So, I wasn't sure wether to post this in General discussion or in Politics, so I'm quite sorry if I've posted this in the wrong place!
Anyways,
I am writing a paper for my philosophy class about Renee Descartes, who, to my understanding, first introduced the idea of mind-body dualism in his Meditations. In case you haven't heared of mind-body dualism, it is the idea that the mind and body are seperate things. Your body is a material, non-thinking object, and your mind is an immaterial, thinking object.
What are your thoughts on this subject?

I am quite intrigued by this question. On one hand, I believe that we are nothing but a bundle of cells, and our emotions and thinking power are soley based on the chemical, and electrical impulses in our brains. I think this shows as we age, as the brain begins to break down, so does the mind, and our cognition.
On the other hand though, I think they are seperate. I've practiced yoga, and in some of my yoga books, (often geared towards buddhist beliefs) They say that the mind and body are seperate, because you can hurt your body, but your mind is safe. Another thing is meditation, I've read in some other buddhist books that you can leave your body through your mind (if that makes any sense).

Thoughts?

I think that the mind is an important part of the body. Yes, you can separate yourself from the physical to a degree, a kind of self-imposed shock if you will, but without your body you have no mind. And no, I'm not talking about being paralyzed. I believe that once your body ceases to exist so does your mind.

We certainly cannot have one without the other!
I believe it was Plato who said that the only way to live, was to die because he seemed to think that the body was just a shell. It wasn't you. I wonder what the other great philosophers thought about it.

Hence the dualism!

As Homer says:
What is mind? No matter. What is matter? Nevermind.

As much as I would like to agree with Plato, I'm too fond of living to 'really live'. His suggestion makes the assumption that there is, beyond doubt, life after death. I remain a sceptic on that.

The brain is just another body part. The mind, as in the thinking process, is just one of the brain's functions. A function is not an object. To say that the process of thinking is an object is like saying that the process of moving your arm is an object. Your mind is not separate from your body; it is just a bodily function.




You can hurt your leg without hurting your arm. You can break your nose without breaking your toe. The only reason why hurting certain parts of your body usually doesn't hurt your mind is because your brain is isolated enough from those locations not to be affected. However, if you rammed a pipe through your brain, your thinking processes and personality would most likely change.

For example, if you injured your frontal lobe, these things could happen:

"* Loss of simple movement of various body parts (Paralysis).
* Inability to plan a sequence of complex movements needed to complete multi-stepped tasks, such as making coffee (Sequencing).
* Loss of spontaneity in interacting with others.
* Loss of flexibility in thinking.
* Persistence of a single thought (Perseveration).
* Inability to focus on task (Attending).
* Mood changes (Emotionally Labile).
* Changes in social behavior.
* Changes in personality.
* Difficulty with problem solving.
* Inability to express language (Broca's Aphasia)."

From http://www.braininjury.com/symptoms.html



It doesn't make any sense, and I have never heard of any real evidence to support it. Whatever those Buddhists experienced is probably yet another brain function that they interpreted as an out of body experience.

Out of body experiences and Near Death Experiences (NDE's) are a phenomenon that is still yet to be explained. The most striking feature in NDE's is how similar they are between peoples of all different religions and cultural backgrounds.

Many people believe that science and spirituality are opposites, but I don't believe that to be the case. As Einstein said: "Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."

My own thoughts on whether or not the mind is separate from the body are as follows:

The body is a physical object for the purpose of interacting with the physical world. The mind (or soul) is not a physical being, and therefore needs the body to interact with reality. Evidence of the body as a sort of "bio-suit" is in the fact that we deteriorate with age. Our brains are like translating mediums between what is deep within and everything outside; when we age it deteriorates, so we lose some of the brain's ability to translate.

That is just one in a long chain of thoughts I have on the matter, but it is the basis for many of the others.

Wonderful topic! I'm already in love with it.

Personally, I think that the mind and the body are two separate things- but should not be separated.

Now when I say mind, to make a complex way of thinking simple Mind will also include (for the sake of this post) the soul.

The reason, for the sake of the post, I will say the soul is the mind is because our thoughts, deeds, etc...that make up our mind and what we do is linked to our soul so completely that it can be hard to tell the two apart (a conversation I had with my father once who believe the soul is only as good as the mind since the soul- like the mind- dies with the body in which it stays in). My thoughts on this are complex and will be touched on briefly later in this post.

SO continuing on: The mind tells the body what to do, how to do it, and why. Everything we are, everything we do, everything we see, feel, experience, is a product of our mind and how we analyze the world. Basically it is not about Nature vs. Nurture, but the two working together: Your mind evolving and changing based on its perception of the world in around a person and the experiences the mind is faced with.

Therefore, you could say we really are nothing at all without our mind.

Now, to move on to the body. The body literally, in my opinion, is just a shell that the mind controls to the best of its ability. At the same time, the body is what feels- and sends those feelings to the mind. The body is like the car, and the driver the one that controls it. Basically: The body, without its mind, is just there.

HOWEVER: can you really disconnect the two?

In life, though I believe you can (as with brain dead patients), it does not mean that I think you should.

Going back to nature vs nurture, as an example. Nature side states that everything we think, feel, etc...is all a product of genetics. Nurture side states that everything we think, feel, etc...is all a product of environment. There is no middle ground for either side. In reality it is the two working together so closely that you can scarcely tell the two apart. It is not even a 50/50 split.

It is the fact that one simply cannot be without the other- at least not in the sense that we know it today. As stated earlier, the brain creates our personality based on both our genes and how our base self interacts with our environment- to put it in the simplest terms possible: From our base self forms our personality due to the interaction of genes and environment and the way in which our brain interrupts both.

The same might be said of mind-body dualism. Yes, you CAN separate the two- but, again, should you? They work so closely together that to tare them apart would be a crime against humanity. The body needs the mind, yes, but in that since- does not the mind also need the body? What good is thinking, knowing, being, etc...if you cannot even move?


This, I think, is when soul (can) come/s into play. The mind within the body is a mind, outside the body- could it be called your soul? If yes, the the mind without a body would be freedom indeed and the body which holds us is but a shell that will soon pass, freeing our mind (soul) to do as it will (depending on your form of spirituality, of course).

But, what if my father is right? What if, your soul and your mind (which can, by some-and for the sake of the post be the same thing) die with your body? There is no ultimate freedom. Nothing beyond, just nothing. There is no escape- no better place, etc. If that is the case- than the mind without a body is simply nothing at all, not even worthy of the space it takes to create it. If a mind cannot move, cannot do, cannot act, etc... then what is the point of a mind at all?

I would also like to note: It is through the body that the mind evolves, that the mind feels, learns, interacts, understands, becomes due to the body and its interaction with the world. Without the body to give the mind experience- what is the mind? It is nothing. Just the body without a mind is nothing.

So yes, you can separate the two, but if you separate them neither will resemble what you would wish it to.


And on that thought, I leave you with this (which I've posted on gnet before I think):



-Midi
Who has been inflicted with an unquenchable desire for anything pertaining to the mind.

Fun topic, I think you posted in the right place, btw. I don't see the relevance for the mind-body problem for politics right away.

First, a remark: it's René Descartes. Not Renee.

I am not sure if Descartes was the first to introduce that problem into philosophy, but he surely introduced it into modern Western philosophy (as that is generally seen to start with/around the time of Descartes). Predecessors of the idea, I think, can be found in the writings of Plato and some Stoics, for example, although the origin of the mind/spirit/whatever they called it is different from Descartes mind (which is of devine origin).

To answer your question about Cartesian dualism, I think it's mistaken. I think the mind arises from the body. I am not sure whether science can ever reduce the mind to the brain as no mind and no brain are exactly alike, as everybody has lots of brain cells and lots and lots of connections between those, which I think somehow constitute a "you". I think brain injuries, like Phineas Gages, show that the mind is constituted by the brain. As brain damage, if significant enough, results in a change in personality or thinking, too. I also think, that there is no such thing as a brain in a vat. A brain needs sensory input to think and make sense of the world its in to form a mind, a "you", I think.

The big, big problem in Cartesian dualism is that a immaterial mind or soul cannot interact with a material body. This means that you would never feel pain if you'd bump your toe into the door, and that you wouldn't be able to make your body do anything. And no, the pineapple gland (what's it called) is not to function as the intermediar between the material and the immaterial as Descartes thought. Nor did any other bodily part we know of.

There are still a few philosopher who hold dualism to be true, although I'd have to look up their names.

Your yoga books are right in saying that if you hurt any other part of your body than your head/brain, that your mind will be alright. If I hurt my ankle tomorrow, this most likely will not affect my mind in any way. But I could also say that my left wrist doesn't change if I hurt that ankle. Yet if you hurt your brain in certain areas, your vocal chords and mouth will no longer produce the words you'd like to say, or your hands will no longer be able to pick up things.

Experience like you described, the out of body experience, or the near death experience are, I think, not yet sufficiently understood. Maybe you can have the feeling that you are out of your body, I don't know. Doesn't necessarily mean that you are. Maybe you see a light in a tunnel when you are dying. Doesn't necessarily mean there is a tunnel with a light. There is still a lot unkown about how the brain makes sense of the surroundings you are in, how it shuts down when there is too little oxygen available to keep it working, and what it feels like to have reduced your brain activity to that of deep dreamless sleep (which is what those monks do, if I am not mistaken).

Are this ideas enough for your paper?

I believe NDEs and OBEs have been explained by science as side effects of the chemicals released by the brain as it is dying. It's thought that the function is to enduce a calmness or a sedatory sensation so that the body can die peacefully. Calming hallucinations.

Einstein may have been a pretty smart man, but I've gotta disagree with him on science needing religion. I do, however, think that one needs a logical mind before getting mixed up with any religion.

Oh bloody hell, there goes my spelling. How embarassing.
Thank you for correcting me.



Thank you all who have responded!! It has given me more ways to think about it!

You could maybe work a 'religious philosophy vs nonreligious philosophy' angle in there since the two types seem to get two different meanings out of it?

I rather like that idea
Perhaps I could also research that for my own sake, after the paper is done.
I've always had problems with being one-sided when it comes to religion though, I'm quite strict about being Athiest. Sometimes I'm not very keen on other ideas. Maybe doing such a paper would help me open my mind some.

Just a small thought:
I personally don't share the idea of mind and body, I feel for a different concept when I was 13, that very well explains my views by itself, such concept is expressed in the word person from ancient greek "persona" (πρόσωπον) which originally indicated the mask worn by actors that amplified the actor's voice.

Just a small question: what if dichotomy was a necessary means to explain unicity?