people perceive the reality of mental images as a representation of the physical substances lacks substantiation.
Classification of attributes of life as matter or conscious entities is tricky but the reality is that essence of nature is consciousness regardless of its existence as matter or soul. His conclusion has commonsense attributing to existence of two substances namely mental and material. Material substances are the primary quantities as essentially active elements of matter and embodiments of the secondary qualities.
The connection between Locke and Descartes theories involves their conclusion over the existence of a third substance form the sense of experiences. The third matter is existence of consciousness as a fundamental premise from which the other aspects derive but remains an indistinct or hazy idea and thus remains enclosed in empirical attributes.
Leibnitz arguments on mind and body
Considering Leibnitz thesis on mind and body, there is no body-mind interaction, but a formal relationship pertaining harmony, correspondence or parallelism. His contribution spans a number of topics of this philosophy mainly, materialism, interaction between the mind and body and idealism.
One of the conspicuous topics observes relationship between the body and mind where he denies existence of the interaction but ascertains a pre-established harmony. The earlier discussions of the seventeenth century over the connection between the mind and body spans a great context considered as dualism. This indicated that these are two distinct substances.
Leibnitz remains fundamentally opposed to the aspects of dualism indicating his perception of only one substance of life, thus the mind and body comprising of the same substance but metaphysically distinct. His metaphysical assumption is existence of a distinct substance from the body. Certain mental states may coordinate body states and vices versa. Considering Descartes perspective, there is an existence of interaction between the body and the mind.
According to Jolley (112, 2004), on Leibnizs theory, no state can influence the other thus the technical denial of inter-substantiation. Every state of a substance emerges from an initial substance and its programming occurs at the initial stages during the creation to ensure conformity to natural states of the preceding events. This is the language of minds and body where the natural states occur in mutual coordination.
The reality of metaphysical relationship is the mutual conformity or coordination of mind and body, which seem to be the real casual relationship.
Substances may not casually interact, but their state accommodates each other in a way that implies existence of a casual interaction among them. Leibnizs theory however conforms to existence of mental events, which influence bodily events. One particular substance has no physical influence on another & nevertheless, one is quite right to say that my will is the cause of this movement of my arm.
He continues to state that, for the one expresses distinctly what the other expresses more confusedly, and one must ascribe the action to the substance whose expression is more distinct. This is an explanation of what he explains to be metaphysical reality. Every existing substance is available to the entire universe but we only perceive a portion of it distinctly and the rest unconsciously, hence the confusion (Jolley, 112, 2005).
The argument is on existence of programmed substances, which are active or passive at the pertinent moment with incidence of real considerable relations. According to Leibnizs theory, nature of an individual substance or of a complete being is to have a notion that is sufficient to contain and to allow us to deduce from it all the predicates of the subject to which this notion is attributed.
The problem with this theory is on the explanation of the complete concept theory where there seem to be an assumption pertaining lack of a genuine possibility over casual determination. His implication is on the existence of casual interaction between two beings, which requires transmission or transposition of the parts.
Evidently, Leibniz drew a parallel perception with respect to consciousness. However, he lacks clear distinction between conscious and unconscious vision. He initially has a clear care and uniformity to but his commitment lacks clear justification and perception. The Leibnizian theory only supports perception but at close range, there are fundamental divides between consciousness and unconsciousness.
He states, Insensible perceptions are as important to [the science of minds, souls, and soul-like substances] as insensible corpuscles are to natural science, and it is just as unreasonable to reject the one as the other on the pretext that they are beyond the reach of our senses (Jolley, 112, 2005).
Mauriee Merleau arguments on mind and body
Most philosophers illustrate the attitude that highly portrays rationalism as a problem on assumption that it ignores situations and nature of thoughts by indicating the world as a mere property of the reflecting mind. Merleau arguments on mind and body strongly reject this approach of rationalism/intellectualism.
Like Leibnitz, Merleau sets out his points to expose the problematic nature of dualism set by the traditional philosophers regarding the body and mind. He has a strong attention to the significance of the body in connection to the world, self and others.
This is a strong emphasis regarding the bodys ability to act independently rather than as influenced by other traits. He picks the problem of dualism in relation to the mind and body as a real problem, because when considering the body as an object links to consideration of the world as objective. Problems regarding the body are general to the whole outside world since it is entirely distinguishable from the philosophical area under discussion (Merleau-Ponty Maurice & Baldwin, 72, 2004).
Merleau criticizes the, philosophers who tend to ignore the situation regarding the delegation styles regarding contemplation. They disregard the world as an immanent property of a reflecting mind. This is illustrative of the traditional philosopher Descartes when he indicates that he is able to indentify people walking in the streets because of their ability to judge them as real men other than dressed ghosts or dummies.
He is able to understand through the sole power of judgement in the mind from what he believes to be passive (Merleau-Ponty Maurice & Baldwin, 10, 2004). This is a priority awarded to the mental above the physical state thus the support for dualism. This aspect lacks a touch over the problem of meaningful judgement.
Merleau refutes rationalism/intellectualism because of the implication of the cultural world as an illusion due to ignorance of the interconnection between the object and the act. Perception is not because of a single body organ but an act through relevant organs. From the philosophical point of view, Merleau lacks a simpler denial over the subjected cognitive relationship between the subject and object, but highly wishes to portray them as phenomenological primitive facts concerning body and mind.
Empiricism cannot see that we need to know what we are looking for, otherwise we would not be looking for it, and intellectualism fails to see that we need to be ignorant of what we are looking for, or equally again we should not be searching (Merleau-Ponty Maurice & Baldwin, 28, 2004). If the philosophers were able to constitute terms of duality relationally, then the philosopher would accept them since it would be a support to the inter-individual world.
Merleau would support the relation between subject and object through his suggestion that, the demand for a pure description excludes equally the procedure of analytical reflection on the one hand, and that of scientific explanation on the other. The discovery of the interior concerning the subject and object is achievable through avoidance of some of the earlier philosophical tendencies.
In close relation to Merleau-Ponty argument, today there are fundamental arguments forming divergence contained by the body, but indicate lack of thorough perception and subjectivity. If the embodied divergence causes the capacity for perception including language along with reflection, then similar divergence ensures that people are not able to overcome similar divergences entirely.
On a different perspective he indicates that peoples reflection recuperates everything except itself as an effort of recuperation; it clarifies everything except its own role (Merleau-Ponty Maurice & Baldwin, 72, 2004).
Conclusion
The counter arguments of dualism focus on quantum physics considering that consciousness and awareness has influence over body cells, which influence behaviour. The support upon consciousness as the key determinant of behaviour is an aspect that seems to sustain dualism where the action of the mind is determined by the consciousness, but end up blowing it up. This is for the reason that dualism argue for the existence of a soul and the value of freewill to accompany the soul.
Dualism supports that the mind works independently because in the cases of damage or alteration of its behaviour, awareness still detects functionality of the brain for instance, an altered personality due to illness. There need not to be any influence over awareness especially in distinction from the sensory organ. Awareness is different from memory or personality thus the fiction behind separation of awareness from the physical body.
Work Cited
Ashcraft, Richard. John Locke: critical assessments, Volume 1. Routledge Publishers.1991
Mind mapping is a concept used in psychology to analyze situations. It is used to represent ideas and information in the form of graphics. Particularly, information is represented in graphics that resemble a thinking mind. These graphics contain multiple branches that originate from a central point (Hamilton, 2002). They could be drawn by hands or computer software. Graphical representation helps learners to understand information easily. The strength of mind mapping lies on the ability to integrate art and analysis (Cozby, 1981). This implies that learners must engage their brain when dealing with mind mapping. Consequently, it eliminates shallow thinking, enhances creativity and discourages dull thinking. Mind mapping is applied in various fields of study. These fields include taking notes, making presentations and researching (Percival, 2003). In this paper, I will choose and analyze a topic using mind mapping strategy. After identifying the research topic, I will raise three questions that will be potential for a research. Lastly, I will choose one question that will help to make a research proposal.
Topic
This paper seeks to analyze politics. Politics is a necessary component of a community. It affects economic and social aspects of a community (Ray, 1979). In the world, people have experienced many cases of political instability and violence (Ray, 1979). Leaders are involved in struggle for power. Particularly, Africa has been the major victim of political instability. Therefore, analyzing this topic is important.
Mindmap
Narrative
In the process of brain storming, I acquired various experiences. First, it made the analysis be interesting and objective. This activity eliminated the possible boredom that would arise in other methods of analysis. Drawing the branches was pretty involving and interesting. As a result, I managed to add many branches to the mind map. Consequently, I generated many factors that surrounded politics. This activity had an interesting formulation that facilitated effective results.
The pictorial representation of the factors surrounding politics was a credible strength of understanding. I could read through the factors at a glance and relate them easily. It, therefore, made the analysis and development of research questions easy and fast. In addition, the figure represented an idea of the topic within a glance. This is contrary to the notes. If the information on politics was represented in the form of notes, it would appear complex and difficult to understand. In a mind map, information was broken down into comprehensive constituents.
Another experience relates to the development of information. The mind mapping technique enabled a wide generation of ideologies surrounding politics. It integrated the art of drawing and analysis allowing thorough engagement of the mind. This enabled the generation of many ideas and their representation on the mind map. Particularly, integration was the base of success in mind mapping.
It, also, facilitated my understanding on the relationship of various components in politics. When I was developing the questions, I could relate factors easily and determine their strengths strategically. In addition, it formed the basis of generating research questions. For example, I wondered whether there was a relationship between power and leadership. I was triggered to think about the relationship that exists between these two components.
Research Questions
A research question forms the basis of research. It assists when designing a research proposal. A research must have a question or a problem that is implemented to be the starting point. It determines the nature of research to be carried out and the population of interest. The mind mapping technique helped in raising the research questions. Moreover, it assisted in developing a hypothesis that is based on possible outcomes of the research.
Are Citizens the Main Players in Politics?
This question aims at evaluating the position of citizens in politics. It, also, seeks to understand how they determine the nature of leadership. In addition, it addresses relationships between citizens and other factors that surround politics. Also, this question will show how citizens shape politics.
Hypothesis 1
From this research question, it could be assumed that the citizens are not the main players in politics. This hypothesis cannot be tested. It is referred to as null hypothesis. However, I need a testable research hypothesis. I could, therefore, state that citizens are the main players in politics. This will be an alternative hypothesis. During the research, I could interview the political analysts. They will discuss the roles of citizens in politics. Also, they will contribute to the relationship between citizens of a country and the other components. In addition, I will interview leaders of various communities. This interview will seek to understand what they expect from the citizens. The expectations include obligations and roles of the citizens.
Prior to the research, I could assert that the alternative hypothesis is true. From the mind map, four major components of politics are observed. These include leaders, power, violence and citizens. Citizens are able to influence the existence of political violence and leadership. First, citizens determine the nature of leaders they have. In many countries around the world, leaders are chosen from the democratic elections. The citizens are given the right to vote and choose their leaders. In addition, laws of many countries dictate that a political leader must be a citizen of the country. Therefore, citizens are the major pillars in leadership. This could be a good example to depict a discussion of research findings from the above procedures.
Does Political Violence Shape Politics?
This question seeks to understand the effects of violence on politics. It provides basis of investigating the role of violence in democratization and violation of political rights.
Hypothesis 2
The null hypothesis could suggest that political violence does not shape politics. In a similar manner, the hypothesis is not testable. On the other hand, alternative hypothesis could assert that political violence shapes politics. During the research, citizens of countries affected by political violence could be interviewed. They could give past information concerning political violence. They, also, could show how violence has affected their choices on leadership. Regarding the same question, I could interview the political analysts to retrieve professional views. They will give an analytical perspective concerning political violence. In addition, they will offer analysis on the relationship between violence and other factors surrounding politics.
Based on the available information, I will try to predict the possible outcomes of such a research. In the world of politics, political violence is inevitable. When violence takes place, it creates two parallel impacts on a community (Honderich, 1976). First, it causes physical destruction of property. As a result, people deviate from politics. For example, political violence in Kenya created political abstinence. Many candidates dropped their political ambitions. The abstinence from politics reduces competition and offers a good opportunity to their rivals. On the side of citizens, they might be tempted to refrain from exercising their right to choose leaders. Expectedly, some citizens would consider voting as a process that causes violence.
Does Transformational Leadership Affect Politics?
Leadership is a component of politics. Leadership takes two parallel forms. The two forms include transformational and transactional leadership. The world is changing gradually from transactional to transformational leadership. This research, therefore, seeks to understand the forces behind transformational leadership. On this light, I could interview various transformational leaders. The data sets will focus on those leaders who have made tremendous progress in their countries. They should show the differences experienced during their tenure of leadership. In addition, I will interview some citizens in those communities. In their contribution, they should give positive and negative impacts of the leadership. I will also include the political analysts. They will help in giving the analytical view concerning transformational leadership and politics.
Does political violence shape politics?
Out of the three questions, I consider the second question for a research. The question focuses on political violence. This question is the most appropriate since it focuses on an issue of global concern in the recent political setting. Particularly, Africa continent is affected by political violence significantly. Therefore, it is important to research and offer necessary recommendations that can stabilize the violence.
Conclusion
Research is fundamental for development of knowledge. Knowing the best strategies to enact a research should be considered to be vital. Learners must, therefore, identify strategies of researching and pay attention to the topic. This will facilitate revelation of information to drive the world ahead.
References
Cozby, P. C. (1981). Methods in behavioral research (2nd ed.). Palo Alto, CA: Mayfield.
Hamilton, C. A. (2002). Mapping the Mind and the Body: On W.H. Audens Personifications. Style, 3, 567-570.
Honderich, T. (1976). Political violence. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.
Percival, J. (2003). Know your mind: Jennifer Percival explains how mind mapping can help you to gather your thoughts logically and set your plans in motion. (perspectives).. Nursing Standard, 2, 399-412.
Ray, J. L. (1979). Global politics. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
For centuries people distinguished two notions, body and soul. Many people argued and could not decide which is more important. Some say that soul (and later human consciousness) is essential since people are determined by their beliefs and souls. However, others cannot agree that the body is not that important since there can be no consciousness without a body. The development of technology makes it possible to open up new horizons for this problem consideration.
Thus, Dennett dwells upon the problem and tries to decide what makes a person that unique personality: body, brain, or maybe something else? Dennett depicts the (quite hypothetical) situations when the main character loses his body, which is substituted by another, and he is also provided by a computer program, which is a complete copy of his consciousness. At the end of the story, some mayhem begins, so it is the reader who is to decide where Dennett is. As a result, each reader will know what makes a person unique.
In the first place, it is necessary to consider whether real Dennett can be in a body. I believe that body is only a vessel that keeps the most important. It is quite obvious since over time human body changes and sometimes peoples appearance change dramatically. However, it does not make them other personalities. If a person is cheerful, he or she will remain such a positive personality. Moreover, the development of surgery proves that even when a body changes, consciousness does not change.
Of course, it is possible that due to some improvements in appearance a person can become more confident or less kind, but it does not mean the personality changed. It may mean that some unknown facets of the personality emerged. So, even if a person obtains a new body (like Dennett got Fortinbras), he/she remains the same personality with the same feelings and longings.
It can seem obvious that only the brain makes a person unique. Admittedly, it is the brain that is the center of peoples intentions, fears, beliefs, dreams, etc. People get to know each other after they communicate a bit after they know some basic peculiarities of the persons inner world. Of course, by saying inner world, I do not mean the peculiarities of some organs functioning. People long to be with people who share their beliefs, who can support and give a piece of advice if necessary.
It is possible to say that people do not care much about the physical appearance of their friends, relatives, etc. because they are more concerned with more abstract things. However, people know that brain is just another organ that operates by some basic rules. Thus, it is possible even to create artificial intelligence. Can it be regarded as personality? Dennett had a program, which was a precise copy of his consciousness. He even thought that they are the same since they could operate separately in the same way.
To my mind, by introducing such a sophisticated copy Dennett suggests that the brain is not the personality itself, as well. I think that any computer (or other) copy cannot be regarded as the same personality. The computer program can create some logic sequences and predict possible variants of reactions, but it cannot be identical to a personality that exists. To my mind, it is impossible to compare Dennett to his computer copy since human consciousness is much more difficult than just logic operations. So, I would not claim that Dennett can be Hubert, i.e. the computer program.
In the case of Dennett, his real personality is only Yorick, his brain. It is Yorick that possesses Dennetts life experience and his dreams and emotions. Even after some mayhem, it is possible to see that there are two different personalities, Yorick (Dennett) and Hubert (Dennetts copy). So, the real Dennett still resides, so to speak, in Yorick. Generally speaking, several components constitute personality. By all, means peoples consciousness is the most important element which makes a person unique.
However, consciousness is not a mere brain, as an organ. Consciousness is formed by experience, emotions, feelings, which cannot be a result of neuron interactions. Some may say that such complex consciousness can be called a humans soul. Religious people do explain peoples uniqueness by this notion. To my mind, what makes a person unique is the interaction of his/her brain and body (and perhaps a little bit of the divine sparkle). Thus, a person accumulates some knowledge and experience which form the personality. Physical perceptions also play quite an important role in the process of gaining experience.
For example, such feelings as love, affection, or disgust cannot be explained by some peculiarities of mental processes the body is also involved in creating certain reactions. So, while deciding what is more important human body or brain it is necessary to state that the brain is more essential since it accumulates the whole scope of knowledge, experience, and feelings but the body is one of those means which helps to collect all those data which contribute to the development of personality. Thus, even if it is possible to obtain a new body, a person will remain the same, whereas creating a new (even a copy of a) brain means the creation of some new being, which will develop into a new personality.
Explain the cogito argument in your own words, and explain how Descartes reaches it, that is, why does he claim that I am, I exist is necessarily true and cannot be doubted?
In my opinion, the cogito argument may be explained by the idea that when a person thinks, they therefore exist. It is possible to cast doubt on many things in our life, but it is impossible to call into question a persons capability of thought. As Descartes puts it, even if we imagine that everything we see is false and that we have no senses whatever, our ability to think is an indispensable part of our nature (Meditation Two 25, p. 63). Even when he mentions that the only true thing is that nothing is certain, Descartes still leaves hope for humanitys understanding of their own existence (Meditation Two 25, p. 63).
This hope lies in the fact that as long as a person thinks, they undoubtedly exist. It is possible to doubt many issues, but the very fact that one is contemplating something means that one must exist. According to Descartes, when a man thinks, he is truly alive. Thus, the phrase I am, I exist has become the most valid explanation for the continuous living of each individual (Descartes, Meditation Two 25, p. 64). This claim is necessarily valid and cannot be doubted because a persons ability to comprehend, reflect, and analyze already presupposes that a person is a living being and that they indeed remain a part of this world. Descartes reaches the cogito argument through the investigation of his doubts and certainties (Meditation Two 24-25, p. 63). He arrives at a conclusion that even when we assume that everything in our lives is false or imaginary, the very act of assuming or doubting proves that we exist. Thus, Descartess claim is true and cannot be doubted.
After reading through Meditation Two, explain what Descartes understands by a thinking thing. Why does he argue that the I is a thinking thing, and what counts for him as thinking ?
By a thinking thing, Descartes means a person who can understand or doubt, affirm or deny, and agree or refuse to do something (Meditation Two 28, p. 66). In addition to that, a thinking thing can imagine and sense (Descartes, Meditation Two 28, p. 66). For the philosopher, thinking counts as the ability to comprehend the world around him and react to other individuals words or actions. Descartes remarks that doubting, understanding, and affirming or refusing things presupposes that one is a thinking thing (Meditation Two 28-29, p. 66). The imagination holds an important place in Descartess understanding of the thinking thing. The philosopher mentions that even if everything he imagines is false, he still has the power of imagination, which means that he must be a thinking thing (Descartes, Meditation Two 29, p. 66).
Another crucial aspect of understanding this issue, according to Descartes, is cognition: he remarks that sensing is synonymous with thinking (Meditation Two 29, p. 66). The relationship between sensing and imagining is very close since the mind loves to wander and will not accept the idea of being restricted within the confines of truth (Descartes, Meditation Two 30, p. 67). In the conclusion of his meditation, Descartes reiterates the concept that mind and intellect are the most significant constituents of a thinking thing (Meditation Two 34, p. 69). Therefore, the philosophers understanding of a thinking thing is related to such processes as analysis, meditation, and imagination, among others. Descartes considers thinking as the ability of a person to understand the processes happening around as well as inside ones mind. In the process of a thorough analysis of these processes, one becomes a thinking thing.
Work Cited
Descartes, Rene. Meditation Two: Concerning the Nature of the Human Mind, that It is Better Known than the Body, n.d.
Being conscious creatures, people learn more about the world on a daily basis. Our knowledge of the principles that make the human body work gradually becomes more profound. With that in mind, it is not enough for humanity to understand only physical processes that take place in our bodies and make us undergo essential changes such as aging. In this connection, the way that mind and body cooperate remains an important issue that many philosophers of the past attempted to study. The key question that helps thinkers to shape their positions centers around the relationship between the physical and the mental realm. The essay aims at defending monistic views on the mind-body debate.
The Mind-Body Debate: The Strong Points of Monistic View
The relationship between mind and body is a problem that has many potential solutions. Despite the difficulty of the issue, there are two primary positions that are defended by thinkers: dualism and monism. As is clear from the name itself, dualism presents the position according to which two main components make a human being. In this position, the physical body and the mind (something immaterial) present two separate entities that can cooperate (Solomon et al. 332). This cooperation, as it is clear from the arguments of dualists, is the reason why people can have two different kinds of experiences.
In contrast to the above-mentioned viewpoint, monists suppose that the relationships between body and mind are asymmetric, and there is no equality between these two entities. From this derive three different positions that explain various types of asymmetric relationships between the above-mentioned entities. They include the superiority of physical matter (materialism or physicalism) and the superiority of the mind (idealism). Finally, there is one more position that regards these two elements as the opposite ways of describing something that is the only source of everything. This source is believed to be neutral, which means that it is non-physical and non-immaterial simultaneously.
Personally, I believe that monism (in particular, physicalism) presents a viewpoint that allows making reliable conclusions about reality. According to this perspective, everything in the world has to deal with physical matter, and all that happens in a persons mind ultimately represents the objective laws of nature. Unlike dualism, materialistic monism regards the presence of consciousness and all processes that are called subjective as the result of physical processes (Duncan 671). An important strength of materialism is that the key ideas concerning the superiority of matter align with real-life issues. Materialists suppose that physical and objective events can impact things that dualists call immaterial and, therefore, their immaterial nature becomes a disputed idea. For example, it is known that different parts of the human brain are responsible for fulfilling various functions. Consequently, it is possible to predict potential personality changes in case of brain injuries. There are no significant causal problems in materialism since it explains that changes related to subjective things such as memory loss are always related to physical problems.
Nowadays, arguments that bring the independence of mind and body into question can be found in different fields of science. Materialism denies that humans have an immaterial soul and other animals do not ; considering the theory of evolution, it is clear that complex organisms (such as humans) originate from simpler ones (Duncan 672). Being primitive, the latter cannot have immaterial components, and it is impossible to explain at which point and how an organism acquires an immortal soul. Recent studies show that the brain activity of people who report the cases of out-of-body-experience is atypical, which makes them sure that they leave their bodies (Smith and Messier 1).
Materialism regards the existence of thoughts and sensations as a representation of the physical functions of the human body. In one of his famous works, Hobbes supposes that perception seems to be of something outside the body because objects that we perceive press on our bodies, and this pressure is always external (Duncan 672). In real life, it often happens that peoples extraordinary claims result from flaws of perception.
Counterarguments: Dualism and Its Flaws
The mind-body dualism defended by Rene Descartes is widely criticized due to the non-provability of many of its ideas. Cartesian dualism attempts to explain the nature of the relationship between the body and the mind by emphasizing numerous differences between the properties of mental and physical events. In particular, when it comes to mental events such as sensations and thoughts, dualists highlight that they are always subjective by nature, whereas events that involve interactions between physical objects are more objective. This division seems to be logically relevant since events at the physical level of reality are subject to the laws of nature that are objective by default.
Even knowing that the properties of these events are heterogeneous, it is not possible to prove that physical processes cannot cause mental ones and vice versa. The theory defending the mind-body dualism was formulated a few centuries ago when knowledge on the causes of depression and other mental issues was scarce. Modern people know a lot about endogenous depression, whose symptoms can be managed with the help of various drugs such as antidepressants. These symptoms are also subjective in nature because a depressed person can feel helpless and experience a sense of frustration even though objective stress factors are absent. However, the impact of drug components helps to make people with depression think in a more positive way.
From the dualistic perspective, it follows that body and mind coexist peacefully when a person is alive (Solomon et al. 332). However, given that these two entities are relatively independent, it is right to say that the mind does not disappear when the body dies. Following the logic of dualism, an immaterial component of what we call a person cannot be destroyed due to physical death. Being non-physical, it remains invincible to physical death since the objective laws of nature (everything that is physical should have a beginning and an ending) are not applicable to immaterial entities. In general, the decision to present mind and body as two separate entities that can exist separately and cooperate meets with an obstacle. If the mind does not need the physical body to exist, it means that the state of unconsciousness due to injuries and other objective reasons is impossible. However, in case of severe physical conditions such as brain injuries, something that is similar to non-existence can take place a persons physical body is still alive, but there are no thoughts.
Conclusion
To sum it up, there are a large number of views on the mind-body problem, ranging from the superiority of the mind to beliefs that there is nothing else apart from physical matter. Nowadays, there are many scientific facts and hypotheses that make the existence of something immaterial almost impossible and, therefore, undermine the position of dualists. Despite the argumentation that is often strong, solutions to the mind-body problem other than materialism do not refer to verifiable facts.
Works Cited
Duncan, Stewart. Materialism and the Activity of Matter in Seventeenth-Century European Philosophy. Philosophy Compass, vol. 11, no. 11, 2016, pp. 671-680.
Smith, Andra M., and Claude Messier. Voluntary Out-of-Body Experience: An fMRI Study. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, vol. 8, 2014, pp. 1-10.
Solomon, Robert, et al. Introducing Philosophy: A Text with Integrated Readings (10th ed.). Oxford University Press, 2012.