MIND BODY PROBLEM
INTRODUCTION
The
quest for certainty of knowledge has
prevailed through the history of philosophy
and has variously been attempted by several philosophers like Plato, Socrates, Augustine etc. however
major side effect came up when a
16th century philosopher Rene Descartes
came up with his maxim cogito ego sum which means I think therefore I am. He believed in the certainty of his existence
supported by his thinking faculty; the mind.
unlike Plato he believed the mind
was superior but not prisoner to the body.
by defining the mind and the body
he unknowingly attracted the question : how do the mind influence the
body and vice versa?
The attempt to solve this busy question
brought forth what is known as The philosophy of mind. The course of this paper
shall be to give a description analysis and implications of various theories
that have arisen in response to answering the question. Through the
implications of this schools of thought, we derive the necessity or why
Philosophy of Mind.
In a view to develop the content of ideas
reflected in this paper, an exposition will thus provided, which includes a
body of introduction, What is Mind, what is philosophy of mind, various theories
and implications, some school of thought and then conclusion.
MIND
Is a concept developed by self-conscious humans trying to
understand what is the self that is conscious and how does that self relate to
its perceived world. Most broadly, mind is the organized totality of the mental
processes of an organism and the structural and functional components on which they
depend. Taken more narrowly, as it often is in scientific studies, mind denotes
only cognitive activities and functions, such as perceiving, attending,
thinking, problem solving, language, learning, and memory. Aspects of mind are also attributed to
complex animals, which are commonly considered to be conscious. Studies in
recent decades suggest strongly that the great apes have a level of
self-consciousness as well. Many Philosophers have long search to know what is
mind and its relationship to matter and the body. The Greek philosophers Plato and Aristotle between them defined the poles (monism and dualism) of much
of the later discussion in the Western world on the question of mind and much
of the ambiguity as well. Based on his world model that the perceived
world is only a shadow of the real world of ideal Forms, Plato, a dualist,
conceived of mind (or reason) as the facet of the tripartite soul that can know
the Forms. The soul existed
independent of the body, and its highest aspect, mind, was immortal. Aristotle,
apparently both a monist and a dualist, insisted in The Soul that soul was unitary, that soul and
body are aspects of one living thing, and that soul extends into all living
things. Yet in other writings from another period of his life, Aristotle
expressed the dualistic view that the knowing function of the human soul, the
mind, is distinctively immaterial and eternal.[1]
WHAT
IS PHILOSOPHY OF MIND
Philosophy of mind, is the
branch of philosophy that studies the nature of the mind, mental events, mental
functions, mental properties and consciousness, and their relationship to the
physical body. The question of how the mind relates to the body, that is
the-mind-body problem is commonly seen as the central issue in philosophy of
mind, although there are other issues concerning the nature of the mind that do
not involve its relation to the physical body.[2]
VARIOUS THEORIES IN PHILOSOPHY OF MIND
CARTESIAN DUALISM
Almost 2000 years after
Plato and Aristotle reasoned that the human mind or soul could not be
identified with the physical body, Rene Descartes reinforced this concept and
gave it a name, dualism. The word “Cartesius[3]”
is simply the Latin form of the name Descartes. Consequently, Cartesian dualism
is simply Descartes concept of dualism. Descartes’ famous saying epitomizes the
dualism concept. He said, “cogito ergo sum,” “I think therefore I am.”
Descartes held that the immaterial mind and the material body are two
completely different types of substances and that they interact with each
other. He reasoned that the body could be divided up by removing a leg or arm,
but the mind or soul were indivisible. This
concept is difficult to accept for those with a secular humanist, materialist,
and evolutionist worldview because accepting it, is accepting supernaturalism.
DUALISM
Dualism is the concept that
our mind is more than just our brain. This concept entails that our mind has a
non-material, spiritual dimension that includes consciousness and possibly an
eternal attribute. One way to understand this concept is to consider our self
as a container including our physical body and physical brain along with a
separate non-physical mind, spirit, or soul[4].
The mind, spirit, or soul is considered the conscious part that manifests
itself through the brain in a similar way that picture waves and sound waves
manifest themselves through a television set. The picture and sound waves are
also non-material just like the mind, spirit, or soul.
Dualism, it is a view that
implies that there are two separate and different substances that make up a
human being: mind and body. was a concept coined, but not originated, by Rene
Descartes. The concept was that our mind is more than just our physical brain.
He did not originate the concept because the Bible teaches that we are more
than our body and brains. It teaches that we have a separate mind, spirit, or soul.
The mind is at times equated with soul, with Plato and Aristotle, that the term
"nous" is used to describe the part of human being that survives
death[5].
Another argument is based
upon what happens when the brain is damaged. When damage occurs from physical
trauma, drug abuse, or pathological diseases our mental powers are always
compromised. The argument holds that if the brain and the mind were actually
separate, our mental powers would not be comprised. This is a pretty good
argument. However, it also depends upon the presumption that the supernatural
does not exist and that God does not have a reason for letting our brain limit
our mental function while we are living.
The arguments for the existence of a brain/mind dualism are strong[6]. Some arguments can be made to refute the strong affirmative evidence, but they are dependent upon an anti-supernatural presumption.
The arguments for the existence of a brain/mind dualism are strong[6]. Some arguments can be made to refute the strong affirmative evidence, but they are dependent upon an anti-supernatural presumption.
INTERACTIONALISM
The problem with Descartes'
definition of mind and body is that he seems to be describing two mutually
exclusive substances. If, in every respect, matter differs from mind, how are
the two meant to interact? Descartes needs to explain this because, unlike
other theories which we will look at later, there is meant to be a causal
interaction between the two substances, in other words, mind influences matter and
vice versa. This is called interactionism. However, the difficulty here is how
a material thing our body can be
influenced by a non-material thing our
mind. By Descartes’ definition mind is immaterial, having no dimension,
mass, etc. But then how can something without any physical effects influence a
physical thing? According to current scientific thinking, physical objects are
only affected by physical forces[7].
OCCASIONALISM
Some philosophers after the death of
Descartes, recognised this problem and tried to address it, whilst still
holding to the dualist view. Malebranche’s suggestion was that neither body nor
mind were causally related, but were in fact connected by divine interaction.
So, whenever we wish to blink our eyes, for instance, God must intervene to
cause the body to obey. Similarly,
whenever the body feels pain, God must cause that sensation to occur in the
mind. It has long been considered a rather odd viewpoint that seems unable
to exist outside of a theological perspective. Even within it, however, there
are problems: if God is responsible for all seeming causal interactions, is he
also responsible for evil doings? This would make him the intent agent in
murders, crimes[8], etc.
PRE-ESTABLISHED
HARMONY
Is a theory which says that whatever a man
want to do, God has already design it, for instance if one want to study
psychology in University of Ibadan, God has already established it, that person
will study psychology in University of Ibadan. This has a problem, because its
eliminate human free will. It was
introduced into philosophy by G. von Leibniz in 1695
DOUBLE ASPECT THEORY
Spinoza argued that, there
were not really two substances, but two attributes of the same substance. Thus
reality was therefore a case of two perspectives on the same thing: physical
matter as perceived through the senses and mental stuff as experienced with the
mind. The implication of this, is that it leaves the nature of this common
substance undefined. If matter and mind are only attributes of it, what then is
it? Another problem is that the theory requires that mind and body correspond and
yet, is this the case? Things seem to happen in the body that the mind is not
aware of, nor can we really say whether there is always a corresponding mental
process for every physical one[9].
EPIPHENOMENALISM
As Cartesian dualism argues that there
is a two-way interaction between mental and physical substances, not all forms
of dualism agree. Epiphenomenalism argues that mental events are caused by or
are a by-product of physical events, but
that the interaction is one-way: mental events cannot affect physical ones. The
analogy often used is that of the smoke that comes from a factory which is a
by-product of its running, but does not actually affect its running. One of the
curious side effects of this theory is that it implies that decision making is
not a mental event. Apart from flying in the face of most common sense
attitudes, this consequence throws up a further problem: how are decisions
made? Is decision making a bodily process? If so, what difference is there
between epiphenomenalism and certain forms of materialism? Epiphenomenalism is
often confused with materialism but this is in fact a misunderstanding. The
reason for this is the way in which the theory classes mental events as
secondary, leading to the view that physical events are primary. While this may
be true, what most people miss is the fact that mental events are said to be
caused by physical events. This being so, mental events cannot be identical
with events, just as smoke cannot be identical with the fire which causes it[10].
MONISM: Its posit that mind
and body are not ontologically different kinds of entities. It was first used
in western philosophy by Parmenides around 5th Century B,C. It was later adopt
by Baruch Spinoza around 17th Century, with George Berley in the 18th Century[11].
The three main monist school of thought
are:
I.
Physicalism (Materialistic Monism): its argues that the mind
is purely physical construct, and will eventually be define by physical theory,
as its evolves continuosly. It has two main types:
a)
Reductive Physicalism, its posit that all
mental states and properties will eventually be defined by scientific ccounts
of physiological processes and states. Under this we have three main types[12]:
i.
BEHAVIOURISM:
Behaviourists
accept psychologist B.F. Skinner’s claims that mental events can be reduced to
stimulus response pairs, and that descriptions of observable behaviour are the
only adequate, scientific way to describe mental behaviour. So, for
behaviourists, all talk about mental events, images, feelings, dreams, desires,
and so on is really either a reference to a behavioural disposition or it is
meaningless. Behaviourists claim that only descriptions of objectively
observable behaviour can be scientific. The believe that any statement about the
internal or private world of individuals may be translated into a statement
about publicly observable actions. For instance, if I say, "I am
happy", this may be translated into a description of my physical state increased
heart rate, smiling, etc. If none of these things were present the behaviourist
would argue then the person is not really happy. Obviously, emotions are not
always accompanied by extravagant outward signs, but even quieter forms of
emotional or mental state must be translatable into some form of physical
condition[13].
ii.
IDENTITY THEORY
The theory
simply states that when we experience something. e.g. pain, this is exactly
reflected by a corresponding neurological state in the brain (such as the
interaction of certain neurons, axons, etc.). From this point of view, your
mind is your brain they
are identical. Though some would argue, the most common sense view
gives rise to all sorts of problems. If mind and body are separate substances,
how do they interact? If mental stuff is immaterial and therefore without
quantity, weight, size, etc. How do we know it exists? As a response to these
problems, certain philosophers have argued that dualist account of mind is
unnecessarily complicated and that the problems it presents can be solved by
adopting a materialist view[14].
iii.
FUNCTIONALISM:
It is currently the most popular and
well-known theory of mind. This is mostly due to the influence of computers on
modern society both in scientific terms and in the popular imagination through
movies, books, etc. As a result, most people presented with the functionalist
perspective though they would probably not know it by that term would find it
common sense[15].
What is the functionalist perspective?
It tries to overshadow both Behaviourism and Identity Theory by taking elements
from both. Like those two theories, It is generally taken to be a materialist
theory. We can claim that brain state are not mental state, Identity theory
supposes that the brain states are identical to mental state. That is, if one
says he is in pain, it is not the same as saying, that the C-fibres in ones brain are firing". But, if mental states and brain
states are identical, shouldn't these two statements mean the same thing? If
not, and certain types of neurological process cannot be matched up with
certain types of mental state, then something over and above simple physical
processes must be taking place. Behaviourism attempts to account for the mind
in terms of actual or possibly observable behaviour. Hence it cannot account
for mental states. Different behaviour can leads to same stimulus, imagine
there is a gunshot, one may chose to run or my chose to ignore it, In other
words, there is no one response that can be linked to the same stimulus. So, if
this is the case, what causes us to behave differently? The non-behaviourist
would answer that it is our beliefs. However, this is a problem for the behaviourist
in that it presupposes something that cannot be explained simply in terms of
actual or possible behaviour. In the same hand, a different stimulus can
produce same responses. It is difficult to say that there is a definite
relationship between a certain type of stimulus and a certain response[16].
For example, someone might smile at someone falling over, seeing a picture or
from hearing a tale whilst someone else might not smile at any of those things.
This mean, there is no certain, one-to-one relationship between a stimulus and
a response. If this is so, must we again say that beliefs are responsible for
this?
MATERIALISM
In philosophy,
materialism is a monistic (everything is composed of the same substance)
ontology. that holds that all that can truly be said to exist is matter; that
fundamentally, everything is material and all phenomena are the result of
material interactions. As a monist ontology, materialism is different from
ontological theories based on dualism (two kinds of substance), or pluralism
(several kinds of substance). In terms of singular explanations of the
phenomenal reality, materialism stands in sharp contrast to idealism, which is
also a monistic ontology that holds that the only thing that can be said to
truly exist is idea, or immaterial substance. It also differs from dual-aspect
monism which suggests there is one reality with two different aspects.
Materialists, thus, deny the existence of God or a spiritual world[17].
b)
Non-Reductive
Physicalism: its argues that, mental states depend on physical states, and
there can be no change in the mental without some change in the physical, thus
they are not reducible to them, even though the brain is all there to the mind,
the words used in describing the mental event cannot be reduced to the language
and lower-level explanations of physical science[18].
There are three main types:
·
Anomalous Monism: it states that
mental events are identical with physical events, but that mental is anomalous. i.e. mental events are not
regulated by strict physical laws.
·
Emergentism: which involves a
layered view of nature, with the layers arranged in terms of increasing
complexity, each agreeing to its own special science.
·
Eliminative
Materialism, state that people's common-sense understanding of the mind,
is hopelessly flawed, and will eventually be eliminated by an alternative,
usually taken to be neuroscience.
II.
Idealism
(Immaterialism or Mentalism), its states that the mind is all that exist, and that
the external world is either mental itself, or an illusion created by the mind. The problem of the interaction
between mind and body, is not a problem at all[19].
III.
Neutral Monism, posit that the
existence consist of one kind of primal
substance, which in itself is neither mental nor physical, but is
capable of mental and physical aspects of attributes[20].
STRONG AND WEAK
AI
Artificial Intelligence (or AI) is the concept that it is
possible for a machine to "think". I say "think" (in speech
marks) because it is debatable whether it is possible for a computer to think
in the same sense as humans do.
The two main varieties of AI are called
"strong" and "weak". Strong AI argues that it is possible
that one day a computer will be invented which can be called a mind in the
fullest sense of the word. In other words, it can think, reason, imagine, etc.,
and do all the things that we currently associate with the human brain. Weak
AI, on the other hand, argues that computers can only appear to think and are
not actually conscious in the same way as human brains are[21].
THE
CHINESE ROOM ARGUMENT
The criticisms implied by
the Turing test are expanded upon by another thought experiment provided by the
American philosopher John Searle. Searle imagines that someone who does not
understand Chinese is placed in a room with an "In" hatch and an
"Out" hatch. Through one hatch come Chinese symbols, which the person
responds to by arranging other Chinese symbols according to rules laid down in
a book and sending them out through the other hatch. If we
imagine that the "In" hatch provides questions in Chinese which the
person "answers" by following rules set out in the book, we have what
Searle considers a certain view of artificial intelligence. But would the
person in the room really be said to understand Chinese? Searle thinks no and
therefore argues that no view of artificial intelligence could ever result in a
truly conscious being (in the human sense) because all that is ever happening
is rule-based activity (which is not how humans work)[22].
QUALIA
Materialist are being criticised, that they fail to account
for the qualitative aspect of the mind. "What it is like to be you"
philosophers called this "Qualia". It is very well to say that brain
states causes consciousness or that functional
states are caused by brain states, but these things do not tell us how the
subject experiences themselves arise. This has a problem because, our
subjective experiences are the most real for us. So, we know what it is to feel
pain, or to remember being at the gym, but the materialist view does not seem
to include this picture. Reason
for this is that it is an objective or third person view whereas the common view is subjective or first person. But does the
fact that the account does not reflective common experience make it wrong?[23]
An argument used against by the materialist
is to state what are the normal thought of as qualitative experiences do not
themselves have any qualities. E.g. seeing a green clothe, the experience that
one have is not "green", our brain is not open and expect to find
"greeness". So since these qualities are not found anywhere, what is
there to stop us accounting for the experience in objective terms? As this
argument makes a valid point, it has not allayed all critics. So the problem of
Qualia and furthermore, the problem of consciousness itself, is perhaps the
next greatest target for materialist conceptions of the mind and remains an
ongoing controversy.
CONSCIOUSNESS
Self-consciousness is the mental activity through which the subject
feels a sense of being or existing as a unique and total individual. Although
it does not obviate the idea of the unconscious, this notion comes out of
reflexive philosophy and its derivatives that hold that the human faculty of
consciousness, apparent to itself and having itself as its object, marks the
primacy of consciousness in the definition of the human psyche. This sense of
identity, this initial subjective stance, is established gradually, being
linked with the general development of the human mind in its relationship to
itself and the outside world. To say one has an experience that is conscious
(in the phenomenal sense) is to say that one is in a state of its seeming to
one some way. In another formulation, to say experience is conscious is to say
that there is something it like for one to have it. Feeling pain and sensing
colours are common illustrations of phenomenally conscious states.
Consciousness has also been taken to consist in the monitoring of one's own
states of mind (e.g., by forming thoughts about them, or by somehow
"sensing" them), or else in the accessibility of information to one's
capacities for rational control or self report[24].
GENERAL IMPLICATION
So far, we have been able to examine the two main
school of thoughts and various theories that concerns Philosophy of Mind and
their implications, to see whether philosophy of mind will give us a positive
proof or negative proof that there is what we called "MIND" or that there
is nothing like "MIND". But we have find out that Philosophy of Mind
has given us both positive and negative proof of the existence of
"MIND".
CONCLUSION
The initial goal of this paper which is to bring to
light the relevance of the philosophy of mind or why we need it in our
contemporary world has largely been achieved in this work. It was attained
through presenting the various intriguing issues being discussed in this
discourse ranging from the traditional issue i.e. mind-body problem and the various
positions, to artificial intelligence and consciousness and their various implications. Like the mind
and body problem which questions the existence, nature and relationship of the
mind with the physical body. This question incited several responses and
positions which have existential values and also widened our cognitive scope.
No doubt, after glancing through the issues in this discourse, we realize that
the Philosophy of Mind has made an immense contribution to our ethical,
epistemological, religious, social and emotional and scientific development.
[1] http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org
[3] http://www.aboutphilosophy.org
[4] Descartes, Meditations II&VI;
[5] Ryle The Concept Of Mind Chapter
1
[8] Donald Davidson, Mental Events;Searle, Why I am Not a Property Dualist
[9] http://www.philosophyonline.co.uk/
[10] Fechner
Gustav, Elements Of Psychophysics
[11]
George Berckeley, A Treaties Concerning
the Principles of Human Knowledge. Edited by Collin M. Turbeyne Indianapollis:
Bobbs-Merill Co, 1957.
[12] Armstrong, The Materialist Theory Of Mind; J.J.C. Smart,"Sensations and Brain
Processes"
[15] Heil, John (2000), Philosophy of Mind, Routledge, Chapter 4: Functionalism and the
Representational Theory of Mind (pp. 87-128)
[17] Heil, John (2000), Philosophy of Mind, Routledge, Chapter 3: Varieties of Materialism
(pp. 53-71)
[19]
George Berckeley, A Treaties Concerning
the Principles of Human Knowledge. Edited by Collin M. Turbeyne Indianapollis:
Bobbs-Merill Co, 1957.
[20] Ibid.
[21] Heil, John (2000), Philosophy of Mind, Routledge, Chapter 4: Functionalism
and the Representational Theory of Mind (pp. 87-128)
[22]
A.M. Turing, Computing Machinery And
Intelligence
[23] P. Churchland, Reduction, Qualia & The Direct Introspection of Brain States
[24]P . Churchland, Reduction, Qualia & The Direct Introspection of Brain States
Comments
Post a Comment