The Perspective of Philosophy of Mind and Psychology - Essay Example

Descartes Argument Descartes Argument The explanations by Descartes on an individual behavior, an external in nature outspreads to an unextended incorporeal entity. It is rather difficult to understand why one would feel committed to his or her being an entity that has a thinking nature and always thinking of some thought or the other. The mind causes the body to do a particular action, from the perspective of philosophy of mind and psychology; is the two fundamental morals drawn from the methodic doubt.

Foremost, that the important thing and the most certain one is that we are a thinking thing. Second, that without any knowledge about anything whatsoever about the nature of the physical matter, including whether we have a body, makes us have an inventory of the functions of the thinking being. If an entity lacks all the corporeal properties, it, therefore, seems necessary for the entity to have some other attributes for it to exist at all. For instance, the nonextended does not help us, as it is only to repeat the action that it is not a corporeal entity.

Therefore, the field narrowed by the psychological characteristics of the only positive “nonphysical” attributes ascribed to an individual (Flanagan, 2007). The external explanations are odd with the empirical science we know psychology to be. Descartes eliminated the psychological characteristics in trying to explain the view that a soul is always conscious or thinking. To this perspective, an entity seems to have unactualized mental dispositions and capacities. It is doubtful that the argument by Descartes is not speaking of the physical organism that may be temporary without certain conscious states while remaining alive and physically capable of the state.

Therefore, the argument of an entity imagined having neither the physical properties nor current conscious states for a period, which is against the laws of physical science. Therefore, with respect to science, it would not be clear to what it would mean to speak of it (Flanagan, 2007). The first law of the thermodynamics that relates a cause to be at least stronger as its effect does not go in line with Descartes views. The reason being that if otherwise taken into account, some of the effect would be recorded in his explanations.

An effect must at least be as its cause in strength. On the other hand, simply some of the case would end up disappear or not be perceived. Descartes gave arguments in his favor. Therefore, his external explanation does not fit with the first law of thermodynamics (Flanagan, 2007). If we can never know if humans have a nonphysical or spiritual aspect, the point of establishing a scientific psychology is relevant. The argument above bases on empiricism as it is imperative in science. It states that the only source of our knowledge come through our senses.

Therefore, this is a contrast to the lone existing view that one’s knowledge derived solely from the power of reason or logical argument seen as rationalism. Hence, empiricism is of the opinion that all the knowledge comes from based on experience. Therefore, the empirical means of gaining knowledge through experience, therefore, becomes the scientific approach, thereby identifying scientific psychology (Flanagan, 2007). Reference Flanagan, O. J. (2007). The science of the mind. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.