Mind/Body Dichotomy Dialogue Education Update 4 Next Slide: Contents THIS CD HAS BEEN PRODUCED FOR TEACHERS TO USE IN THE CLASSROOM. IT IS A CONDITION OF THE USE OF THIS CD THAT IT BE USED ONLY BY THE PEOPLE FROM SCHOOLS THAT HAVE PURCHASED THE CD ROM FROM DIALOGUE EDUCATION. (THIS DOES NOT PROHIBIT ITS USE ON A SCHOOL’S INTRANET)

Contents Page 3 – Kahoot Page 4 - Video Presentation on the Mind Body Question Pages 5 - Defining the Mind Body issue Page 6 - The main categories Pages 8 to 22 - Rene Descarte -The Mind Body Problem Page 24 - Community of inquiry Stimulus Material on the Mind Body Problem Page 25 - Video Presentation – John Searle Beyond Dualism Page 26 - Hoopshoot Game on the Mind Body question Page 27 - Bibliography Next Slide: You Tube Introduction to the Mind Body Debate....

Kahoot- Mind/Body Dichotomy Next Page : You Tube Presentation on Free Will / Determinism debate

You Tube Introduction to the Mind Body Debate. Click on the image to the left. You will need to be connected to the internet to view this presentation. Enlarge to full screen Next Slide: The mind-body dichotomy is the view that "mental" phenomena ...

Mind Body Dichotomy The mind-body dichotomy is the view that "mental" phenomena are, in some respects, "non-physical" (distinct from the body). Next Slide: In a religious sense, it refers to the separation of body and soul. ...

In a religious sense, it refers to the separation of body and soul. Mind Body Dichotomy In a religious sense, it refers to the separation of body and soul. Next Slide: Plato argued that, as the body is from the material world

Mind Body Dichotomy Plato argued that, as the body is from the material world, the soul is from the world of ideas and thus immortal. Plato argued that, as the body is from the material world, the soul is from the world of ideas and thus immortal. He believed the soul was temporarily united with the body and would only be separated at death where it would then go back to the world of forms. As the soul does not exist in time and space as the body does, it can therefore access universal truths from the world of ideas. Dualism - the mind is distinct from the body. Materialism - the mind is an extension of the body (eg. chemical reactions). Idealism - reality is in the mind. The aim of the soul is to out survive the body where it will return to the world of ideas, along with the identity of the individual. Next Slide: The mind-body dichotomy is the starting point of Dualism. ...

Mind Body Dichotomy The mind-body dichotomy is the starting point of Dualism. It became conceptualized its current form in the Western world by René Descartes's. It also appeared in pre- Aristotelian concepts. Next Slide: René Descartes René Descartes' illustration of mind/body dualism. Inputs are passed on by the sensory organs to the epiphysis in the brain and from there to the immaterial spirit.

René Descartes (1596-1650 AD) Meditations II (1641) The Mind-Body Problem & Descartes’ Psycho-Somatic Dualism Next Slide: Map

Anthem Next Slide: Three metaphysical perspectives

Three metaphysical perspectives relevant to the “mind-body problem” Next Slide: Metaphysical Dualism: Metaphysical Materialism: Metaphysical Idealism:

Metaphysical Dualism: Metaphysical Materialism: Metaphysical Idealism: Metaphysical Dualism: Reality is two-dimensional, partly material and partly non-material (minds, ideas, souls, spirits, consciousness, etc.). Metaphysical Materialism: Reality is nothing but matter-in-motion-in-space-and-in-time. There are no non-material realities. Metaphysical Idealism: Reality is nothing but Mind, Idea, Soul, Spirit, Consciousness, etc. Matter does not exist (it’s an illusion?). Next Slide: Application to the “mind-body problem”

Application to the “mind-body problem” Metaphysical Materialism: A person is nothing but a physical organism (body only). Metaphysical Idealism: A person is “consciousness only” (mind, soul, spirit); not at all a material being. Metaphysical Dualism: A person is a composite of (1) “mind” (consciousness, intellect, soul, spirit) and (2) body. Next Slide: Cartesian Dualism

I know with certainty THAT “I” exist (Cogito ergo sum), but Cartesian Dualism I know with certainty THAT “I” exist (Cogito ergo sum), but WHAT am “I”? I know with certainty THAT “I” exist (Cogito ergo sum), but WHAT am “I”? Am “I” my body? No, because I can doubt the existence of my body, whereas I cannot doubt the existence of myself (the “I”). “I” am a thinking thing, a thing that doubts, understands, affirms, denies, wills, refuses, imagines, and has sensations Next Slide: Is Descartes right?

Is Descartes right? Can you doubt the existence of your body (as well as other physical things)? Next Slide: “I can conceive of myself as existing without a body, but I cannot conceive of myself as existing without conscious awareness.” Why or why not?

Bryan Magee, The Great Philosophers (Oxford 1987) “I can conceive of myself as existing without a body, but I cannot conceive of myself as existing without conscious awareness.” Bryan Magee, The Great Philosophers (Oxford 1987) Next Slide: Descartes' piece of wax (What is this about?)

Descartes' piece of wax (What is this about?) Detour Descartes’ piece of wax is a physical object. How is it known? Through the senses? Through the intellect (judgement, intuition)? He considers a piece of wax; his senses inform him that it has certain characteristics, such as shape, texture, size, color, smell, and so forth. When he brings the wax towards a flame, these characteristics change completely. However, it seems that it is still the same thing: it is still the same piece of wax, even though the data of the senses inform him that all of its characteristics are different. Therefore, in order to properly grasp the nature of the wax, he should put aside the senses. He must use his mind. Descartes concludes: “ And so something which I thought I was seeing with my eyes is in fact grasped solely by the faculty of judgment which is in my mind. ” In this manner, Descartes proceeds to construct a system of knowledge, discarding perception as unreliable and instead admitting only deduction as a method. Next Slide: A major dispute running through the entire

That piece of wax…. A major dispute running through the entire history of philosophy has to do with the source(s) of human knowledge. A major dispute running through the entire history of philosophy has to do with the source(s) of human knowledge. There are two major schools: rationalism and empiricism. The empiricists hold that knowledge is derived from sense perception and experience. The rationalists (such as Descartes) hold that knowledge is derived from clear logical thinking, from the intellect (i.e., from "reason"). Next Slide: In the "wax" section, which is a kind of detour from his main argument

In the "wax" section, which is a kind of detour from his main argument, Descartes is showing his support of rationalism. He argues that we know - through the intellect - that the wax is and remains what it is as it passes through time and change. Sense perception does not show the "substance" of the wax but only its various appearances. If we relied on sense experience rather than on "reason," then we would "know" that the wax is all of the following: cold and hard, warm and soft, hot and liquid. However, "reason" (not the senses) tells us that the substance (reality) of the wax is something more fundamental than its sensual appearances. Next Slide: Back to the mind-body problem….

Back to the mind-body problem…. So… in Descartes’ view, my body exists (if it exists at all) outside of my consciousness and is therefore part of the “external world.” Next Slide: Descartes’ mind-body dualism leads to Thus,

Descartes’ mind-body dualism leads to . . . . Next Slide: (1) skepticism concerning the existence & nature of the “external world” &…

(1) skepticism concerning the existence & nature of the “external world” (2) the existence of God Next Slide: The rejection of the mind-body dichotomy is found in French

Descartes suggested that the body works like a machine, that it has material properties. Descartes in his Passions of the Soul and The Description of the Human Body suggested that the body works like a machine, that it has material properties. The mind (or soul), on the other hand, was described as a nonmaterial and does not follow the laws of nature. Descartes argued that the mind interacts with the body at the pineal gland. This form of dualism or duality proposes that the mind controls the body, but that the body can also influence the otherwise rational mind, such as when people act out of passion. Most of the previous accounts of the relationship between mind and body had been uni-directional.

Descartes suggested that the pineal gland is "the seat of the soul" for several reasons. Descartes suggested that the pineal gland is "the seat of the soul" for several reasons. First, the soul is unitary, and unlike many areas of the brain the pineal gland appeared to be unitary (though subsequent microscopic inspection has revealed it is formed of two hemispheres). Second, Descartes observed that the pineal gland was located near the ventricles. He believed the cerebrospinal fluid of the ventricles acted through the nerves to control the body, and that the pineal gland influenced this process. Cartesian dualism set the agenda for philosophical discussion of the mind–body problem for many years after Descartes's death.

Although Descartes realized that both humans and animals have pineal glands, he believed that only humans have minds. Although Descartes realized that both humans and animals have pineal glands (see Passions of the Soul Part One, Section 50, AT 369), he believed that only humans have minds. This led him to the belief that animals cannot feel pain, and Descartes's practice of vivisection (the dissection of live animals) became widely used throughout Europe until the Enlightenment.

The Mind Body Dichotomy The rejection of the mind-body dichotomy is found in French Structuralism, and is a position that generally characterized post- war French philosophy. Next Slide: The absence of an empirically identifiable meeting point between the non-physical ....

Mind Body Dichotomy The absence of an empirically identifiable meeting point between the non-physical mind and its physical extension has proven problematic to dualism and many modern philosophers of mind maintain that the mind is not something separate from the body. Next Slide:These approaches have been particularly influential in the sciences

These approaches have been particularly influential in the sciences Mind Body Dichotomy These approaches have been particularly influential in the sciences These approaches have been particularly influential in the sciences particularly in the fields of socio-biology, computer science, evolutionary psychology and the various neurosciences. Next Slide: A community of Inquiry on the Mind Body Problem

Argument against Dualism In instances of brain damage it is always the case that the mental substance and/or properties of the person are significantly changed or compromised This argument has been formulated by Paul Churchland, among others. The point is that, in instances of some sort of brain damage (e.g. caused by automobile accidents, drug abuse, pathological diseases, etc.), it is always the case that the mental substance and/or properties of the person are significantly changed or compromised. If the mind were a completely separate substance from the brain, how could it be possible that every single time the brain is injured, the mind is also injured? Indeed, it is very frequently the case that one can even predict and explain the kind of mental or psychological deterioration or change that human beings will undergo when specific parts of their brains are damaged. So the question for the dualist to try to confront is how can all of this be explained if the mind is a separate and immaterial substance from, or if its properties are ontologically independent of, the brain.

Arguments against Dualism Phineas Gage, who suffered destruction of one or both frontal lobes by a projectile iron rod, is often cited as an example illustrating that the brain causes mind. Phineas Gage, who suffered destruction of one or both frontal lobes by a projectile iron rod, is often cited as an example illustrating that the brain causes mind. Gage certainly exhibited some mental changes after his accident. This physical event, the destruction of part of his brain, therefore caused some kind of change in his mind, suggesting a correlation between brain states and mental states. Similar examples abound; neuroscientist David Eagleman describes the case of another individual who exhibited escalating pedophilic tendencies at two different times, and in each case was found to have tumors growing in a particular part of his brain.[74][75]

Arguments against dualism Case studies aside, modern experiments have demonstrated that the relation between brain and mind is much more than simple correlation. Case studies aside, modern experiments have demonstrated that the relation between brain and mind is much more than simple correlation. By damaging, or manipulating, specific areas of the brain repeatedly under controlled conditions (e.g. in monkeys) and reliably obtaining the same results in measures of mental state and abilities, neuroscientists have shown that the relation between damage to the brain and mental deterioration is likely causal. This conclusion is further supported by data from the effects of neuro-active chemicals (such as those affecting neurotransmitters)[76] on mental functions, but also from research on neurostimulation.

A community of Inquiry on the Mind Body Problem CLICK ON THIS LINK FOR THE STIMULUS FOR A DISCUSSION ABOUT PROBLEMS WITH THE MATERIALIST THEORY OF MIND (You might like to print this material out and distribute it to the class.) Next Slide: You Tube Video Dr John Searle “Beyond Dualism” (Seven part series)

HoopShoot Next Slide: Bibliography Click on the image above for a game of “HoopShoot”. Try playing the game with your students at the start and the end of the unit. Make sure you have started the slide show and are connected to the internet.

Bibliography The mind-body problem by Robert M. Young Forming the Mind: Essays on the Internal Senses and the Mind/Body Problem from Avicenna to the Medical Enlightenment, Springer Science + Business Media, 2007-09-30, ISBN 9781402060830  Cronk G. Bergen College Website- http://www.bergen.edu/faculty/gcronk/ppts.html Turner 96, p.76 Kim, J. (1995). Honderich, Ted. ed.. Problems in the Philosophy of Mind. Oxford Companion to Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.  Pinel, J. Psychobiology, (1990) Prentice Hall, Inc. ISBN 8815071741 LeDoux, J. (2002) The Synaptic Self: How Our Brains Become Who We Are, New York:Viking Penguin. ISBN 8870787958 Russell, S. and Norvig, P. Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach, New Jersey:Prentice Hall. ISBN 0131038052 Dawkins, R. The Selfish Gene (1976) Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN Kim, J., "Mind-Body Problem", Oxford Companion to Philosophy. Ted Honderich (ed.). Oxford:Oxford University Press. 1995. Wikipedia-Mind Body Dichotomy- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind_body_problem