A Substance Dualism About Minds and Bodies, Essay Example

Substance Dualism

Dualism has long attempted to define the relationship between the mind and the body, in essence mapping the relationship between the material and the immaterial. In defining dualism, there are numerous schools of thought that map this relationship, one of the most prominent being substance dualism. Substance dualism is embodied in the work of Rene Descartes, who maintained that the mind is a thinking thing while the body is not.

The core principles of dualism hold that the body and the mind, sometimes referred to as the soul, are two distinct substances. The body has physical attributes such as shape and size, while the mind lacks these physical attributes by virtue of being an immaterial substance that cannot be quantified.In essence, a human being is defined by a body and a person. The person is the mind and the immaterial state of a human being. The body is the physical state of the human being. While a person can be defined as a collection of mental states, a substance dualists perceives a person as the owner of these mental states, over and above the state in themselves.

Mind and Matter

Human beings appear to have physical properties, such as size, shape, color and motion through space and time. These physical properties define a human being as matter, a physical object that is prone to existing physical forces. However, human beings also have the capacity to think, giving them mental properties, which cannot be quantified. These properties include intentionality (such as beliefs and desires), consciousness (that includes emotional experience and perceptual experience) and possession by a self or subject. While physical properties can be quantified by any individual, mental properties are only preview to the individual who has access to them.

Every human being experiences life, as they perceive it, through events in both the physical and mental realms. The existence and impact of both kinds of events raise the fundamental question whether there exists a relationship between them. The suggested relationship between the body and the mind is called interactionsm.

Interactionism

Interactionism holds that the mental and physical events causally influence each other. In essence, this means that an individual’s life experiences are influenced by the physical through their senses. Furthermore, an individual creates behavioral patterns that are founded on the experiences gained by exposure to physical forces. However, it largely regarded that an individual’s thinking affects their behavior by influencing their actions.

Descartes embodies this ideology by arguing that there are numerous instances when mental events can trigger or influence bodily events and that also bodily events can influence or trigger mental events. A good example would be the effect of touching a hot piece of iron. When an individual touches a hot piece of iron, the physical properties of the person (i.e. their hand and nervous system), causes an individual to generate the thought of pain. The mind will in-turn cause the hand to retract from the hot piece of iron.

While this example embodies the existence of dual causation between mental and physical states, it fails to consider the implications of the difference in states and the lack of communality thereof. In order for the physical states and mental states to casually influence each other, there has to be communality between these two states. However, the differences between these states depicts the lack of communality. Physical states can be measured or quantified, while mental states cannot. Furthermore, mental states are only preview to the individuals privileged to experience them. It is therefore difficult to show how the immaterial impacts, influences and/or triggers the material.

Interactionism and Physical Science

Interactionism fundamentally validates the existence and interaction of human beings as both material and immaterial substances. However, this ideology stands against the basic principles of science. The laws of physics, the law of conservation of energy, hold that the total amount of energy within any given system cannot be changed, it is preserved over time. Applying this law, any interaction within the mind and the soul has to result in a considerable transfer of energy between the material and the immaterial. Given the example of touching the hot iron, there is a transfer of energy when the hand is moved from one position to another.

In order for anything to trigger this action, there has to be a transfer of energy from the causalobject to the hand. This means that in order for the mind to directly influence the body, there has to be a considerable amount of energy at the point of interaction between the body and the mind. However, this is not so. There has been no study that can prove any quantifiable energy transfer in thecasual interaction between the body and the mind.

Hard Determinism vs. the Agency Theory

Free will is an important facet of humanity, it is an individual’s rational capacity to select a given course of action from the variety of options that are available to them at the given time. The significance of free will is clearly visible in the manner in which it is connected to one’s moral responsibility, the value one accords to friendship, love and family, the dignity and autonomy of every individual regardless of background, faith or culture. As such, free will is a huge determinant in whether or not one is culpable for their actions. Actions that cause harm or infringes on any other individual’s rights should be punishable, as long as they are executed with free will.

In understanding the interaction between the mind and the body, the concept of free will has to be considered. The body/mind problem cannot be resolved unless the true source of the actions of the physical state can be accounted for. While an individual’s actions are unique to the person, taking into consideration the conditions specific to the situation, the causes of these actions cannot be distinctively attributed to either the individual (freewill), or a result of the culmination of numerous physical states (non-deliberate).

Hard determinism offers an explanation as to the cause of people’s actions. Hard determinism denies the existence of free will, holding that actions are a result of the culmination of events, all of which we have no control over. This theory holds that a person’s decision is caused by the all activities that have affected the person directly and/or indirectly up to the point they made a decision. As such, individuals cannot be held responsible for their actions as there decisions are subject to circumstances. This essentially means that no person can intentionally deliberate and make a conscious decision that affects their physical state.

The agency theory attempts to improve the understanding of freewill. This theory is founded on two core principles; (1) an action is considered free, if and only if it has been caused by the agent performing it, and it is such that there are no other precursor conditions that were sufficient for that only action. (2) An agent is not merely a collection of events, things or states, but is a self-moving person, being or self.  This theory attempts to bridge the gap between understanding the cause of actions (freewill) and linking freewill with the mind/body problem.

This theory approaches the concept of causation from a different point. This theory suggests that causation requires a metaphysical commitment, and as such, events are merely performed by an agent. This means that all cases of causation are as a result of the relationship between one or more events to another. Cases of causation result from the existence of one or more events, creating the necessary conditions for the occurrence of another event.

The agency theory, therefore proposes that an agent is not merely a collection of mental states, but is far above the collections of these states. An agent has to be a self-moving being with the rational capacity to influence the physical far beyond their mental states. This theory therefore proposes that in order for an action to be considered as deliberate, there has to exist an agent. This agent can therefore not be a mere collection of states, as this would disprove the existence of freewill. The agent has to not only be a culmination of these mental states, but also own these mental states. Thus an agent is far above the collection of mental states.

The metaphysical commitment that is required in this theory attempts to bridge the gap between the material and the immaterial by creating a special kind of causation. The agent does not therefore cause an action, instead they initiate or perform an action. This fails to answer the question of causation as the link between the material and the immaterial. Causation merely occurs the moment two distinct events occur either randomly, consecutively or simultaneously and collectively create the conditions necessary for a given decision to be made by an agent. This does not disprove hard determinism. This is because there can be cases where actions taken by an agent are as a result of a culmination of a sequence of events that created conditions the that necessitated a specific action.

Direct and Indirect Realism

Direct realism holds that individuals can only experience the world through their senses. These senses formulated the basis of experiences and as such shapes and the individual’s concept of “life”. Indirect realism (representational realism) holds that our experiences of the world are as a result of an internal  miniature representation of the world that we have. All our experiences are shaped by how we perceive the world through this representation.

Direct realism is pegged on the concept of perception. Perception is simply experiencing unmediated contact with the world. This may include looking at a painting, or listening to a tune. This theory holds that our experiences of the world are merely the result of perception of physical states using our senses. These senses involve very complex neurophysical processes that create and well established route. This well-established route is the channel through which one receives direct awareness of the world around them.

We use these neurophysical processes to interact with objects in the world that have definite properties, regardless of the existence of the subject. These qualities are existent regardless of whether they are being perceived or not, Primary qualities. These qualities refer to properties that can be substantiated regardless of the perceiver in question. They include size, shape, length, motion-or-rest, number, position.

Secondary qualities are dependent on the existence of a receiver. These properties cannot be distinctively associated with the object, but can be perceived by a subject. This means that these properties can only be considered relative to the perceiver. A pen appears to blue because perceivers experience a physical sensation of blue in their eyes every time they look at it. The pen is not necessarily blue, but the physical properties of its surface make it reflect light that appears blue.

However, primary and secondary qualities do not exist in the ideology of an indirect realist. According to an indirect realist, we only interact with an object through an intermediary representation of the object. This is because one only perceives a version of the given object and not the object in real-time. A good example is a person gazing at a star. Even though the person sees the light emitted from the star, by the time they perceive the star, it may have ceased to exist. As such, an individual can only perceive a representation of something. This takes into account the fact that by the time the causal procedure of perception is done, the object being perceived may have ceased to exist.

The Problem of Intentionality

This is the ability of minds to represent or be about states of affairs, properties and/or things. There are numerous occasions when mental states depict intentionality. This is because just as intentionality, mental states are directed towards at or about things. Therefore, in order for an individual to be considered a being, they require intentionality. For this reason, some object may depict aspects of intentionality. A good example if a painting. The painting may depict intentionality in the manner in the emotions it evokes from a viewer. However, this intentionality is derived from the subject that painted the picture.

Intentionality is hinged in one’s mental state. A given mental states can only refer to a given object or subject because these mental states have intrinsic features. For this reason, when one thinks about a given object, they already have the form of the object imprinted in their mind, meaning our though is in the same form as the imprinted one. The central facets of thought refer to given objects as a result of the images of those objects imprinted on the mind through the application of perceptual capacities. However, this ideology is flawed as representations (shapes and images) cannot provide a complete and accurate description of intentionality.

An image of a BMW resembles a BMW, and also resembles all cars that resemble a BMW. However, thoughts about a BMW are not thoughts about all cars that resemble a BMW. However, by using descriptions, this problem can be avoided. If an individual is thinking about something, then they have to have a detailed description of the object in their mind. This description uniquely identifies the object in question from objects that may appear similar to it.

Intentional states usually refer to an object which an individual can describe and contemplate the different aspects or features of the object. This highlights the formal component in thought and of “sense”. One can have numerous distinct thoughts about the same thing. However, these distinct thoughts can have a difference in sense. Sense would refer to the manner in which the object is presented in thought. This generates a thought that appears to be completely different, and even derive different meaning, but still be of the same object.

The problem lies in the perception of reality and imagination. An individual can have thoughts about a non-existent entity or object, such as an alien or Santa Claus. Even when people discuss the inexistence of Santa Claus, they still think about Santa Claus and can even possibly describe him in detail. Intentional states usually refer to an object which an individual can describe and contemplate the different aspects or features of the object. Intentionality is hinged in one’s mental state.