Expertly Crafted Critical Thinking On Dualism, Materialism And Personal Identity In The Context Of The Mind / Body Problem

Descartes argues that there are two equal world beginnings, i.e. "mind or mental substance, and body or physical substance" (Philosophy of Mind, 2016, p. 5). The main property of the first beginning is the thought, while the second one operates with the length. Both phenomena coexist in the world, moreover, these two principles are everlasting, and none of them dominates the other. However, Descartes says that God created these substances, which means that his dualism is approaching idealism, as dualism "could be based upon religion, belief in life after death, or belief that people are more valuable than mere material objects" (Philosophy of Mind, 2016, p. 5). As one can see, the main problem of dualism, which asserts the equivalence of parallel and opposing world beginning of material and ideal, was and still is the question of their origin. If there are two of these principles, then they are generated or created by something third. What does it represent? If it is something material, then dualism turns into materialism ("a position which is known as substance dualism or Cartesian dualism"), and if it is something ideal, then it would be idealism (Philosophy of Mind, 2016, p. 5). Nevertheless, if it is neither the first nor the second, then what is it? Thus, the dualism that exists as one of the philosophical explanation of the world is not without controversy and objections.
Descartes treats the question that arises as a result of the evidence of his own existence. It comes from the fact that he proved the truth of the following beliefs: "I exist". Then he asks a new question: "What am I?" "Furthermore, Descartes and many dualists held that it was essential that the mental was nonphysical and thus could not properly be said to be located in any physical space. How, then, is consciousness related to our bodies?" (Philosophy of Mind, 2016, p. 5). The way Descartes tries to answer this question leads directly to his dualism, because the answer that he eventually proposes is that, in fact, he is the thing that thinks. This does not make him a supporter of the dualism of mind and body, but he still argues in favor of the fact that he is substantially a consciousness or a soul, and that, if his body had ceased to exist, he will still continue to exist and this is a clear dualism: "A mind, says a dualist, has no weight, mass, size, or location. It is observable by only one person, the person whose mind it is" (Philosophy of Mind, 2016, p. 5). There are two substances At the heart of René Descartes' Dualism, i.e. the spiritual and material phenomena. The substance is the reason of itself and of all that exists. The substances were created by God. Attribute is an inalienable property of a thing, and the substances have attributes. The mind can help to receive knowledge that will be applied in the material sphere. This means that all material substances have a common feature, i.e., they are divisible to infinity. Yet spiritual substances have the property of thinking and, on the contrary, are indivisible: "It has seemed to critics of dualism that the mental and the physical are so different according to dualism that they could not possibly be related" (Philosophy of Mind, 2016, p. 5). Hence, throughout the history of philosophy of materialism, the development has not been a single purpose but as a means to address the main issue of all philosophy - the purpose of human life. For materialism, the happiness of both the individual and the whole of humanity is a purpose, which is achieved in the real, earthly life, in the pursuit of rational and constructive purposes. The materialism's task to explain the world as a whole is natural and, therefore, it is extremely difficult to implement it. If so, one might conclude that "talk about beliefs, sensations, hopes, etc., is in fact just another way of talking about states of the brain," i.e. the bases of materialism (Philosophy of Mind, 2016, p. 6).
The argument of the supporters of eliminative materialism is that the popular theory about the psychology of consciousness is waiting for the fate of the popular theories in biology and physics: it will completely disappear. The idea that every individual and other complex systems have a soul, or a subjective psychological reality, or consciousness is only a part of the folk theory in psychology. "A more sophisticated approach, perhaps, is to argue that there are not two kinds of substances, but only one" (Philosophy of Mind, 2016, p. 6). As the various sciences will progress and there will be new methods of imaging of the brain, there will not be anything that would be consistent with human's naive ideas about the inner subjective reality. That is, the eliminative materialism asserts that most of the traditional and even proven theories are false, because if they are reduced to the basics of human physiology, it will turn out that they are arranged differently. "The eliminativist is urging that we must reconceive the way we look at human beings. Their view is that common sense psychology is as misguided a conception of humans as the geocentric view was of our solar system" (Philosophy of Mind, 2016, p. 7). As to the reductive materialism, one should say here that the eliminative materialism acknowledges the existence of conscious mental phenomena in contrast to the reductive materialism. "Reductive materialism tries to make plausible the theoretical reduction of common sense psychology to brain science" (Philosophy of Mind, 2016, p. 6). A person does not make a mistake speaking about the existence of consciousness. However, s/he makes a serious mistake, believing that the mind and brain are two completely different entities. In fact, they are not. Consciousness and the brain are the same thing. Therefore, reductive materialism asserts that consciousness itself is a common physical entity or a process that occurs in the brain, which is different from all other known physical entities and brain processes. Therefore, people are mistaken only in relation to the basic nature of consciousness and not the very fact of its existence. Accordingly, unlike eliminative, the reductive materialism recognizes the existence of conscious sensations, perceptions, emotions, thoughts in people's minds. The dualistic view seems more plausible, though the materialism can be justified much easier. Based on Descartes' arguments in favor of the dualistic model of a human being, one can say that they provide an understanding of the existence and origin of a man.
The most common form of the problem is the question of what constitutes the personal identity in time and what its criteria are. Thus, in terms of Locke, one and the same person does not form one and the same substance as the same continuous consciousness. "Locke argued not for the sameness of immaterial substance, but rather that the sameness of consciousness makes someone the same continuously existing person over time" (Philosophy of Mind, 2016, p. 15). He refutes the thesis that a soul can identity a person, for the soul is immortal, and if one recognizes it as a criterion, it would open up the possibility to the souls' transfer. From the viewpoint of Locke, that is absurd, otherwise the people, who lived in different periods, were one and the same person. The identity of a person determines that s/he is responsible for their actions and can be rewarded and punished. With regard to Hume's views on the identities, it should be noted that he does not agree with the fact that identity is an equivalence with a person; he joints it with the perception of a person, which is dependent on the senses. For Hume's identity - the identity of the body, the human mind, its immutable traits, this collection allows the individual relates to his actions, thoughts, feelings as his own. So, "personal identity is an illusion" (Philosophy of Mind, 2016, p. 16). If one compares Locke and Hume's views on what the identity is, it becomes clear that both philosophers have similarities and differences. For example, the basic similarity in their views is that the identity is one of the basic elements of human existence. The main difference in their views is the fact that Hume asserted that identity was just an illusion related to the perception of difference. If one determines which of these two viewpoints is more plausible, it should be said that Hume delved into the study of identity in more detail. He discovered many other aspects that have helped to better understand the nature of human perception. Hence, the views of Hume seem more plausible than Locke's assertions.
Reference