The most appealing approach to the nature of the mind with regards to my perception is dualism because dualism encompasses the existence of both physical and mental realm in the attempt to explain the relationship between the body and the mind. Dualism normally connotes that state of two segments. With respect to the philosophy of mind, the idea of dualism in brought out such that in a given domain, there must be two essential categories of principles or things. The body and the mind in some sense are perceived to be profoundly different kinds of things. Dualism takes the position that mind and body are very distinct entities concerning meaning as well as opposes any theory that provides an identification of the body and the mind. There are several dualistic theories that support the fact that the mental and physical events are totally different entities. One of the theories is epiphenomenalism which holds the fact that the sole true causes are the physical events and, on the other hand, the mind is regarded as the by-product. It is evident that casual effectiveness of the mental events exists because of the fact that there is the occurrence of some of the mental events just before the occurrence of particular physical events and also because of the ignorance of human on the events in the brain that are actual the true cause.
According to the epiphenomenalists, the true cause of mental events is the brain and also refutes the fact idea that behavior is caused by the mental events. Therefore, mental events are regarded as the by-products of the processes of the brain and are not capable of exerting influence (Skirry n.p). Another position taken to support dualism is the notion that both bodily responses and mental events are simultaneously caused by an environmental experience and that both are not dependent on each other. The theory that this position takes is referred to as the psychophysical parallelism. The double aspectism theory also relates to psychophysical parallelism in that it argues for the fact that the body is not a dividend of the body, and the mind rather is a sole entity that experiences mental and psychological events at the same time (Hergenhahn 17). For example, a coin has two aspects that are head and tail which are similar to the psychological and mental events as the two aspects of a human. Hence, the mind and body are the two sides of every experience in which humans have and cannot be separated from each other nor can they interact.
The relationship between the body and the mind is further explained by the interactionism theory which was developed by Descartes. It theorizes the mind as an immaterial and a non-extended element that that takes part in different activities that include feeling, rational thinking, imagination and willingness (Hergenhahn 17). For instance, mental events are produced by the human mind such as; when the mind wills for the arm to be raised, then the arm will be raised. Therefore, according to interactionism the physical events as well as the mental event have the ability to influence each other. The experience of an individual is influenced by the physical world where via his/her sense and in response a behavioral response to those experiences occurs. Also, the actions and the speech of an individual is influenced by his/her thinking. For instance, every utterance from a given person is normally a reflection of his thoughts in that whatever he/she says is what the mind is thinking. Similarly, before someone acts in a particular manner, he or she will have given considerate thoughts before engaging in such an action.
Descartes attempted to explain the nature of the mind by employing the mind-body dualism. He argued that the mind is able to think and not extended and, on the other hand, the nature of the body is that it is extended and cannot think that then makes it possible either of them to exist without another. The approach of dualism helps in understanding the relationship between the body and the mind in that they both unite to form a human being. Descartes uses the term “real distinction” to denote the difference that exists between substances. It means that a substance can exist on its own without the existence of other creatures. The substance is said to exist only with the assistance of the concurrence of God while on the other hand a mode represents the affection of the substance quality (Skirry n.p). Consequently, the existence of a mode depends on that of a substance and not just God’s concurrence. Therefore, the idea of the mind and the body being certainly different denotes the fact that any of them can solely exist without any other creature including each of them if God decides to do it.
The argument of Descartes in relation to the religious view of the distinction of the human mind from its soul was to refute the people who believe in the immortality of the soul with regards to mathematics without mathematically offering a demonstration to it. He concludes that the souls are immortal which explain the afterlife prospect that irreligious individuals should believe. For instance, Plato rationally described the soul as immortal where he created a dualism that divided the body of the human which he regarded it as imperfect and material as well as the souls that were said to contain pure knowledge (Hergenhahn 47). Also, the independence of the mind from the body is described by the fact that it is not possible for the mind to be divisible according to its nature while the nature of the body allows for it to be divided. Thus, this provides a premise for arguing for the fact that the mind is entirely different from the body. The use of nature in the describing the body and the mind represents the features of the body and the mind that include the indivisibility of the mind and the divisibility of the body. The reasoning that is offered to help foster the truthfulness of the assertions concerning the nature of mind and body is as follows. In a situation where you break a pen into two halves, you will remain with two different parts of that particular pen. It shows the divisible nature of bodies. On the other hand, trying to divide the mind or an “I” into two is absurd since it is not possible to divide the mind into two selves. Therefore, it supports the fact that the mind is fundamentally not divisible while the body is fundamentally divisible.
However, the property of divisibility is clear but the notion that the mind and body are completely different requires further illustration. Descartes offers a better conclusion due to the fact that the divisibility and indivisibility fundamental properties are contradictories. Therefore, the property of the mind is indivisibility since it is not possible for an individual to distinguish himself or herself as having any parts. On the contrary, the body is very divisible in that would also be a nature in which both either have or does not have parts. Hence, the body and the mind can be described as opposites which denote that the comprehension of the indivisible mind is possible regardless of the absence of the divisible body and the vice versa (Skirry n.p).
The understanding of dualism as an approach to the nature of the mind if by answering the famous “The Mind-Body Problem.” This problem inquires to know the manner in which the body and mind interact to ensure that human being is able to experience intentional bodily commotions as well as sensations. Therefore, the relationship between the mind and body that result in the motions of the body is described with the help of the ability of the mind to trigger motion within the body. It occurs from the fact that the mind is a willing and can think thus making it easier for it to perceive a motion that will be responded by the body part that then results in bodily movement. Therefore, the mind and body can work together but does not mean that they are independent of each other. Another feature that provides an understanding of the relationship between the mind and body is that the souls and the body were regarded substance that is incomplete where they become complete only when they unite. Descartes argues that substance can be complete as far as it is a substance. However, it is regarded incomplete when it can be combined with another different substance to form a third substance. With respect to the body and mind, provided that the mind is a thinking thing it can be considered complete while the body is considered complete as far as it is an extended thing. On the other hand, when each of them is considered individually they form an incomplete human being.
Hence, it is evident that the body and the mind in some sense are perceived to be profoundly different kinds of things. Dualism takes the position that mind and body are very distinct entities in terms of meaning as well as opposes any theory that provides an identification of the body and the mind. According to the epiphenomenalists, the true cause of mental events is the brain and also refutes the fact idea that behavior is caused by the mental events. Therefore, mental events are regarded as the by-products of the processes of the brain and are not capable of exerting an influence. The mind is able to think and not extended and on the other hand the nature of the body is that it is extended and cannot think that then makes it possible either of them to exist without another. The approach of dualism helps in understanding the relationship between the body and the mind in that they both unite to form a human being. The relationship between the body and the mind is further explained by the interactionism theory which was developed by Descartes. It theorizes the mind as an immaterial and a non-extended element that that takes part in different activities that include feeling, rational thinking, imagination and willingness. Hence, the body and mind are two different things in that the mental events are regarded as the by-products of the processes of the brain and are not capable of exerting an influence. The body is very divisible in that would also be a nature in which both either have or does not have parts. Hence, the body and the mind can be described as opposites which denote that the comprehension of the indivisible mind is possible regardless of the absence of the divisible body and the vice versa.
Works Cited
Hergenhahn, Baldwin, and Tracy Henley. An introduction to the history of psychology. Cengage Learning, 2013.
Skirry, Justin. "Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy." Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Web. 30 Mar. 2016.
