The Mind-Body

Problem:
Summary:
The
mind-body
problem refers to the
difficulty of explaining
how
the
mental
activities of human
beings relate to their living physical organisms.
Historically, the most commonly accepted solutions have included mind-body dualism
(Descartes), reductive materialism (Hobbes) or idealism (Berkeley), and the double
aspect theory (Spinoza).
This problem has been a major concern of metaphysicians in modern times (i.e. since
the 17th century):
arose as a result of certain views of Descartes
increasing knowledge about both mental and physical worlds has not
answered it
addresses the questions: What is the fundamental nature of the mind
and the body? and How are the mind and the body related?
Elementary observation of mental and physical events might lead to
the suspicion that they are quite different; yet, they seem to be in
some relation or have some influence on each other; how do we
explain this?
i.e. our scientific knowledge would seem to suggest that the
physical world is inanimate, without purpose, and yet
determined or fixed; it operates according to the laws of
science
the mental world, by contrast, operates through consciousness,
planning, desire, intention, etc.
though these worlds may seem to be quite different, experience
indicates that they are interrelated or connected when
something happens in the physical world, this may change ones
thoughts or feelings in the mental world; similarly, a desire for
light may cause one to strike a match in the physical world
Descartes Mind-Body Theory:

often blamed for the difficulties that arose from this problem
o asserted that mind and body are 2 totally different types of being; they are
different substances
o from the clear and distinct idea that he had in his own mind, he decided
that
the basic feature of matter was its geometrical qualities (size, shape,
etc.)
the basic feature of mind was thinking

according to Descartes, the essential property of a mind is

that it thinks, and the essential property of a body is that it
is extended (in space)
Descartes further asserted that mind is never extended, and that body never
thinks; in other words, the 2 realms of thought and extension are completely
different
o He went on to insist that all
physical action occurs by the
impact of one extended object
upon another; since mental events
are (by definition) NOT extended,
how can there be any impact or
contact between that whose
nature it is to exist in space, and
that which does not occur in
space?
How can an idea move a
hammer, or a hammer strike
upon an idea?
Descartes was nevertheless impressed by the scientific (and common-sense)
evidence that mind and body do affect each other
o A pin jabbed into the physical, extended finger is followed by a thought of
pain in the unextended mind
o Examining the evidence closely, he concluded that the mind is only aware of
physical events in the brain
Various motions can take place in the body without being followed by
mental events, unless the physical motions first cause movements in
the nervous system and then in the brain
e.g. breathing, digestion
Similarly, one can stimulate thoughts without affecting the body, just
by producing certain physical motions in the brain
e.g. the phenomenon of ghost limbs
o All this led him to conclude there must be some point of contact between the
mental and physical worlds, and that the contact must take place in the
brain
He believed this junction was found in the pineal gland at the base of
the brain
This belief doesnt really answer the question how the mind and body
interact in the pineal gland
He became increasingly vague about the matter, and eventually
said that, since we all experience the connection as fact, the
question was best answered by not thinking about it, and just
accepting it as one of those mysteries that cant be
comprehended

The Materialist Theory:

others werent prepared to give up so easily, and

identified the initial separation of mind and body in
Descartes thoughts as the key problem
o if one refuses to grant that mind and body
are 2 different kinds of being, one should
have no trouble accounting for their
interaction
one way of avoiding Descartes pitfall is to adopt a
completely materialist metaphysics and claim that
both mental and physical events can be explained
purely in terms of physical concepts and laws
o Thomas Hobbes was the key advocate of this
approach
in
Descartes
day;
some
behavioural psychologists hold it today
o The key idea is that what we call mental events are really (like physical
events) only combinations of matter in motion
The physical movements that occur in the brain are what we call
thoughts, and these are produced by other events in the physical
world, whether outside or bodies or within, and can in turn produce
further physical motions in ourselves or outside ourselves
Every idea is nothing but a set of physical occurrences in our
higher nervous system and brain
this has the advantage of being very simple
o there is also a vast body of scientific evidence (psychology, psychiatry,
physiology) about the physical basis of many mental events that makes it
seem plausible
e.g. treatments for depression, brainwashing, etc.
work on artificial intelligence also suggests there may be some merit
in this
there are, however, some criticisms:
o I am aware of sensations, emotions, thoughts not physical occurrences in
my brain; even if the latter cause the former, it still remains the case that
they are different and distinguishable: hence, the mental world cant be
reduced merely to physical events
o If mental events are all there is to it, how do you explain truth and error?
How do you distinguish them, if they reduce merely to a series of physical
events in someones brain?
o I am forced into a determinist world view, with no room for free choice

Further Thoughts on Mind-Body Dualism: (see text pp. 141-45)

Descartes insistence that mind and body are 2 essentially different substances
(Substance Dualism) leads to a problem that can be diagrammed like this:
Subject
(mental)

Perception

What happens here?

How does one substance perceive

Object
(physical)

a completely different kind of substance?

Philosophers have (as usual) tended toward one extreme or the other, depending on
which sort of skepticism they embrace:
1. Idealists (e.g. Descartes, Berkeley) are skeptical about whether we can trust that
our perceptions fit reality, or whether there actually IS any reality outside our
minds at all. Idealists think that the mental is all there is. This is a kind of
solipsism: i.e. things have no independent existence outside of my thoughts about
them. (Subjectivism). Descartes further believed that mind and matter are two
completely different kinds of thing (Substance Dualism).
2. Materialists (e.g. Locke, Hobbes) are skeptical about whether the mental is
anything other than the result of purely physical events in our brain. Materialists
think that matter is all there is (Monism). This leads to determinism: i.e. there is
no freedom; the world unfolds in a purely material/mechanical way. (includes
identity theorists, eliminative materialists, and functionalists)
Some philosophers have gone through extraordinary gymnastics to try to bring these
extremes closer together.

Epiphenominalists modify materialism and admit that our mental perceptions

are more than physical states in our brain. However, they still judge them to be
mere by-products of those physical states, as smoke is a by-product of fire. This
still does not do our mental life justice. (Identity theorists)

Occasionalists argue that, since the mental and physical cant interact, what
must happen is that, for each event in one realm, GOD makes a corresponding
event occur in the other. The one event doesnt cause the other; it is merely the
occasion of Gods action. This still doesnt answer the question of how the
mental interacts with the physical (God takes the place of Descartes pineal
gland), and makes for a busy-every-minute God who doesnt have much in
common with most conceptions of God.

Monadists (e.g. Leibnitz) argue that everything, whether mental or physical, is

independent and constitutes a monad whose actions are wholly determined by
its nature, and not by its interactions with other monads. Monads only appear to
interact in relationship because they have all been created by God in a preestablished harmony, so that, without influencing each other, events in each
one nevertheless occur harmoniously with all of the others. While this gets
around the problem of dualism, it is simply incredible.

Dual-aspect theorists (Spinoza the Monists solution) reject dualism, and

argue that the mental and physical are in fact flip sides of a coin; i.e. mind and
body are both aspects of one and the same being. Therefore, whenever there is
an event in one realm, there must be a parallel event in the other, since the
mental and physical are just different ways of looking at the same thing.
However, Spinoza identified the mental with God and the physical with nature;
by arguing the two are just different aspects of the same thing, he in effect
argued that nature is God (i.e. pantheism), which most philosophers and
theologians find unacceptable.