What is the relationship between mind and body?
Week 4: The Real Distinction
What is the relationship between mind and body?
The body may be considered as the instrument which carries people through the journey of their lives. It is, in effect, similar to a shuttle which allows astronauts to orientate around space. Inside of the shuttle we may think of a navigator who pushes the controls, and steers the shuttle around and this is, perhaps, how we may also perceive the mind. However, the relationship between the body and mind is much more than a simple, instrumental relationship, within each human there are also emotional and sensual experiences, how are these derived from the body and mind 'machine'?
In this essay I will look at the relationship between mind and body and consider whether they can be described as two, separate and distinct units, or whether they are simply two different parts of one entity.
A description, or concept, of a body is something which is common to almost all people. In general we see many hundreds of bodies throughout our daily lives and can describe it in its physical sense. This, however, is not true of the mind. How, then, are we to describe it?
"Descartes uses the term 'mind' to refer to the conscious, thinking self." (Cottingham 124)
From this, therefore, we could argue that the mind is the place where conscious thought takes place. It is almost necessary that Descartes would claim this due to his proposition cogito ergo sum which claims that thought proves the existence of a person. However, Descartes in First Meditations, has denied that he can be certain of his body, and therefore all that he can be sure that is in existence from thought is a place where such thoughts reside - this is what we may consider to be the mind.
Scientifically the brain has been the organ associated with thought. Physiologists and psychologists have both found that thoughts correspond to various activities and stimuli within the brain. Could we consider, therefore, that the mind is simply an organ within the body, of which thought is its main function, in the way that the pancreas is an organ, with a function of sugar level control?
If the above question were thought to be true, we would be conceding to the fact that the mind is simply a part of one entity, the body. However, it has already been seen that the body can be doubted, whereas the mind may be thought of as essential for the existence of a person. Without the mind we cannot think, and the cogito shows that unless there is thought, there cannot be certainty of existence. It is this essential nature of the mind, or soul, as it is commonly referred to, established the discussion of 'essence'.
Descartes claimed that a man cannot be separated from his soul, as it is his essence, it is that which makes him exactly the object which he is. Although the mind may have been conceived as a place which houses thought, it also has an identity within it which is more than thought, it holds the core of a person's existence. Thus, all that make s a person who the person or being is, is in the soul.
This cannot be true of bodies, however, it is argued as they are impermanent, and do not signify the ...
This is a preview of the whole essay
Descartes claimed that a man cannot be separated from his soul, as it is his essence, it is that which makes him exactly the object which he is. Although the mind may have been conceived as a place which houses thought, it also has an identity within it which is more than thought, it holds the core of a person's existence. Thus, all that make s a person who the person or being is, is in the soul.
This cannot be true of bodies, however, it is argued as they are impermanent, and do not signify the person. This is shown in the example of a person who may be in an accident in which they sustain injuries which cause disfigurements. Indeed, such disfigurement is so severe that they are 'unrecognisable' to those people who knew them before the accident. However, we could not say that they are a different person; although they may have changed physically they are still themselves and, arguably, the reason for this is because their essence, or soul, has not been changed.
A counter argument for this may claim that the reason why the person is still the same is because they are still of the same body, even though it is changed in certain ways, we know that they are occupying the same physical matter as previously. Similarly, it may also be noted that the person still has the same brain - they will retain their memories, their likes and preferences. Swinburne, who says that the brain is simply a catalyst which the soul can use to connect with the body, however, dismisses this:
"There is something other to the continuity if the person...brain continuity is not sufficient for personal identity." (Swinburne, 149-151)
This argument is also backed by the example of the possibility of brain transplants. If such an operation were possible would this mean that a person's essence could be transferred from within one body to another? If this were so, would this mean that if only part of the brain was taken and used in conjunction with another person's body that the person would, in part, also be within the other. At this point, it seems as though some one person could be two different people, or two parts of people - however, once working these two parts of the brain would create a different person, with their own essence. It is this argument, therefore, which gives weight to the idea that the brain is simply an organ in which the soul functions, but it is not the totality of the soul.
How, then, do the above ideas of the soul relate to the question of whether the mind and body are one entity, or separate?
A key issue within this argument concerns the biological activity of death. If the soul were said to be in total union with the body as it is simply one part of the 'body mechanism', then it would be expected that the soul would die with the body also. However, if the soul were separate from the body then differences would occur between the body and soul at death. It was this idea which led Williams to comment:
"For him (Descartes) soul meant separable soul, and separable soul meant the possibility of immortality." (Williams 287)
Although the idea of immortality may seem somewhat outlandish Descartes believed that the strength of the forces within the mind would not have to submit to biological death in the same way which physical cells would have to. Cottingham reflects upon this when he says that Descartes cannot conceive that:
"Annihilation of a substance like the mind can result from 'such a trivial cause' as bodily death, which is simply a matter of division or change of shape on the parts of the body." (Cottingham 158).
This idea is difficult to refute unless we take the view that the mind is simply the biological organ the brain, which has already been dismissed as a possibility. An argument may be constructed due to the fact that the mind has been certified as being in existence because of thought, therefore, if this thought is to stop due to death then we may also consider that the mind may cease to exist. However, surely the mind which must have 'existed' simultaneous to thoughts, otherwise this would suggest that the thoughts literally 'thought' the mind into existence. There is also no evidence to show that thought does not continue after death, it is simply that we are not given any outward sign of this.
Therefore, it may be considered, that the death scenario would suggest that the mind and body are two separate entities, which are linked in communication through the brain. However, the previous theory does rely on assumption, and does not seem to be as vigorously scientific in comparison to much of Descartes' other areas of work within First Meditations. The question of immortality is also never proved, and Descartes himself admits this. He can only states that immortality is a choice which can only be left to God and resigns himself to the belief that it is most unlikely that bodily death would entail the destruction of the soul.
Further evidence, however, which Descartes gives for the mind and body as two distinct and separate parts, working in collaboration, is that the body is divisible in itself. The mind, however, does not have such a divisible nature:
"There is a great difference between the mind and body in as much as the body is by its very nature always divisible, while the mind is utterly indivisible." (First Meditations).
This has been discussed previously in the area of organ transplantation. This area of science has caused great philosophical debate. If someone is to take another person's heart, which may be considered as the central organ for existence of the physical body, it would not be stated that they are a different person because of this. The transplant debate also shows how the physical body may be separated into parts - any one person may donate several separate organs. A person is also made of many various molecular constructions, various fluids, nerves and networks. However, when the die we cannot create a construction of their mind. We are unable to separate their thoughts into one pile, and their personality into another - it would seem, therefore, that the mind has an indivisible nature.
There are arguments which try to oppose this view of the indivisibility of the mind. Once dead, a person can no longer perform actions and thought may be considered simply as an action of the mind, which causes another form of action, or reaction within a person. Therefore, thoughts are not something which can be kept, or separated, in the same way that at one time the person may have ran and that that action of running cannot be now kept, or seen, in a physical form.
Although there are arguments which do propose that the mind and body are of a single unit, and work in unison as parts of a machine, the prevalent view in Descartes'' work shows that this is not his belief. Descartes is a dualist, which is also known as the Real Distinction and is summed up by Swinburne as:
"the view that those persons which are human beings living on Earth have two parts linked together, body and soul." (Swinburne 145).
To hold the view that the body and mind are both separate and distinct requires a difference in the opinions of that which the two entities are. Descartes claims that he is certain that he is really distinct from his body, but how can he be sure of this?
Although there is a perception of difference between the two parts it does not mean that they are distinct - indeed, they are, in general, jointly involved in any task which a human will undertake. Descartes does acknowledge this:
"I am not merely present in my body as a sailor is present in my ship but that I am very closely joined and as it were intermingled with it." (First Meditations)
However, he would suggest that they are still two separate parts, with the body being a inferior part to the mind in that it is controllable by it in certain ways, i.e. thoughts prompt the actions of the body. But he still maintains that they are separate due to their different natures concerning divisibility and death.
Therefore, it may be concluded that Descartes believes very strongly that there is a relationship between mind and body which is one of a form of communication which leads to the 'mechanics' of a human. That is, there is an interaction between these two parts which allows the human to function in the state which we would call 'alive'. However, they are also separate as the soul is able to transcend death, and is indivisible, unlike its bodily counterpart.
The main problem with this argument, however, is that it relies upon a definition of the mind, or soul. If we are to believe that the mind is some inner object which cannot be seen, or proved scientifically, then it is almost impossible to falsify that it lives on after bodily death. However, if we are to consider that a person's essence is in a soul which consists of their personality, thoughts and emotions, all of which are simply biological responses and processes then the above idea could not be thought of as true - we would have to believe that when the body ceases, which in turn causes the brain to stop functioning, the essence of the person dies also.
Therefore, the relationship between body and mind hangs, perhaps, more upon the definitions, and the consequences of such definitions, more so than upon the physical and spiritual links between them.
Laura McInerney
1.02.02
