Philosophy of the Mind: Aristotle and Schwartz - Essay Example

Bara William Philosophy 204 Oakland 3/21 Introduction The philosophy of mind studies the nature of mental phenomena such as thought, feelings, consciousness and perception and their relation to physical body, particularly the brain. The mental causation (mind-body) problem is one issue in the philosophy of mind which has been attracting debate among philosophers as to what really causes things to happen; mental properties or physical properties. What cannot be disputed is that we do cause things to happen; for example, our sensory perceptions tells us that we are hungry and we react by going for food or we usually walk to remain healthy. What is in question is whether it is the mind/soul that makes us do things or it is the physical body. It is also a question of whether the mind (consciousness, or agent intellect) and body (matter) are one or distinct since it is the physical body that performs the functions. Materialists believe that “everything in the world is made of physical matter and everything does what it does because of laws that govern physical matter or laws of physics” (Dardis, 2008, nap). As such, what makes things happen in the world according to materialists, are physical properties and as such, the mind is physical. Aristotle rejects this view as he believes the mind or agent intellect is “separate, inviolable and unmixed” with matter (Caston, 2006, p. 318). The mind thus has non-physical properties. He is also a strong emergentist as he believes in the hierarchical arrangement of souls with each level of hierarchy supervening upon substance of preceding level (supervenience) and in a downward causation. Jeffrey M Schwartz being an emergent dualist on the other hand believes that mental phenomena are in some respects non-physical. This essay will evaluate the views of Aristotle and Schwartz on the nature of mental causation in order to draw out their areas of similarities and differences. Aristotle (384-322 BC) Aristotle is of the view that the soul is identical to the body and also inseparable from the body just like wax and seal and that the souls and minds are ways bodies are organized. In his book On the Soul written 350 B.C.E Aristotle defines a soul as the actuality of a natural body whereby the body is the subject matter (Book II, Part 1). This is due to the fact that it is the property exhibited by the body. Just as a statue is made from Bronze, Bronze being the material and the statue being the final form, so is a soul to the body. The soul (physical reality or brain) thus is the form of the body or the primary substance and the body is the matter of the soul. The body is matter in the sense that it consists of flesh and bones and parts of this kind are matter (Aristotle, Metaphysics, Book V part 10). The soul has various faculties such as nutrition, perception and mind. The mind for Aristotle is a faculty of the soul which is not reducible to bodily properties. By virtue of the soul being the first actuality of a body, the body depends on it for its organization. In this case, the soul is not a body but belongs to a body hence it cannot exist independent of the body but rather depends on the physical body for survival (Aristotle, Book II, Part 1). However, this does not apply to the mind which is capable of functioning without a body. Since the soul is inseparable from the body, Aristotle does not believe that the soul (brain) is eternal; rather, it perishes as the body perishes. The agent intellect (mind) on the other hand, is “immortal and eternal” although it emerges from the brain (Caston, 2006, p. 338). Aristotle’s philosophy of mind is based on the doctrine of hylomorphism which views matter and form as coexistent. This doctrine is based on four causes which make us know of a thing. These include: material, formal, efficient and final cause. These are the explanations that should be given for existence of a thing. Material cause for Aristotle represents that from which something is generated. For example, Bronze is material for statue. The formal cause is the form or shape of the thing being made or statue in Aristotle’s case. The efficient cause is the primary source of change or that from which the change or resting first begins such as the adviser of action or artisan who has knowledge of making statues. The final cause or the end is that for the sake of which a thing is such as the statue or health in the case of walking (Metaphysics, Book V, Part 2). This end must be good and it is also a cause in that it is the sake for which other things come to be. Nature is the primary material or essence of natural objects. Substance is the cause of being of simple bodies as the soul is of the being of an animal while potency is the source of change. The idea of causes is based on the belief that the natural world of living things is constantly changing and these changes need to be explained. Aristotle thus argues that all the four causes should enter in the explanation of something but he also acknowledges that there are several causes of the same thing and that things can be causes of one another (Metaphysics, Book V, Part 2). As concerns matter and forms, the soul is the hylomorphic form of a viable organism. It is the substance or forms the essence of a body. Matter (body) is that which produces change or the efficient cause while the soul is the formal cause (form or shape) as well as the end of the change. Since Aristotle argues that the form and the end are the same as that which produces change, this only means that the soul and the body are the same. In other words, the soul and body are identical. Aristotle claims that the soul or its parts are prior to the concrete animal (Book V, Part 8-10). The body and its parts are posterior to the essential substance hence it is not the substance but the concrete thing that is divided into parts as its matter. Aristotle stipulates that some parts are neither prior nor posterior but dominant such as the heart or brain and that all parts must exist as one and they are continuous by nature. By virtue of this, ideas cannot exist separately (Metaphysics, Part 14). The mind on the other hand, can assume any form being experienced and has unique ability to become a blank slate or formless and immaterial or whatever is thinkable; it is nothing until it has thought (Book XII, Part 4). A blank slate or Tabula rasa is a term often used by empiricists like John Locke to argue that at birth, the mind is empty or not born with innate ideas but gains knowledge through experience or sense perception. However, it can be traced back to Aristotle On the Soul where he regarded it as “unscribed tablet” to explain what happens in the mind. He argues that thought is the most excellent of things and it is divine. Using hylomorphism, he argues that thinking is one with object of its thought (Book XII, Part 4). The mind is the part of the soul by which it knows and understands. Since the mind is intelligent and strategizes, it can influence structures and functions of the brain. This is similar to Schwartz’s rewiring of the brain of patients with obsessive compulsive disorder believing that the mind can influence the brain (Schwartz & Begley, 2002). Even if one has brain, it thinks only if the mind is made like its object by being affected by it. That is, if the mind has the capacity to think. He therefore, does not think that mental states are brain states but are superior to brains. Jeffrey M Schwartz Schwartz adopts an emergent dualist conception of the mind. He believes the mind and brain are distinct and that the mind can influence the brain. This is evidenced by his use of cognitive behavioral therapy that results in change of behavior of patients by changing some aspects of their brains (Schwartz & Begley, 2002). Schwartz is antimaterialist as he does not think that the mind is a physical property but nonphysical. He also believes that the brain has non-physical properties. Schwartz’s philosophy of mind is based on observation and treatment of patients with Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD). Through brain scanning, he realized that some regions of the brain have abnormal activity patterns that make patients to behave abnormally. He thus introduced the four step activities to remodel the brain and make patients behave normally. The first is relabeling whereby patients are made aware that their hands are clean and not an illusion. The second is reattribution of the dirty hands to brain malfunction. Thirdly, patients refocus their actions and thoughts from hand washing to other activities and finally, they revalue the OCD by viewing it as senseless hence are relieved of their symptoms. In this sense, the mind is distinct from the brain and does not depend on brain to act or result in causation; it has a life of its own. Through this process, the conscious effort of the patient’s mind rewires the brain circuitry thus shaping it causing patients to differentiate illusions from reality. Similarities and differences Aristotle and Schwartz both believe that mind is more than matter; that is the soul/mind is more than the body, particularly the brain. The ability of Schwartz’s patients’ mind to rewire brain circuitry is similar to Aristotle’s notion of causation whereby the soul is deemed to have formal causal power to organize the body/brain. Just as Aristotle’s four causations: material, formal, efficient and final or end causations that result in formation of a complete being or organized body, so does Schwartz use the four steps (relabeling, reattribution, refocus, revalue) in the scanning technique to organize the brain of patients by modifying thoughts. This ability of the mind to affect or control the brain and also the notion that the mind can exist independently for both Aristotle and Schwartz means that the mind is more than matter. Like Aristotle, Schwartz believes that the mind is generated by the brain hence the mind relies on the brain for its existence and most of its functions. The mind for Aristotle is generated by the brain in that the mind cannot function without thoughts; it is a blank slate unless it has capacity to think (Aristotle, Book XII, Part 4). Schwartz also believes the modification of brain came from ‘mindful attention’ or conscious and purposive thoughts or actions (Schwartz & Begley, 2002). Just like Aristotle’s blank slate, Schwartz also argues that the neutral circuits that rewired the brain are not laid down early in life and become entrenched or fixed, rather they emerge over time as the brain remains plastic throughout life. This is what Schwartz regarded as neuroplasticity. The main point of difference between materialists and emergentists like Aristotle and Scwartz is the nature of causation. There is no argument that the mind emerges from the brain; what is in dispute is whether the mind can affect the brain. For materialists, mentation is the product of brain processes. Since the mind emerges from the brain materialists argue that there is no way the mind can affect the brain except through the brain but the brain can affect the mind. They thus presuppose bottom-up causation where the brain first affects the mind. For Aristotle and Schwartz, top-down causation operates prior to bottom-up causation (Caston, 2006, p. 325; Scwartz & Begley, 2002). Aristotle argues that “although higher-level states are determined by the lower-level states it has, causal powers of lower-level states themselves are not sufficient to explain the result” (Caston, 2006.p. 325). Instead, mental states or higher-level states have emergent causal powers thus are causally responsible and are not reducible to lower-level ones regardless of whether they supervene upon them. Both also believe that the mind is non-physical. However, Schwartz differs from Aristotle in that he considers the brain to have non-physical properties. They also differ in that Aristotle thinks the mind/soul and body are inseparable and identical while Schwartz believes the mind is distinct from the brain. Conclusion Debate on whether it is the mental or physical properties that cause things to happen has been ongoing among philosophers. Materialists have long held the views that all things are caused by physical properties hence mental properties are irrelevant. However, emergentists like Aristotle and Schwartz view mental properties as the source of causation. For them, the mind (mental states) are non-physical and more than matter (body or brain/physical reality) as although they emerge from the brain, they have the ability to influence the structure and functioning of the brain and can exist independently of the body. However, they differ in that Aristotle believes the brain has physical properties and that the mind/soul and body are identical while Schwartz believes the brain is non-physical and that the mind is distinct from body. References Aristotle (350 B.C.E) Metaphics. Trans. W.D Ross. Retrieved 28 February 2015, from http://www.classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/metaphysics.I.i.htm Aristotle (350 B.C.E). On The Soul. Trans. J.A Smith. Retrieved 28 February 2015, from http://www.classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/soul.html Caston, Victor (2006). Aristotle’s Psychology. In: Mary, L.G and Pierre, P (eds). A Companion to Ancient Philosophy. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Dardis, A (2008). Mental Causation: The Mind-Body Problem. New york: Columbia University Press. Schwartz, J.M and Begley, S (2002) The Mind and the Brain: Neuroplasticity and the Power of Mental Force. New York: Regan Books. Read More