Descartes Theory Of Substance Dualism

Does Descartes provide a convincing argument for the claim that mind and matter are distinct substances

In this paper, I will examine the principal merits and challenges of René Descartes’ concept of dualism and then defend my preferred alternative among the options Paul M. Churchland discusses. After briefly defining Cartesian Dualism, I will show that its principal merits are that it is consistent with common sense and that it is able to explain phenomena that appear mental in nature. Next, I will show that its principal challenges are its failure to adequately explain how the mind and the body can causally interact, and its failure to respond to the observation that brain damage impairs the mind. Finally, I will explain why Functionalism is the best alternative to Cartesian Dualism.

Descartian dualism is one of the most long lasting legacies of Rene Descartes’ philosophy. He argues that the mind and body operate as separate entities able to exist without one another. That is, the mind is a thinking, non-extended entity and the body is non-thinking and extended. His belief elicited a debate over the nature of the mind and body that has spanned centuries, a debate that is still vociferously argued today. In this essay, I will try and tackle Descartes claim and come to some conclusion as to whether Descartes is correct to say that the mind and body are distinct.

According to Griffiths & et. al (2015), functionalism is a structure with interrelated parts designed to meet the biological and social needs of the individuals in that

In this essay, I will discuss and formally analyze the opinions in approval of substance dualism and conclude that substance dualism is without a doubt an accurate way of thinking. Firstly, it is important to describe what exactly what I mean by substance dualism. Basically, it asks a very menial question such as: what kind of thing is our mind? According to substance dualists aka Descartes, "the mind and the body are composed of different substances and that the mind is a thinking thing that lacks the usual attributes of physical objects such as size, shape, location etc." [Descartes] Substance dualism is then tested by different opinions which in return vouch for its soundness.

Substance dualism is a never ending argument in the Philosophy world as it’s been going on for decades. It is the view that the universe contains two important types of entity which is mental and material. The structure of this paper is that four main argument leads to one conclusion. Firstly, I’ll argue about Descartes’s ‘separability argument’ which stands as the definition of Substance Dualism. Secondly, I’ll argue that mental and physical have different and perhaps irreconcilable properties. An argument is not complete without a counter argument which in this case the “pairing” problem that exists in Descartes theory is highlighted and where is the interaction of material and immaterial takes

Descartes dualism proposal is an interesting concept due to its simplicity. Yet, being so simply makes one more and more want to dismiss. His argument begins with what is known as Real Distinction. This is the term used to describe a substance or non-physical object that exists on due to the help of a higher being or power—be it God or science, though Descartes would likely argue for God. The mind, in Descartes view, can only exist because of this higher power. One knows the mind exists simply due to being able to ask the question of its existence. However, to prove that the body exists one must think about the physical nature, shape, and sensations of said body. In Descartes sixth meditation he discusses the idea that a person can conceive their mind without their body, but cannot conceive of the reverse. This argument seems to be the most sounds.

all of the time. Meaning that events and states in our mind can cause physical events in

To begin, functionalism is a theory in the philosophy of mind that defines mental states through its inputs, outputs, and causal relation to other mental states, or its function (Jackson,4). The inputs are things you perceive in the world and the output is how you react or your behavior. A behaviorist is only concerned with inputs and outputs when defining mental states, whereas a functionalist takes it a step further. They also examine the casual relationship to other mental

When Princess Elisabeth questioned Descartes on the possibility of interaction between heterogeneous substances [AT III 661]., he answered recognizing that through his works, he had not said much about the union of mind and body. In his letter [21-05-1643] Descartes justifies this saying he had been primarily focused in the demonstration of the distinction between mind and body.

Descartes has a very distinct thought when thinking about the mind, and how it relates to the body, or more specifically then brain. He seems to want to explain that the mind in itself is independent from the body. A body is merely a physical entity that could be proven to be true scientifically and also can be proven through the senses. Such things are not possible with the meta-physical mind because it is independent of the body. Building on his previous premises, Descartes finally proves whether material things exist or not and determines whether his mind and body are separate from each other or not. In Meditation Six, Descartes lays the foundation for dualism which has become one of the most important arguments in philosophy.

In Meditation Six entitled “Concerning the Existence of Material Things, and Real Distinction between the Mind and Body”, one important thing Descartes explores is the relationship between the mind and body. Descartes believes the mind and body are separated and they are two difference substances. He believes this to be clearly and distinctly true which is a Cartesian quality for true knowledge. I, on the other hand, disagree that the mind and body are separate and that the mind can exist without the body. First, I will present Descartes position on mind/body dualism and his proof for such ideas. Secondly, I will discuss why I think his argument is weak and offer my own ideas that dispute his reasoning while I keep in mind how he might

Functionalism was an influence that made people believe in the possibility that machines can be intelligent. It also identifies mental states by what they do rather than what they are made of and there in that statement, the mind body dualism is denied by functionalism. Perhaps mental states are more a matter of software, like running a program on your computer (Rosen et al., 355). It is denied not only because there is not enough information to back it up, but because functionalism says that beliefs, desires and emotions fit into the larger system since those types of mental states must be realized by something else other than by what it already is.

French philosopher Rene Descartes is often credited with being the “father of modern philosophy”. Part of his immense influence on philosophy is the concept of dualism, the notion that there are physical entities and non-physical, mental entities. In attempting to answer the mind/body problem, examining the link between the mental and the physical, Descartes proposed that the mind is a non-physical entity separate from the body. He tries to show this by speaking of attributes, which is what makes the entity the kind of thing that it is and modes, the specifications of these attributes. His theory proposes distinctive features of the mind over the body and brain, considered a material substance. Most importantly, his theory devises that although the mind and body are distinct from one another, they are intimately related. This means that the mind is in a causal interaction with physical entities, meaning sensation in the mind can cause physical

Mind and body dualism can be regarded as one of the most profound segments of Descartes’ legacy. His assertion was that the mind and the body were not the same thing, and that there was a real distinction between the two. For instance, he believed that the mind was indivisible and the body was actually divisible. His reasoning for that contention was simply put. He explained that when the mind imagines, the whole thing does. Not just a certain part. On the other hand, when the body moves, it is not necessarily the entire body moving. It is only certain parts that are active. This was how it became clear and distinctly perceived that the mind and body were not actually the same thing.