The Dualist Theory - Term Paper Example

Dualist theory and its causal interaction objections Introduction Dualism brings out the idea that there are two basic categories of items or principles, for some particular domain. These items or principles are assumed to be independent and more or less equal forces in that domain. The dualist theory indicates that the mental and physical aspects of a human are radically different items. This theory answers the ‘mind-body problem’; that is, what is the relationship between mental properties (mind) and physical properties (body)? (Duncan, & Steven p 47) Mental properties do not attribute to typical physical objects but involve consciousness. Physical properties are public; that is, in principle, they are equally observable by everyone. Others that are not directly observable by the ‘naked’ eye are made equally observable to the same degree with scientific equipments (Gombay, & André p 14). The mind-body problem is concerned with the relationship that exists between these two properties. It is broken down to the ontological question and the causal question. The ontological question tries to distinguish these two properties and evaluate whether they are distinct of the other. This assignment is concerned with the causal question which is: How do the physical states and mental states influence each other? This was the point of uncertainty among Descartes and his contemporaries. They were not concerned on where the interaction took place, but how two different aspects of a human could interact. They concluded that all causation was natural (dependent on God) except for that between mind and body. A component of the varieties of dualism is the causal interactions that object the fact that the mind and body are different realms. Causal interaction objections bring about the question: If mind and body are different realms, how are they related? Rene Descartes came up with the classical formulation of interactionism. He had no satisfactory account of how the mental and physical properties of a human being interact; however, he stated that it occurs in the pineal gland within the brain (Gombay, & André p 63). DISCUSSION Dualism involves the mind being contrasted with the body, and different aspects of the mind have been the centre of attention. The dualist theory is a doctrine in the philosophy of mind. This theory argues that the mind is imprisoned in the body, but there is no clear account of what binds it to the body. Their difference in nature is a mystery considering how different they are in nature. Mechanism science brought about a major crisis that inhibited dualism. The mechanist claim that the world is ‘closed under physics,’ that is; everything happens in accordance with the laws of physics (Rupert, & Rupert p 95). Many philosophers found it implausible for dualists to claim that the conscious sense of understanding has nothing to do with the way humans respond. The causal interaction problem forms the main objection to dualism. This objection views the mind and body aspects of a human as properties that interact and influence each other (interactionism). As a feature of everyday experience, the physical world influences individuals’ experiences through their senses whereas their thinking influences their physical actions. There seems to be a great natural prejudice in favor of the causal interaction objections. These objections make it obvious that mental and physical properties of a human causally interact. Interaction faces an objection in that; mental properties lack the communality necessary for interaction. This objection to internationalism rests on a ‘billiard ball’ picture of causation. It is countered by the fact that; if causation is by an ethereal force, there would be no problem in principle when the mind and body interact. Interactionism tends to be in conflict with some basic principles of physical science. These principles are somehow irrelevant as they claim that the total amount of energy in a causally isolated system remain constant. Interactionism denies that the human body is an isolated system rendering the principles irrelevant. Using an example, for Y to be a cause of Z, Y must contribute something to Z. This can be interpreted as; the only way a mental event can contribute to a physical one would be to contribute some feature of it not already determined by a physical event. Behavior, therefore comprises of both physical and mental causes (Rupert, & Rupert p 47). A philosophical objection of causal interaction is; where does interaction occur? Mental events causally interact with brain events in the brain. This means that; mental events are located in the brain where the causal interaction occurs. These mental events have no material features and so no spatial location. Dualistic interactionism tends to get caught in a contradiction because; it denies that mental events occur anywhere whereas interaction requires that mental events be located in the brain. The real standoff point is that causally interacting activities have some spatial location. It is, therefore, logically possible for non-spatially-located mental events and spatially located material events to causally interact, though the interaction would be mysterious and puzzling. This mystery, though not definite, count against dualistic interactionism. A second philosophical objection is: How can interaction occur? Mental events and bodily events have different kinds of causal abilities. According to this objection, nothing mental exerts physical force; therefore, material events cannot be causally affected by anything mental. The causal efficacy of the material body is as a result of its physical force. This objection concludes by stating that; if dualism is correct, there is no mental and physical interaction. If the mental and material events lack features that would facilitate causal interaction, dualism would not influence such interaction at all. Causal interaction can only occur if one event induces causal steps in the other. No restrictions can be imposed upon things that can causally interact. Mental and physical events should interact regardless of whether they are different in kind or because they do not share causally relevant features. One event is a proximate cause of another event when there is no further event intermediate between them causally. Considering this fact, one event directly affects another instead of acting through some additional event. Proximate causation cannot be explained, because it is only clear on how one event causes another when the cause brings about the effect by means of some intervening event. For example, a desire to have a glass of water makes a person reach for a glass. The desire causally affects the brain which in turn causally affects the arm. It cannot be explained how the desire affects the brain as it is a case of proximate causation. The fact remains that, explanation comes to an end with proximate causation. This response enables the dualist to ‘cushion’ the effects of the objection, making the mind-body interaction more mysterious. Mental events, which are wholly immaterial and have no spatial location, interact causally with material entities in a manner and location that is totally inexplicable. These considerations do not refute dualistic interactionism, but assist in diminishing the overall reasonableness of the theory. The causal interaction objection is not convincing. The only explanation available to this objection is that; mental and physical events interact in proximate causation that is not itself explicable, but must be accepted as a fact as it is. The dualist theory does not have sufficient resources within its own theory to explain mind-body interaction. This objection only explains that it happens in an inexplicable manner and leaves it at that. With such an outcome on interaction, arguments are not compelling hence prompting researchers to abandon the objection and search for a more satisfactory theory (Clarke, & Desmond p 75). The Modal argument, which has its roots in Descartes, strengthens the dualist theory. It formulates why human minds constitute different entities from their bodies. By imagining that one’s mind might exist without the body, it conceives that a human mind might exist without the body making it possible for the mind to exist without the body, concluding that; one’s mind is a different entity from one’s body. The rationale of this argument is a move from imagination to the real possibility. Another aspect of dualism in casual interaction is epiphenomenalism. Mental events are thought to be caused by physical events, but have no casual influence on the physical. As in the case involving the desire to drink water that makes someone to pick a glass, it ought to be equally mysterious how the physical can produce something non-physical. Epiphenomenalism, through its objections, indicates that conscious states modify human behavior in certain ways, and these states are important from an evolutionary perspective. Only the brain state associated with a particular feeling evolves; the sensation is only a by-product of evolution. CONCLUSION The mental state is characterized by subjectivity, and intentionality. Physical objects are observable from the right location. Philosophers suggest that minds not be ordinary occupants of physical space. Physical objects cause causal relations to each other while mental states have causal powers and require events that feature the basic causal interaction steps to determine behavior. The nature of the mind is both queer and elusive. Mental causation is fundamental to the concept of actions performed intentionally. Mental states cause a physical reaction, but their explanation is not obvious. There are specific marks unique of mental states that pose difficulties for their ability to exercise casual interactions such as; the problem of spatial location and conservation, the problem of exclusion, and the problem of externalism (Rupert, & Rupert p 58). Philosophers concluded that dualism is of much importance than monism (Clarke, & Desmond p 43). They acknowledged the fact that there are two fundamental items that complete a human being. The relationship between the mind and the body is in itself inexplicable due to the inherent composition aspects that exist in each one of them. They argued that for interaction occurs where the two are in a similar spatial location. This argument is subject to criticism as it conflicts the theory of how the moon causes a gravitational force in the oceans whereas the two are miles apart. Although the above example diverts from the dualist theory, it tries to point out the incompleteness of this theory. Philosophers, therefore, have to come up with convincing arguments that tend to show the causal interaction between the mental state and the physical state. References Clarke, Desmond M... Descartess theory of mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005. Print. Duncan, Steven M.. How free will works: a dualist theory of human action. Eugene, Or.: Wipf & Stock, 2011. Print. Gombay, André. Descartes. Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub., 2007. Print. Rupert, Rupert D.. Cognitive systems and the extended mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009. Print. Read More