Dualism
I believe that the popular or "ghost in the machine" form of
substance
dualism best solves the mind body problem. My views in this area
have been
influenced by my twelve years of Catholic education. The soul, or
mind,
depending on your level of belief, was a complete and separate entity
and was
the center of a human being. The body was an ambulatory device that
the soul
directed. The idea that the mind is a separate entity and that it is
independent
of the physical body is the central point of substance dualism.
Churchland
explains that substance dualism claims that the mind is a distinct
nonphysical
thing, a complete nonphysical entity that is independent of any
physical body to
which it is temporarily attached. Any and all mental states
and activities, as
well as physical ones, originate from this unique entity.
Substance dualism
states that the real essence of you has nothing to do with
your physical body,
but rather from the distinct nonphysical entity of the
mind. The mind is in
constant interaction with the body. The body's sense
organs create experiences
in the mind. The desires and decisions of the mind
cause the body to act in
certain ways. This is what makes each mind's body
its own. The popular or
"ghost in the machine" form of substance dualism
states that a person
is a "ghost in a machine", the ghost being the mind or
spirit and the
machine is the body. Within this description, the mind/spirit
controls the body
and is in intimate contact with the brain. The brain would
be the nexus between
the mind and body. The popular form of substance dualism
was adopted after the
difficulties of Cartesian dualism could not be
overcome. Rene Descartes stated
that the nonphysical and the physical could
not interact. This became a problem
in dualism since the nonphysical mind
needed to interact with the physical body.
These difficulties provided a
motive for the move to popular substance dualism.
The first major
argument for substance dualism is religion. Each of the major
religions place
belief in life after death that there is an immortal soul that
will survive
death. This very closely resembles substance dualism. The mind can
be
substituted for the immortal soul. In fact the two are
almost
interchangeable. This argument is primarily the basis for my own
belief in
substance dualism. My personal experiences as a religion student
give me insight
into this argument. The second major argument for substance
dualism is
irreducibility. This points to a variety of mental phenomena that
no physical
explanation could account for what is going on. An example would
be the quality
and meaningful content of human thoughts and beliefs. These
things cannot be
reduced to purely physical terms, hence irreducibility. This
is also another
good argument that I can understand from personal
experiences. I cannot reduce
my reactions and feelings toward how a steak
tastes to a mathematical equation.
This is the same idea. The final
argument for substance dualism is
parapsychological phenomena. Mental powers
such as telepathy, precognition,
telekinesis, and clairvoyance are all near
impossible to explain within the
boundaries of physics and psychology. These
phenomena reflect the nonphysical
and supernatural nature that dualism gives
to the mind. Because I believe in
these phenomena, it seems logical to me
that parapsychology is an excellent
argument for substance dualism. These
arguments give a good basis for a
philosopher to believe in substance
dualism. However there are also serious
arguments against it. The first major
argument against dualism is simplicity.
Materialists state that because
their view is simpler (they only believe in one
thing- that which is
physical) it is more rational to subscribe to their view.
The materialist
point of view is also easier to prove because there is no doubt
that physical
matter exists, while nonphysical matter is currently a hypothesis.
This
argument seems very illogical to me. Philosophical views should be
chosen
because one makes more sense to you, not because one has a smaller
number of
ideas within it. The second major argument against substance
dualism is
explanatory impotence. Materialists can explain anything physical
through
scientific study, whereas dualists can explain nothing because no
theory has
ever been formulated. Churchland says, "...dualism is less a
theory of mind
than it is an empty space waiting for a genuine theory of mind
to be put
in". I see one flaw with the materialist theory here. The mind in
the
dualist theory may use a form of energy transfer not yet discovered by
science.
Centuries ago, undiscovered forms of science were refuted and
called
"magic". In the future, The mind may become completely understood
by
science. The third argument against substance dualism is neural
dependence. That
the mental capacities depend on the brain's neural
activities. The materialists
show that the mind is altered when the brain is
altered by drugs or injuries. I
would explain this by saying that since the
mind is a separate nonphysical
entity and cannot interact with physical
matter, it needs a focal point to
control the body from. This focal point is
the brain. The mind and the brain are
so intimately intertwined any
disruption of the brain will affect the mind. The
Final argument against
substance dualism is evolutionary history. The
materialist states that human
beings have been incrementally built up from
simpler physical creatures. This
is evolution. Because this is a pure physical
process and the simpler
creatures we were constructed from had no nonphysical
mind, there is no way
to account for our mind. This is a difficult argument to
win. The only
rebuttal I can give is that because we are a pinnacle of
evolution, we
developed the nonphysical mind along with free-will and our level
of
intelligence. This may be an extremely arrogant and proud view, but it is
the
only one I can think of. I believe that the strength of dualism's
positive
arguments outweighs is
detractions.
Bibliography
Churchland, Paul M. Matter and
Consciousness. Massachusetts: The MIT Press,
1994