Homunculus Model of Perception. Although the motions that compose the pineal image bear no resemblance to light or color as we experience them, they make us have sensations of light and color because of the way God joined our mind with our body, just as the motions in the nerves coming from the ears cause us to hear sounds. But things are not quite so simple. We perceive colors as spread out in space, and thus color perception is interwoven with our perception of size and shape, which are in turn connected with our perception of situation and distance. And since, according to Descartes, the pattern of motions at the pineal gland is structurally isomorphic with the retinal image – which is roughly two-dimensional, inverted, reversed, and subject to perspective distortions of size and shape – an explanation must be given of how we are able to perceive correctly by sight the situation, distance, size and shape of objects.
Supplementary mechanisms, then, must be postulated over and above the point-to-point projection of the retinal image to the pineal gland, and the ones Descartes provides form a rather heterogeneous and ill-assorted group. Some of them do not seem to require any sort of activity by the soul – a certain change in the position or motion of the parts of our brain simply causes a certain perception as a result of the ‘institution of Nature.’ Others involve a kind of inner homunculus – the soul does things like directing attention out from various body parts to determine the situation of objects, or correcting for perspective distortions in the retinal image on the basis of its knowledge or opinion about their distance and situation.
Model Limitations
The homunculus model generates some serious difficulties for Descartes. For when he employs it, he speaks of the soul making judgments of various sorts – for example, correcting for perspective distortions of size and shape. Such judgments present an anomaly. It is clear that the retinal image and/or its pineal correlate have a privileged status in vision, but very unclear just what that status is. Descartes clearly rejects the view that the soul somehow gazes at the retinal image on the grounds that it would require the soul to have eyes. Yet his
Descartes is now clear on his perception of God so he looks at material things. He points out that a body must exist in reality, because for him to dream about his body, it must exist before he would know what to dream about. So although he can perceive qualities of material things, he is still confused about some things because of is imperfect perception. He concludes that the senses are meant to help him get around in the world, not to lead him to the truth. ( SparkNotes Editors, 2012 )
René Descartes believed that the mind and body are separate; that the senses could not always be trusted, but that because we as humans are able to think about our existence, we possess some sort of entity separate than our fleshly body. I believe this separate entity to be a soul”an immaterial and
In this paper, I will discuss the “Divisibility argument” on Descartes mind- body dualism presented on Descartes meditations. I will claim that the mind and the body are in fact different as Descartes argument suggests, but I will more rather neglect and explain why his belief that the mind is indivisible is wrong. I also will discuss how Descartes argument on the body’s divisibility is reasonable, and the reasons why I believe this argument is true.
Descartes concludes from his first meditation that he is a thinking thing, and as long as he thinks, he exists. In the second meditation, Descartes attempts to define what the “thinking thing” that he concluded himself to be in the first meditation actually was. Descartes’ determines that he gains knowledge of the world, that is, knowledge that is separate from the mind, through the senses; and that the senses can deceive. This he outlines within the first meditation, and mentions on the second meditation. Furthermore, in the second meditation, Descartes refuses to define himself as a rational animal, instead going back and relying on labeling him mind as a thinking thing. In the fifth and sixth paragraphs of the second meditation, Descartes distinguishes the body from the soul. Descartes indicates that there is the presence of the body, and it seems to be in the physical world, but he also notes that his mind does not seem to exist in the same manner. Descartes also claims that the ability to perceive is a power of the soul, but inoperable without the body. Descartes then explores another object with physical substance, which is a piece of wax. The piece of wax is undeniably physical; it takes up space within the material world. The body falls into the category, just as any other physical object in the material world. The main point of Descartes’ second meditation is that any given person can know more about their mind than of the world surrounding them.
This is where the wax argument comes into play. All the properties of the piece of wax that we perceive with the senses change as the wax melts. This is true as well of its primary properties, such as shape, extension and size. Yet the wax remains the same piece of wax as it melts. We know the wax through our mind and judgement, not through our senses or imagination. Therefore, every act of clear and distinct knowledge of corporeal matter also provides even more certain evidence for the existence of Descartes as a thinking thing. Therefore his mind is much clearer and more distinctly know to him than his body. At this
Descartes had a very mechanistic view of the brain. He believed the body works similar to machines as it is material and follows laws of physics. He suggests that mind and body interact at the pineal gland. He predicted that there are tube-like structures inside our bodies that tighten under
In Meditation six: Concerning the Existence of Material Things, and the Real Distinction between Mind and Body, Rene Descartes wrote of his distinctions between the mind and the body, first by reviewing all things that he believed to be true, then assessing the causes and later calling them into doubt, and then finally by considering what he must now believe. By analyzing Descartes’ writing, this paper will explicate Descartes’ view on bodies and animals, and if animals have minds. Before explicating the answer to those questions, Descartes’ distinctions between the mind and the body should first be summarized and explained.
The next task that Descartes must consider is to define what he is, and in doing so be careful not to make assumptions. He cannot consider himself to be an animal, since that would require a definition of what an animal is. Such an examination is beyond the discussion. (25) Instead of making random guesses, Descartes begins to think about what came to mind when he considered what he was. (25, 26) The first thought that occurs to him is that he has a body - something that by definition has a determinable shape, defined location and that can occupy space. However, if an all-powerful deceiver is at work, then that which
He finds it plausible that we are all living in a dream and we have never experienced reality. He can no longer give any credence to his senses and finds himself in a place of complete uncertainty. Descartes comes to the conclusion that nothing can be perceived more easily and more evidently than his own mind. He has discovered that even bodies are not accurately perceived by the senses or the faculty of imagination, and are only accurately being perceived by the intellect. He also realizes that they are not distinguished through being touched, smelled, or tasted, but by being understood alone. (An apple is an apple because our mind tells us that it is an apple.) It is the faculty of reason that gives the knowledge and lets the mind know the truths and essences of objects. Descartes assumes that all of us can be decided by our senses, someone can see something far away, and then discover that is not what we thought it was. Or even a oar when is immerse half in water attempt to be bent, but instead is straight. Descartes think that we cannot always be sure of what we sense, and gives the example of himself seated by the fire.
In order to build a different interpretation about the Cartesian dualism and the union of mind and body, I have established two categories. I call diachronic interpretations those that maintain that Descartes was first a dualist (i.e., in the Meditations), and later on developed his stance on the union of mind and body (i.e., in the Passions).
Perhaps one of the most controversial issues in the Cartesian view of mind and body is how the two substances interact. In the book The passion of the Soul Descartes returned to the problem; he suggests that there is a gland in the middle of the brain in charge of the interaction; he maintains that “from there it radiates through the rest of the body by means of the animal spirits”) (Descartes, 1649/1984, p.341). But what does he mean? The pineal gland is itself physical; Gassendi pointed out that “If it is a physical point, the difficulty still stands, since such a point does not wholly lack of parts. If is a mathematical point, then such a point, as you are aware is, purely imaginary” (Descartes, 1641/1985, p.236) To
This paper will attempt to explain Descartes’ first argument for the distinction that exists between mind and body. Dualism is a necessary aspect of Descartes’ metaphysics and epistemology. This distinction is important within the larger framework of Meditations on First Philosophy (1641) because after doubting everything (body, extension, senses, etc.), Descartes comes to the conclusion that because he doubts, he must be a thinking thing and therefore exist (p.43). This means that the mind must be separate and independent from the body. One can doubt that the body exists while leaving the mind intact. To doubt that the mind exists, however, is contradictory. For if the mind does not exist, how, or with what, is that doubt being accomplished.
Before these changes were apparent, Descartes pointed out the difficulties of relying on the senses, of the physical body. In section 31 of Meditation two, he says that the perception he has, "is a case not of vision or touch or imagination - nor has it ever been, despite previous appearances - but of purely mental scrutiny". Descartes shows that our senses cannot be used to have knowledge of things in the external world, and that knowledge of these things must come through the mind alone.
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