subject: The Mind-Body Problem [print this page] The Mind-Body Problem The Mind-Body Problem
Regarding the mind and body, several issues have been addressed. The most widely discussed issue is that of the nature of the mind relative to the body. For several years now, quite a number of famous Philosophers have attempted to solve this problem but to date, the problem remains. Perhaps what these thinkers have done is to bring us closer to the truth, which is the primary concern of philosophy itself. So what is the nature of this problem? What makes the relation of the mind and body problematic? This study will concern itself with an explication of the problem. It will also establish what species are likely to be conscious, and whether individuals are capable of subjective knowing, and also whether it possible to ever create conscious robots?
The Mind-Body Problem
Although this problem plagued thinkers for over two thousand five hundred years ago, the most serious discourse can be said to have properly started with the famous French philosopher Rene Descartes. Some people since then have preferred to call it Cartesian Dualism. Several philosophers have discussed this problem for years now. These philosophers however, found themselves taking either of the two main thoughts that have reigned in the world. Dualism as already mentioned is the philosophical view that the mind is found as a different entity apart from the body. This view seems to have been taken by most of the world's famous philosophers. It has already been indicated that Descartes took this position. There exists a different position however, which has become known as Monism. This view posits that there is only one entity. The mind and the body do not form two distinct realities. This view also has a long history, having started with Parmenides, and recalled by Spinoza in the seventeenth century. According to this view, there is no distinction between the mind and the body. Some of those who take this view reduce the mind to a physical reality. Others assert that only the mind exists. For them, all others are only creations of the mental illusions. Another view by the monists is that there exists, a neutral substance, which forms the basis for both the mind and body. Some scientists seem to find this position to be the most appropriate. Philosophers such as Plato have received acclaim for establishing the line between the ideal and the material world. Majority of those who addressed this problem did not have a clear vision of the immensity of the problem. They addressed it in some way nonetheless. Descartes was interested in establishing a system of thinking that would eliminate the problem that philosophy has always tried to solve. One problem that Descartes found himself deeply entrenched into was the relation between his thinking and his being. He established a system that was aimed at doubting everything in order to establish whether anything could be knowable beyond any reasonable doubt. This kind of doubt was only provisional. It was doubt applied as a means to an end; and the end for him was knowledge that cannot be doubted. In this process, one thing that he established was that he could not doubt that he was involved in a cognitive process in his doubt. For him that seemed to be the surest thing. He could not refute the fact that he was thinking. He therefore concluded with his famous dictum; "I think therefore, I am." This to say, triggered a great interest in many philosophers, to whom he seemed to have clarified the weight of the problem. These now sought to understand how a relationship could be sustained between two essentially distinct realities. Today this problem has persisted, but thanks to Descartes we at least understand it. The mind does not have a material nature. The body on the other hand is material, and is limited in nature. It is subject to corruption, and is even possible to transform into something else after decay. The mind does not have a form, because it is immaterial. Decomposition cannot therefore, be said of the mind. This opens us to what can be said to be one of the most difficult philosophical issues of our time. How is it possible to bring together into a relational unity, a reality that does not have a form, or occupy space-the mind, with something that is material, is in every way limited, and is even subject to decay? This is a very serious problem. Perhaps most of those who have not yet been introduced to the problem never even consider it. To them it is not an issue. How is such a relation even possible? In this discourse, it is important to distinguish between the brain and the mind. Several people often do not make this difference. The brain is a physical reality. It is found inside of the skull, with the function of causing bodily responses that are initiated mainly by the senses, but which are informed by the mind (Herbert, 1967). The two are not synonymous. They are as distinct as is the mind from the body. In other words, we are entangled in a relationship in which one entity causes the other and vice versa. The big deal is that this relationship is between two things that seem totally incompatible, because one is known to be material, while the other cannot even be fully understood because its nature is very elusive. We can only speculate about it. Descartes hypothesized that the brain and the mind are involved in a relationship. The two he said, are connected at the pineal gland. This however, he was unable to explain, because there still remains the original problem, which is the possibility of compatibility between the pineal gland-physical, and the non-physical mind. If we critically look at this problem, we realize that it not only leaves us with the question of the relationship to answer, but with also with another interesting question of knowledge, or the possibility of it. Who is capable of knowledge? Who can claim to know?
Consciousness in Subjective Analysis
In consciousness, the central figure is the self. We cannot talk of consciousness without the conscious self. In so doing, we find ourselves into the issue of subjectivity (Levine, 1983). This calls in the possibility of knowing. As a matter of fact, a definition of consciousness is not an easy one to coil. What makes it hard is the fact that whatever we know is an aspect of our consciousness. We therefore lack a point from which to refer in our definition of the word. One thing that we are sure of is that consciousness involves the intellect. The intellect is actively involved in the process of being present to one's thought processes. A reflection on the question; which species are likely to be conscious, may help us more. As already mentioned, consciousness is a faculty of the subject that knows. What this means is that one ought to have the capacity for knowledge in order to be conscious (Block et al., 1998). But it also means that one must be conscious that they are conscious. This presents us with a more serious problem than it seems to be. If as already seen, consciousness is an intellectual function; it means that only species that have this intellectual capacity are capable of consciousness. However, how can one know that they are conscious? Kant was only too aware of this problem, when he attempted to answer the question of the possibility of knowledge. He addressed this problem in this way. The self is totally different from the reality. If then consciousness involves the awareness of a certain reality, is it possible to know reality, which is totally different from the self. Kant saw that this is not possible, because when one says I know a certain thing, that person uses his/her mind. He/she creates certain thoughts around that thing which they are concerned with, which not to mention exists even without the mind-independently, and then comes up with a conclusion that they know reality (Carruthers, 2004). This is what they mean when they say they are conscious of something. Kant therefore would argue that one cannot be conscious of reality, because it is not possible to know reality as it really is. Kant reduces knowing to the subjective. Descartes on the other hand would say that it is possible to know reality. But the only reality that can be fully conscious of is the reflecting self, because this forms the foundation on which all knowledge is possible. All else can be brought into doubt. It means therefore that one can only be conscious of the thinking self. Descartes reduces consciousness to the thinking self. Lonergan offers us what seems as a modest approach. Lonergan recognized the difficulty of the problem of consciousness, but rather than conclude that it is not possible to gain consciousness, he spoke of the process of consciousness as being a procedural one. We gain insight into what is given to us through our senses and this opens up the possibility for knowing to us. This happens in an instance, and then we grasp the true meaning of reality. We become conscious of things and of ourselves. But how can we determine that a particular non-human species or even another human has subjective experiences? In an attempt to answer this question our claims must be modest. This study does not in any way claim to have established conclusively, the solutions to this problem, rather, it only adds to the many thoughts that have already been in place for centuries, while at the same time invoking those thoughts in an attempt to gain a deeper understanding. When for instance one person sees the color green, do others experience it in the same way? Do others see the green that the first person sees, or do they experience it in a different way? Can animals have this experience? This is complex. When we experience greenness, we see it in relation to the concrete reality in which that green resides (Searle, 1980). This is to say that if we say that this car is green, greenness is abstracted from the car, which is green. Only a rational being is capable of this kind of process, because irrational beings cannot comprehend concepts (Kuhlenbeck, 1958).
