Mind-Body Problem - Coursework Example

Running Head: THE MIND-BODY PROBLEM The Mind-Body Problem (Your Name) (Your School) Introduction Regarding the mind and body, several issues have been addressed. The most widely discussed issue is that of the nature of the mind relative to the body. For several years now, quite a number of famous Philosophers have attempted to solve this problem but to date, the problem remains. Perhaps what these thinkers have done is to bring us closer to the truth, which is the primary concern of philosophy itself. So what is the nature of this problem? What makes the relation of the mind and body problematic? This study will concern itself with an explication of the problem. It will also establish what species are likely to be conscious, and whether individuals are capable of subjective knowing, and also whether it possible to ever create conscious robots? The Mind-Body Problem Although this problem plagued thinkers for over two thousand five hundred years ago, the most serious discourse can be said to have properly started with the famous French philosopher Rene Descartes. Some people since then have preferred to call it Cartesian Dualism. Several philosophers have discussed this problem for years now. These philosophers however, found themselves taking either of the two main thoughts that have reigned in the world. Dualism as already mentioned is the philosophical view that the mind is found as a different entity apart from the body. This view seems to have been taken by most of the world’s famous philosophers. It has already been indicated that Descartes took this position. There exists a different position however, which has become known as Monism. This view posits that there is only one entity. The mind and the body do not form two distinct realities. This view also has a long history, having started with Parmenides, and recalled by Spinoza in the seventeenth century. According to this view, there is no distinction between the mind and the body. Some of those who take this view reduce the mind to a physical reality. Others assert that only the mind exists. For them, all others are only creations of the mental illusions. Another view by the monists is that there exists, a neutral substance, which forms the basis for both the mind and body. Some scientists seem to find this position to be the most appropriate. Philosophers such as Plato have received acclaim for establishing the line between the ideal and the material world. Majority of those who addressed this problem did not have a clear vision of the immensity of the problem. They addressed it in some way nonetheless. Descartes was interested in establishing a system of thinking that would eliminate the problem that philosophy has always tried to solve. One problem that Descartes found himself deeply entrenched into was the relation between his thinking and his being. He established a system that was aimed at doubting everything in order to establish whether anything could be knowable beyond any reasonable doubt. This kind of doubt was only provisional. It was doubt applied as a means to an end; and the end for him was knowledge that cannot be doubted. In this process, one thing that he established was that he could not doubt that he was involved in a cognitive process in his doubt. For him that seemed to be the surest thing. He could not refute the fact that he was thinking. He therefore concluded with his famous dictum; “I think therefore, I am.” This to say triggered a great interest in many philosophers, to whom he seemed to have clarified the weight of the problem. These now sought to understand how a relationship could be sustained between two essentially distinct realities. Today this problem has persisted, but thanks to Descartes we at least understand it. The mind does not have a material nature. The body on the other hand is material, and is limited in nature. It is subject to corruption, and is even possible to transform into something else after decay. The mind does not have a form, because it is immaterial. Decomposition cannot therefore, be said of the mind. This opens us to what can be said to be one of the most difficult philosophical issues of our time. How is it possible to bring together into a relational unity, a reality that does not have a form, or occupy space-the mind, with something that is material, is in every way limited, and is even subject to decay? This is a very serious problem. Perhaps most of those who have not yet been introduced to the problem never even consider it. To them it is not an issue. How is such a relation even possible? In this discourse, it is important to distinguish between the brain and the mind. Several people often do not make this difference. The brain is a physical reality. It is found inside of the skull, with the function of causing bodily responses that are initiated mainly by the senses, but which are informed by the mind (Herbert, 1967). The two are not synonymous. They are as distinct as is the mind from the body. In other words, we are entangled in a relationship in which one entity causes the other and vice versa. The big deal is that this relationship is between two things that seem totally incompatible, because one is known to be material, while the other cannot even be fully understood because its nature is very elusive. We can only speculate about it. Descartes hypothesized that the brain and the mind are involved in a relationship. The two he said, are connected at the pineal gland. This however, he was unable to explain, because there still remains the original problem, which is the possibility of compatibility between the pineal gland-physical, and the non-physical mind. If we critically look at this problem, we realize that it not only leaves us with the question of the relationship to answer, but with also with another interesting question of knowledge, or the possibility of it. Who is capable of knowledge? Who can claim to know? Consciousness in Subjective Analysis In consciousness, the central figure is the self. We cannot talk of consciousness without the conscious self. In so doing, we find ourselves into the issue of subjectivity (Levine, 1983). This calls in the possibility of knowing. As a matter of fact, a definition of consciousness is not an easy one to coil. What makes it hard is the fact that whatever we know is an aspect of our consciousness. We therefore lack a point from which to refer in our definition of the word. One thing that we are sure of is that consciousness involves the intellect. The intellect is actively involved in the process of being present to one’s thought processes. A reflection on the question; which species are likely to be conscious, may help us more. As already mentioned, consciousness is a faculty of the subject that knows. What this means is that one ought to have the capacity for knowledge in order to be conscious (Block et al., 1998). But it also means that one must be conscious that they are conscious. This presents us with a more serious problem than it seems to be. If as already seen, consciousness is an intellectual function; it means that only species that have this intellectual capacity are capable of consciousness. However, how can one know that they are conscious? Kant was only too aware of this problem, when he attempted to answer the question of the possibility of knowledge. He addressed this problem in this way. The self is totally different from the reality. If then consciousness involves the awareness of a certain reality, is it possible to know reality, which is totally different from the self. Kant saw that this is not possible, because when one says I know a certain thing, that person uses his/her mind. He/she creates certain thoughts around that thing which they are concerned with, which not to mention exists even without the mind-independently, and then comes up with a conclusion that they know reality (Carruthers, 2004). This is what they mean when they say they are conscious of something. Kant therefore would argue that one cannot be conscious of reality, because it is not possible to know reality as it really is. Kant reduces knowing to the subjective. Descartes on the other hand would say that it is possible to know reality. But the only reality that can be fully conscious of is the reflecting self, because this forms the foundation on which all knowledge is possible. All else can be brought into doubt. It means therefore that one can only be conscious of the thinking self. Descartes reduces consciousness to the thinking self. Lonergan offers us what seems as a modest approach. Lonergan recognized the difficulty of the problem of consciousness, but rather than conclude that it is not possible to gain consciousness, he spoke of the process of consciousness as being a procedural one. We gain insight into what is given to us through our senses and this opens up the possibility for knowing to us. This happens in an instance, and then we grasp the true meaning of reality. We become conscious of things and of ourselves. But how can we determine that a particular non-human species or even another human has subjective experiences? In an attempt to answer this question our claims must be modest. This study does not in any way claim to have established conclusively, the solutions to this problem, rather, it only adds to the many thoughts that have already been in place for centuries, while at the same time invoking those thoughts in an attempt to gain a deeper understanding. When for instance one person sees the color green, do others experience it in the same way? Do others see the green that the first person sees, or do they experience it in a different way? Can animals have this experience? This is complex. When we experience greenness, we see it in relation to the concrete reality in which that green resides (Searle, 1980). This is to say that if we say that this car is green, greenness is abstracted from the car, which is green. Only a rational being is capable of this kind of process, because irrational beings cannot comprehend concepts. When a horse sees grass, it sees it in relation to its need. For it grass is food; this is rational. If then this is the case, the ability to distinguish between what is food and what is not food for the horse is instinctual, rather than rational. Any animal as well as human beings do not need to think in order to know that they are hungry. As a matter of fact, when one is hungry, thinking is often not very prominent. Sensual experiences are common to both human and non-human species, but human species go a step or two above sensation (Jackson, 1986). Empiricists all contended that all knowing commences with experience. As far as experience is concerned, both human beings and animals are there. With the advance in technology, science has managed to come up with several inventions. However the possibility of a functional system similar to that of the animals is yet to be created. It could be possible to create a system that does most of what animals do, provided that this system is programmed to perform those functions. The key word here is the word most, because the possibility of such a creation would mean that another animal has been created. Such a system would not be spontaneous like in the animals, because it will only respond to the programs installed. This makes it only a robot, and as it has already been established, it is impossible to create a conscious robot, because a lot is involved in the process of consciousness (Chalmers, 1996). Conclusion This study has been concerned with very serious issues in the world of reason. The problem of the Mind-Body problem still remains largely unsolved. This study has presented some of the philosophers and their views regarding the Mind-Body problem. Both of the positions discussed by this study have brought us more light, but this problem presents a situation similar to that of the Biblical Moses, who was allowed to have knowledge of where he wanted to go, but was never allowed to go there. But this is precisely the nature of philosophy. It invites us to the truth, but never allows us a complete grasp of it, perhaps due to its immensity. References Block, N., Flanagan, O., & Guzeldere, G. (1998). The Nature of Consciousness. Cambridge MA: Mit Press Carruthers, P. (2004). The Nature of Mind. London: Routledge Chalmers, D. (1996). The Conscious Mind: In Search of a Fundamental Theory. Retrieved October 29, 2009 from http://consc.net/book/tcm.html Herbert, F. (1967). The Mental and the Physical: The Essay and a Postscript. Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science. Vol. 2: 400-498 Jackson, F. (1986).What Mary didn’t Know. Journal of Philosophy. Vol. 83 (5): 291-295 Levine, J. (1983). Materialism and Qualia: The Explanatory Gap. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly. Vol. 64 (4): 354-361 Searle, J. (1980). Minds, Brains, and Programs. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences. Vol. 3: 416-425 Read More

This kind of doubt was only provisional. It was doubt applied as a means to an end; and the end for him was knowledge that cannot be doubted. In this process, one thing that he established was that he could not doubt that he was involved in a cognitive process in his doubt. For him that seemed to be the surest thing. He could not refute the fact that he was thinking. He therefore concluded with his famous dictum; “I think therefore, I am.” This to say triggered a great interest in many philosophers, to whom he seemed to have clarified the weight of the problem.

These now sought to understand how a relationship could be sustained between two essentially distinct realities. Today this problem has persisted, but thanks to Descartes we at least understand it. The mind does not have a material nature. The body on the other hand is material, and is limited in nature. It is subject to corruption, and is even possible to transform into something else after decay. The mind does not have a form, because it is immaterial. Decomposition cannot therefore, be said of the mind.

This opens us to what can be said to be one of the most difficult philosophical issues of our time. How is it possible to bring together into a relational unity, a reality that does not have a form, or occupy space-the mind, with something that is material, is in every way limited, and is even subject to decay? This is a very serious problem. Perhaps most of those who have not yet been introduced to the problem never even consider it. To them it is not an issue. How is such a relation even possible?

In this discourse, it is important to distinguish between the brain and the mind. Several people often do not make this difference. The brain is a physical reality. It is found inside of the skull, with the function of causing bodily responses that are initiated mainly by the senses, but which are informed by the mind (Herbert, 1967). The two are not synonymous. They are as distinct as is the mind from the body. In other words, we are entangled in a relationship in which one entity causes the other and vice versa.

The big deal is that this relationship is between two things that seem totally incompatible, because one is known to be material, while the other cannot even be fully understood because its nature is very elusive. We can only speculate about it. Descartes hypothesized that the brain and the mind are involved in a relationship. The two he said, are connected at the pineal gland. This however, he was unable to explain, because there still remains the original problem, which is the possibility of compatibility between the pineal gland-physical, and the non-physical mind.

If we critically look at this problem, we realize that it not only leaves us with the question of the relationship to answer, but with also with another interesting question of knowledge, or the possibility of it. Who is capable of knowledge? Who can claim to know? Consciousness in Subjective Analysis In consciousness, the central figure is the self. We cannot talk of consciousness without the conscious self. In so doing, we find ourselves into the issue of subjectivity (Levine, 1983). This calls in the possibility of knowing.

As a matter of fact, a definition of consciousness is not an easy one to coil. What makes it hard is the fact that whatever we know is an aspect of our consciousness. We therefore lack a point from which to refer in our definition of the word. One thing that we are sure of is that consciousness involves the intellect. The intellect is actively involved in the process of being present to one’s thought processes. A reflection on the question; which species are likely to be conscious, may help us more.

As already mentioned, consciousness is a faculty of the subject that knows. What this means is that one ought to have the capacity for knowledge in order to be conscious (Block et al., 1998). But it also means that one must be conscious that they are conscious. This presents us with a more serious problem than it seems to be.

Read More