The Mind Is Separate From the Brain: A Descartes’ Assumptions

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
Process of Thought Creation
Creating Memories
Experienced Stimuli and Imaginary Stimuli
Resolving the Issue
Conclusion
Reference List

Introduction

The assumption of Descartes that the mind is separate from the brain is indeed a very intriguing concept since to this day the origin of thought, which the mind consists of, has yet to be accurately pinpointed by science (Gamst, 2011). As scientists such as Tsien (2007) point out there have yet to be accurate studies which pinpoint exactly how thoughts manifest within the brain (Tsien, 2007).

While it may be true that it is now possible to know which area corresponds to which bodily function or which particular area is responsible for adaptation, pleasure or even general sensations it is still vague as to how neural firings come together to produce a thought (Fox, 2006).

For example, an individual can think of either a single word such as “appetite” or think of doing a particular action such as “going for a drive” yet such simplistic thoughts cannot be identified as originating from a particular location. In this particular instance philosophers turn towards the universal law of “something cannot originate from nothing”, taking this into consideration thoughts must then originate from somewhere.

It is assumed that the firings of neurons within the brain are responsible for the concept of thought yet when examining the origin of neurons themselves it is strange to think that the concept of complex thought and behaviors originates from electrical synapses which don’t produce thoughts of their own (Koch, 2011).

It is based on this that various individuals do in fact agree with the assumption of Descartes that the mind must exist somewhere outside of the body and that it influences the actions of the body through some here-to-unknown method of control (Pinker, 2007).

On the other hand it has been stated by various psychological studies that such an assumption should not be considered 100% accurate. For example, Bensley (2003) states that “if the mind is separate from the brain then why is it that substances which affect or inebriate the brain causes changes in thought patterns which come from the mind?” (Bensley, 2003).

This particular viewpoint is expressed by studies such as those by Astin(2004) which examine the preponderance of drug usage among many artists, musicians, and even scientists to which they attribute a great deal of their moments of sudden clarity and imagination from which they derive their greatest work (Astin, 2004).

If the mind were truly separate from the brain then the concept of thought creation should remain constant instead of experiencing sudden shifts through artificial external influences.

Process of Thought Creation

It is still relatively unknown how thoughts are created yet what is known at the present is the way in which various substances can affect thought processes and how certain mental states can be achieved through the cornucopia of present day drugs or sudden accidents. For example, many people in the U.S. suffer from depression yet are able to overcome this particular mental state through the use of antidepressants.

Other examples include individuals that use illegal drugs, alcohol or even people that were involved in car accidents resulting in brain damage. All these individuals, in one way or another, showed evidence of altered mental states which goes completely against the assumption of Descartes.

Another way of looking at this particular situation is based on the views of Flanagan (1991) which examine the origin of knowledge and how people learn to think in precise ways (Flanagan, 1991). Flanagan (1991) explains that while various psychologists such as Freud have suggested that mental processes consist of id, ego, and superego most of them present the notion that the mind is located within the body (Flanagan, 1991).

In fact various modern day psychologists such as Levine (1997) explain that knowledge of the latest psychoactive drugs is a necessity in the field of psychology due to chemical based treatments showing a great deal of effectiveness in dealing with a large percentage of many of today’s abnormal psychological behaviors (Levine, 1997).

It must also be noted that thought should not be separated from behavior since behavior affects the formation of thoughts based on external stimuli which in turn affects the way in which a person perceives a particular situation. Since various psychoactive drugs can help to change the way in which a person behaves this in turn affects the way in which thoughts are created.

These chemicals work by altering chemical firings within the brain by enabling better connections and lowering or increasing neural firings. This shows that thoughts can in fact be altered based on artificial external stimuli from chemicals that affect the brain.

Taking into consideration the fact that the mind is basically made up of a collection of thoughts and memories this shows that the mind is not as separate from the body as Descartes may have us believe.

Creating Memories

When pursuing arguments in favor of the mind being situated within the brain it is important to explore the concept of memory and how this relates to the creation of thoughts.

Memories are basically stored experiences from which thoughts are based upon, as Murchland (2010) explains thoughts are basically the result of accumulated experiences from which memory plays an essential role and as such you cannot separate one from the other. Based on the experiments it was seen that memories are created and formed through the activation of thousands upon thousands of neurons within the brain.

In the experiments electrodes were attached directly into the subjects brain after which they were asked to watch a series of short films while the firing of their neurons were recorded. When asked to recall specific parts of a clip neurons that were recorded firing when that specific clip was being shown began to activate after which the patients explained what was in that specific segment.

It is based on this experiment that the process of memory creation and recall was shown and as such proves that the concept of “memory” exists within the brain. Further evidence of this lies in the fact that individuals that have experienced brain trauma in the past experienced prolonged lapses in memory.

Since thoughts are a result of accumulated memories and accumulated thoughts create the concept of the mind it can be stated that the mind is within the brain and not located outside of it.

On the other hand some defendants of Descartes state that the brain is merely a node from which the mind channels thoughts and as such problems with the brain would of course affect this process of communication (Alanen, 2004).

This does present a rather intriguing way of looking at the issue since if the brain can be considered nothing more than a transmitter instead of the origin of thoughts then this lends a significant amount of credence to the Descartes’’ assumptions.

For example, if the process of the interaction between the mind and the brain can be simplified into two people talking over walkie-talkies within a finite distance then interference in the way of weather phenomena or distance will result in miscommunication.

Taking this into consideration drugs, accidents or a variety of other factors that affect the brain can thus be thought of as a form of “interference” that normally affects the process of communication. It must be questioned though, if the mind is not within the brain then where does the mind exist?

It cannot be denied that the concept of “the mind” does indeed exist since it is an accumulation of thoughts which are undeniably real yet there has yet to be an undeniably proven area where the mind exists outside the body.

Experienced Stimuli and Imaginary Stimuli

One of the current ongoing justifications behind the separation of the mind from the body is the concept of substance dualism which states that the mind and matter are essentially fundamentally different types of substances that interact in some unknown fashion.

This particular assertion is part of Descartes’’ Cartesian dualism in which he suggests that the mental actually does not have an extension in space and material objects cannot essentially “think”. From a certain perspective this does have basis on a certain degree of truth, the way in which the mind transmits information is basically through a series of chemical and electrical signal within the brain.

Neither electricity nor chemicals can actually “think” and as such it cannot really be said that by combining the two the concept of thought will suddenly emerge. It must also be noted that the human body is essentially made up of water and carbon which on their own don’t have the capacity for thought and even when combined wouldn’t have the capacity to create thought as well.

Taking this into consideration it is assumed by the defendant of Descartes’ that the concept of the mind must thus exist in some other plane of existence (similar to the concept of the soul) and it is through the brain that the mind interacts with the body. The inherent problem with this particular observation is the assumption that the concept of thought is actually a substance.

For example, experienced stimuli in the form of eating an apple, going on a date or kissing someone you love are recorded and can be brought to the forefront of an individual’s thoughts merely by trying to recall a particular event.

Imagined stimuli on the other hand can take the form of day dreaming about kissing the person you love, imagining that you won the lottery or even eating something that you have never once eaten before. What must be understood is that while both methods of stimuli exist within the thoughts of the mind they cannot be considered as being equivalent to actual substances.

While it may be true that the universal concept of something cannot come from nothing prevails even in the realm of psychology and philosophy what must be understood is that the imagination can be considered a realm that both exists and doesn’t exist in the first place and that it is wholly dependent on experienced stimuli.

Everything that a person imagines is based upon some form of experienced stimuli that they encountered in one form or the other. This is the inherent origin of imagined stimuli, furthermore imagined stimuli is considered by researchers such as Condillac & Aarsleff ( 2001) as being fleeting and cannot be “fixed” so to speak (Condillac & Aarsleff, 2001).

Thus if something is not fixed and cannot be touched, held, smelt or tasted then such a type of stimuli can be considered as being “inferior” to experienced stimuli.

For example, a person can experience two different ways of eating a chocolate sundae with hot fudge, whipped cream, nuts and chocolate sprinkles: they can either experience this within the mind through imagined stimuli or they can actually do so through experience stimuli.

Only in experienced stimuli can an individual feel the full gamut of flavors, textures, scent and taste of eating a chocolate ice cream sundae while in the case of imagined stimuli it is limited to a vague visual representation. While this doesn’t prove that the “space” that Descartes’ refers to doesn’t exist it does show the fundamental difference in experiences between the physical and the imaginary (Devlin, 1996).

If the objects in the physical realm cannot “think” in the words of Descartes then why is it that experiences within the physical realm are more vivid and enticing as compared to the imaginary world?

When trying to examine whether the mind is part of the brain it is important to examine the effect of visual and verbal stimuli and how this affects comprehension. Visual stimuli can come in a variety of forms whether it is an image, a video or a piece of scenery (Gollwitzer, 1990).

All individuals in one way or another are exposed to various aspects of visual stimuli whether they want to or not which can take the form of sights and scenes that they see on a daily basis (Gollwitzer, 1990).

Speaking on the other hand is a less permanent method of stimulation due to its spontaneous nature wherein the act of talking between two or more individuals produces varying views, thoughts and concepts that are produced at a faster rate compared to objects, people and scenes that are aspects of visual stimulation.

It is actually due to this that ideas conveyed during the act of speaking are at times forgotten or not conveyed in the way the communicator intended due to the way in which people interpret information differently through the act of talking.

Furthermore, due to the presence of other communicators the result is a less controlled environment for stimulation wherein each individual gives out their own thoughts and ideas without there being a specific order to their introduction in the conversation (Spivey, 2007).

What must be understood is that conveying emotion through vocal tones, facial expressions and gestures is one of the most important aspects of speaking due to the fact that these are the methods by which other communicators derive the intent of the speaker.

For example, the phrase “get here now” can be said with little emotion and no facial expression and the communicator would be unable to determine the importance of “going there now”. On the other hand when phrase “Get Here Now!” utilizes a strong forceful voice and an angry facial expression the other communicator realizes the urgency of the situation and “goes there” immediately.

Studies such as those by Fields (2005) show that when it comes to processing particular types of information people are more adept at memorizing and recalling visual stimuli as compared to speech stimuli (Fields, 2005).

Fields (2005) explains that this is due to the fact that remembering various aspect of speech stimuli involves not only having to recall specific words and phrases but individual responses as well whereas visual stimulus involves nothing more than what can be seen through the eyes (Fields, 2005).

This is particularly important to take note of since when it comes to forming thoughts and imagery in the way that Descartes perceives most do so through imagery rather than through words. Since speech and visual imagery are basically processes of external stimulation why is it that people are more predisposed towards visual imagery when it comes to thought processes rather than speech?

The reason behind this is actually connected to the study of Yuperlik (2009) which explains that the brain is more adept at processing images than speech and as such there are inherent limitations to what can be memorized and imagined (Yuperlik, 2009). In fact studies such as those by Spivey (2007) explain that humans are more evolutionary adept at visual stimulation than all other senses (Spivey, 2007).

Since the brain has an inherent evolutionary predisposition towards a particular way of operating then if the mind were truly separated from the brain then it wouldn’t experience the same limitations as the brain however it does and as such this is indicative of the fact that the mind is within brain. If it weren’t it wouldn’t be subject to the same inherent predisposition towards visual imagery.

Resolving the Issue

In order to resolve this issue it is best to subject the assumption of the mind being outside of the brain to Occam’s razor in order to determine the overall validity of the assumption. The basis of Occam’s razor is “the simplest explanation for a problem is usually the right one”. This is based off the principle of parsimony which states that “it is pointless to do more with something when it can be done with less”.

Taking this into consideration, it can be stated that since thoughts can be affected by drugs, alcohol and injuries to the brain, and since all of these occurrences are dependent on some external force affecting the brain, this means that thoughts are within the brain and thus the mind exists within the brain and not outside of it.

What must be understood is that since there is no current concrete evidence in support of Descartes’ assumptions it cannot be supported under Occam’s razor and thus it should not be considered as something which is 100% valid.

It can only be considered as such when there is sufficient corroborating evidence however till such a time occurs it can be considered nothing more than philosophical conjecture without sufficient facts backing it up.

Conclusion

Based on the findings of this paper it can be stated that the mind is an inherent function of a developed human brain and as such cannot be considered a separate aspect of it placed in some sort of space outside of human understanding. If something affects the brain it affects the mind as well and as such Descartes reasoning is inherently flawed.

On the other hand it must be noted that at the time when he created his assumption regarding the separation of the mind from the brain the science of understanding the brain’s neurologic functions was barely in its infancy and as such it can be stated that Descartes may have made such an assumption due to an inherent lack of knowledge.

Reference List

Alanen, L. (2004). Descarte’s concept of mind. Times Higher Education Supplement, (1624), 11.

Astin, J. (2004). Psychosocial Determinants of Health and Illness: Integrating Mind, Body, and Spirit. Advances In Mind-Body Medicine, 20(4), 14.

Bensley, D. (2003). Can Minds Leave Bodies?. Skeptical Inquirer, 27(4), 34.

Condillac, E., & Aarsleff, H. (2001). Essay on the Origin of Human Knowledge. Cambridge University Press.

Devlin, K. (1996). Good-bye Descartes?. Mathematics Magazine, 69(5), 344.

Fields, R. (2005). Making Memories Stick. Scientific American, 292(2), 74.

Flanagan, O. J. (1991). The Science of the Mind. MIT Press.

Fox, D. (2006). Through the mind’s eye. New Scientist, 190(2550), 32.

Gamst, G. C. (2011). The recursive mind: the origins of human language, thought, and

civilization. Choice: Current Reviews For Academic Libraries, 49(2), 400-401.

Gollwitzer, P. H. (1990). Deliberative and Implemental Mind-Sets: Cognitive Tuning Toward Congruous Thoughts and Information. Journal Of Personality & Social Psychology, 59(6), 1119.

Koch, C. (2011). Probing the Unconscious Mind. Scientific American Mind, 22(5), 22.

Levine, G. (1997). Carlyle, Descartes, and Objectivity. Raritan, 17(1), 45.

Murchland, B. G. (2010). Mind’s world: imagination and subjectivity from Descartes to Romanticism. Choice: Current Reviews For Academic Libraries, 47(8), 1490.

Pinker, S. (2007). The mystery of consciousness. (cover story). Time International (South Pacific Edition), (3), 54.

Spivey, M. J. (2007). Redesigning our theories of human information processing. Information Design Journal (IDJ), 15(3), 261-26

Yuperlik, A. (2009). Rapid formation and selective stabilization of synapses for enduring motor memories. Nature, 462(7275), 915.

Tsien, J. T. (2007). The Memory Code. (cover story). Scientific American, 297(1), 52.

Click Here To Order Now!