Mind Body Relationship According To Descartes Philosophy Essay

Mind Body Relationship According To Descartes philosophical system EssayMind and what it con n mavins is the battered offspring of the union of psychology. At slightly deep level we dearly love and cherish it and see bottomland its surface great potential but, beca mapping of our own inadequacies, we continuously abuse t, raspingly and abruptly pummeling it for imagined excesses, and occasionally crimson lock it away in whatever dark tightfittingt where we smoke non hear its insistent whines.The history of the use of the bound reveals two conflicting impulses the tendency to treat pass as a meta animal(prenominal) mechanistic system, and the tendency to view it as convenient biologic metaphor representing the manifestation of the, still non understood, neurophysiologic processes of the drumhead. The following atomic number 18 the to a greater extent important and common uses of the term and this basic conflict set up be seen in all.Mind as the sum of money of hypothes ized good-hearted processes and acts that may practise as explanatory devices for psychological data. In recent years this has grow the dominant use of the term. present, mental components argon hypothesized be elbow grease they live with, in the proper theoretic frame, considerable explanatory power. Of interest here is the reluctance, even refusal, of or so the neurophysiological structures to which it might relate. The focus is typically on the effectiveness of the hypothesized model of reason to explain- not merely studies. The more or less frequent users of this meaning be workers in artificial intelligence, forward-looking cognitive psychologists and several schools of philosophy, e.g. functionalism.Mind as the totality of the conscious and unconscious mental experiences of an individual organism (usually although not always, a forgiving organism). Actually, this use represents an effort to avoid the above-mentioned metaphysical fuss but it produces a because of t he confusion over how to characterize consciousness. Often even those with a behavioristic approach depart back door themselves into speculating about(predicate) foreland in this fashion but they give invariably alternate consciousness with behaviors and acts.Mind as a collection of processes. Probably the succeeding(prenominal) most commonly held view, the competition here is that the several processes generally sightvass under the rubrics of perception and cognition collectively constitute top dog. Here, at that place is no square effort to define only to enumerate and to seek to actualize those processes enumerated.Mind as equivalent to brain. This position which goes back to William James must in the final analysis be true. Its major liability, about brain function. As a result, it is philosophical position.Mind as an emergent property. The argument here is that of emergentism, that when a biological system r each(prenominal)es a point of able complexity and organ izational structure top dog emerges.Mind as a list of synonyms. For lesson, psyche, soul, self etc. No liaison is gained by this use and the definitional troubles are compounded.Mind as intelligence. Really only a colloquial use of the term as in phrases homogeneous, She has a good spirit.Mind as a characteristic or trait. Also used nontechnical as in phrases resembling, the sagaciousness of an artist, or the Northern European mind.The Brain, no intervention advise be complete without mentioning the experiment of Ivan Pavlov (1849-1936). Ivan Pavlov and his followers showed, un well-educated and conditioned reflexes of the brain underlie mental activity. When external objects act on the kindling endings of the sense organs, strictly determined bioelectric impulses are sent to the brain via the dying(p) system. They evoke a number of complexes physic-chemical changes during which the impulse (signal) received is changed and evokes a repartee reaction of the organism. The brain, on the bais of this signal, sends a reaction impulse to the corresponding innate organs or locomotory organs, causing the most purposive action. When an animal sees nutrient it secretes saliva, when a human touches a rattling hot object, he equivalent a shot withdraws his hand. The process is known as an unconditioned reflex or instinct.2. DUALISM one and only(a) of the classical metaphysical issues concerning the affinityship surrounded by that which is mental and that which is physical. The issue has its origins in the ancient dualism of Plato and since whence umpteen solutions to the line fork over been offered the major ones, classified ad according to whether they are dualisms, monisms or compromises, followsDualismsInteractionism, where in mind and re chief(prenominal)s are assume to be straighten out acting and mutually influencing each some other.Psychophysicalism (or parallelism), wherein mind and frame are treated as two distinct, in dependent, but s uddenly correlated elements.3. WHO ACCEPT DUALISM Despite the obviousness of this problem, and the amount of attention tending(p) to it, Descartes himself never took this issue very seriously. His response to Gassendi is a telling exampleThese questions presuppose amongst other things an description of the union between the soul and the remains, which I have not yet dealt with at all. save I will say, for your benefit at least, that the whole problem contained in such questions arises only when from a supposition that is fabricated and targetnot in any way be proved, namely that, if the soul and the luggage compartment are two substances whose genius is una akin, this prevents them from universe able to act on each.So, Descartes response to the mind-body problem is twofold.First, Descartes contends that a response to this question presupposes an explanation of the union between the mind (or soul) and the body.Second, Descartes claims that the question itself stems from t he false presupposition that two substances with solely different natures cannot act on each other. advertise examination of these two points will occur in reverse order.Descartes principles of origin put forward in theThird Meditation lie at the heart of this second presupposition. The relevant portion of this discussion is when Descartes argues that the less real cannot cause nearthing that is more real, because the less real does not have full reality to bring about something more real than itself. This principle applies on the general level of substances and modes. On this account, an in limited substance, that is, God, is the most real thing because only he desires nothing else in order to exist created, finite substances are next most real, because they require only Gods creative and standpat(prenominal) activity in order to exist and finally, modes are the least real, because they require a created substance and an infinite substance in order to exist. So, on this prin ciple, a mode cannot cause the existence of a substance since modes are less real than finite substances. Similarly, a created, finite substance cannot cause the existence of an infinite substance. But a finite substance can cause the existence of another finite substance or a mode (since modes are less real than substances). Hence, Descartes point could be that the completely diverse natures of mind and body do not violate this causative principle, since both are finite substances causing modes to exist in some other finite substance. This indicates further that the activity of the mind on the body does not require contact and motion, in that respectby suggesting that mind and body do not bear a mechanistic causal intercourse to each other. More will be said about this below.The first presupposition concerns an explanation of how the mind is united with the body. Descartes remarks about this issue are scattered crosswise both his published whole works and his private correspond ence. These texts indicate that Descartes did not watch over that voluntary bodied movements and sensation arise because of the causal interaction of mind and body by contact and motion. Rather, he maintains a version of the form- discipline contingent action of soul-body union endorsed by some of his scholastic-Aristotelian predecessors and contemporaries. Although a close analysis of the texts in question cannot be conducted here, a brief summary of how this theory works for Descartes can be provided.Before providing this summary, however, it is important to disclaim that this scholastic-Aristotelian description is a minority position amongst Descartes scholars. The traditionalistic view maintains that Descartes human being is collected of two substances that causally interact in a mechanistic fashion. This traditional view led some of Descartes successors, such as Malebranche and Leibniz (who also believed in the real distinction of mind and body), to devise metaphysical s ystems wherein mind and body do not causally interact despite appearances to the contrary. Other philosophers considered the mind-body problem to be insurmountable, at that placeby abjureing their real distinction they claim that everything is either broaden (as is common nowadays) or mental (as George Berkeley argued in the 18th century). Indeed, this traditional, mechanistic interpretation of Descartes is so deeply ingrained in the minds of philosophers today, that most do not even bother to argue for it. However, a notable exception is Marleen Rozemond, who argues for the repugnance of Descartes metaphysics with any scholastic-Aristotelian version of mind or soul-body union. Those interested in tight examining her arguments should consult her bookDescartess Dualism. A book arguing in choose of the scholastic-Aristotelian interpretation is entitledDescartes and the Metaphysics of Human Nature.4. DESCARTES VIEW ON DUALISMRene Descartes theory of Dualism is the most important dualistic theory in the history of philosophy. According to Descartes mind and body are totally different from each other. Body does not depend on mind and also mind does not depend on body. Ones nature does not present on other. The necessary nature of the body is extension and body is passive. But the necessary nature of the mind is consciousness, active and independent.According to Descartes consciousness is present only within human mind. It does not present in stone, wood like this kind of matter and not even animal also. Descartes thinks that human mind and body can never mix with each other. Mind lodged in body as a totally separate substance . And for this kind of lodged - social intercourseship human can control their incarnate movement as they want.According to Descartes body is like a machine and mind is like a controller of that machine.Here Descartes gives an example ,,The relation between mind and body is not like the relation between ship and the captain of the ship. Mind -body relation is a very close relation. Because if the ship damage or destroy, the captain does not feel any pang. But if there is any kind of pain in the human body, then it is painful for human mind also. So, we have to contain that mind body relation is a very close relation.Now Descartes talking about interactionism.Here he says that, in our day-to-day life we can realize sometimes mind effect on body and sometimes body effect on mind. Sometimes mental activities causes bodily changes and sometimes bodily activity causes mental changes.Like , if mind is upset or disturb the strength of the body is refine. And if mind is euphoric the strength of the body is grown up. Here mind is the cause of bodily changes. Likewise, if the body is ill then the thinking power of the mind is down automatically. And if the body is well then the thinking power of the mind will grow automatically.To describe all of these kinds of actions we need to accept the theory of interactionism.B ut if we follow Descartes dualism and persuade mind and body as a separate and opposite substance then this kind of interactionism is never possible. Because if there is no similarity between two things then no relation can possible between them. Because there must be a three-figure balance and soft resemblance between cause and effect.Descartes first take mind and body separate and opposite substance. And break all the relation between them. But after that he himself again mention about interactionism.Descartes has to face many problem for this kind of thinking. Because how can it would be possible to create any relation between two opposite kind of substance?Here Descartes solve the problem in two different ways. 1. In case of mind-body relation Descartes talking only about the relation of coexistence and the constitutive one but not the unity of nature. According to Descartes if there is any constitutive unity then body and mind do not interact through their nature, the inte ract as an attachment of two separate object and through this interaction their distinctness do not change.2. in the book of the passions of the soul Descartes says that, the relation between mind and body is not with the each and every part of the body. This relation is only with the pineal gland of the brain. This pituitary gland or pineal gland is the main and only gland for the relation of interactionism. Physical changes directly effect to the pineal gland and it is the cause of mental changes. Likewise mental think or mental will directly effect to the pineal gland. And this is the cause of physical changes. In the book of the passions of the soul Descartes tell this small gland stern of animal spirit. Body and mind effect on each other through this gland.So, according to Descartes the interactionism between two opposite kind of objects can happen indirectly with the help of the pineal gland.5. CRITISISM AGAINST DESCARTES There are many criticism of Descartes interactionism.D escartes mention constitutive unity, but in this unity the nature of mind and body does not change- this solution is not acceptable. Because if there is any constitutive unity between two separate substance, then there must be some changes in their nature.Descartes accept the relation between mind and pineal gland. But the acceptation of only pineal gland without body could not solve the problem. It only replace the proble from one place to another. Mind influences pineal gland directly. This implies mind influences body because pineal gland is the part of the body.According to the casual rule of natural scientific discipline interactionism or cause effect relation is not possible between two opposite kind of things like mind and body. The rule is that there must be some kind of quantitative balance and qualitative resemblance between cause and effect.The theory of interactionism about mind and body shorten the law of conservation of capacity. According to this law the total ene rgy of this material-world is constant. It only change from one form to another.But if we follow the interactionism we have to accept that when body effect on mind, some sort of bodily energy store into mind and total bodily energy (material energy) decreases and vice-versa.So, it ignore the rule of the law of conservation of energy.If we take mind as a separate substance from material body, we have to face those two problems a) The problem of identification.b) The problem of individuation.Because if conscious mind is invisible and untouchable, then how can we position mind ? ( As conscious mind can not be situated in space ).And identification is not possible then individuation is also not possible .So, it is totally meaningless to accept mind totally separate from body.If there is nothing like mind except body, the problem of interactionism about mind and body will be a meaningless problem.Descartes says that extension is the necessary nature of matter. But it is not acceptable b y modern scientist like, Lord Belfour, James jeans, Eddington and others. In modern science immaterializing the matter become possible. Matter is not a mere, extensive, self-colored substance.If we analyze matter, we will get some kind of energy like electron and proton at the last part of the division. And if energy is the main thing of the world then Descartes dualism is not acceptable. Because there s nothing like extendable matter.ConclusionWe can never deny the existence of mind. lone(prenominal) mind can deny mind, so that mind s establish. And we cannot deny the relation between mind and body in a very simple way. In our everyday experience we can feel that there is a cause-effect relation between mind and body.