The philosophical theories of the nature of human beings have got far-reaching effects on the human understanding of the various challenges facing them. Mind-body dualism is a representation of a metaphysical belief that mind and body are distinct substances with a different essential nature[1]. The concept originated from the ancient philosophical arguments associated with Rene Descartes who held the idea that human beings are composed of two distinct substances which could not exist as a unit. The two materials were mind and body, and the existence was such that the former was unextended, and immaterial, while the latter was extended and 'material' but unthinking. According to Descartes, the body was affected by the mechanical laws, while the mind was not; therefore, people survive through a bi-collateral history[2]. One consists of the happenings in and to the body, while the other comprised of the incidents of the mind. In simple terms, the mind and the body differ in both meaning and entities that they describe. A dualist will oppose any theory that associates the memory with the brain.
According to physicalism, sensations and mental processes are physical while dualism is the belief that the states of the mind are no-physical. Gertler is a natural dualist who believes that the 'states' of the mid are non-physical, but instead forms part of natural order. According to Gertler, mind and body are independent entities, and that the only logical way through which the working of humans can be achieved is dualism. She defends her argument by asserting that most scientifically minded people support physicalism and again prefers a scientific approach in explaining the issue rather than a religious dimension.
Why is mind-body dualism a problem? People are generally stunned by the way the physical phenomena interact. Research institutions spend billions of dollars annually in trying to understand how various natural things work. Knowing how the world work is a philosophical issue. Just like the mind-body problem, to appreciate that the mind is indeed a state of the brain, one needs to describe how the "brain state" gets to "know" something[3]. That is not easy. Attempts to deal with the problem leads to a paradox in which one has to prove that he/she "knows that he doesn't know anything."
The Philosopher’s Argument
Gertler commences her argument by asserting that scientists adhere to the physicalists point of view. To create an understanding of her case, she uses the concept of pain to show that the mind and the body are different. Gertler considered this approach the most appropriate as the physicalists believe in the Identity theory which states that the C-fibre stimulation and pain are similar. From the philosophical perspective, identical things must co-exist. Gertler further argues that physicalists only have a proof of the correlation that they happen at the same time in human beings. However, this is not sufficient to prove that it is true[4]. Just like pain causes the C-fibre stimulation, the two things could cause each other. The other example used by Gertler involves the bizarre Phantom Limb, whereby a never existing or amputated limb gets a pain sensation as a sign that the stimulation of the C-fiber is not similar to pain, implying that the C-fibre would not have existed if there was no tissue. The scientists use the laboratories to conduct their studies, but since philosophers have no access to such facilities, they use the mind instead. Even though the thought experiments are prone to errors, the standard laboratory tests are not exceptional either. Therefore when appropriate measures are taken, then the philosophical analyses remain to be valid. Generally, Gertler holds that people's understanding of pain is comprehensive enough since it is conceptualized as something without any hidden meaning; meaning that "the appearance of pain is pain itself." Regarding this, pain is significantly different from the concept of water; thus conceivability of 'pain' cannot happen in the absence of a physical feature[5].
An Argument against Gertler’s Ideology
The existence of computers in the modern society is one of the best examples that may be used to argue against the Gertler’s assertion regarding mind-body duality. Computers may tempt the dualists to believe that the solutions to the mind-body problems can be achieved by creating a comparison between the mind and the programs; as well as the brain to the hardware[6]. However, although the program is computational, in a Descartes philosophical perspective, it is very physical, notwithstanding the functionalist and intelligentsia views. Also, some elements of dualism are very abstract. The internationalist perspective is not very convincing, and apparently, the original owner of the idea might have been wrong despite his massive contributions towards a philosophical world. Even the contemporary dualists have realized that the views of interaction as portrayed in dualism do not add up; hence they are shifting towards occasionalism and the pre-established harmony. For instance, from the biological perspective, we understand that there are neurons in the cortex cells responsible for visual sensations of different colors say, red. In the cortex, the 'visual feelings' arise as a result of a series of events that interact with each other in a particular manner. The psychosocial association remains inexplicable, and this makes duality an unclear concept.
Objection
The current scientific models on the mind emerge from the question that “what kind of mind would provide the greatest value of survival to the lower organisms?”[7] A primitive mind with the capacity to playback experiences is usually proposed. However, the ERR model, developed from the philosophical ideas of dualism contrasts the popular cognitive science which assumes that the mind is a digital computer with a parallel processor and a CPU. Algorithms and programs are not required in the ERR model. The biological foundation of the model is simple - the neurons that are interconnected during the experience of an organism in various sensory cells so a stimulation to part of the wired neurons can affect the whole system to cause playback of the initial event.
Therefore the ERR model may be applied in explaining the philosophical assertion that there exists an association between ideas[8]. If the physicalists believe that the neighboring neurons can transmit signals then such cells must also be related in one way or the other. Therefore, similar experiences are likely to be stored in the adjacent neurons, and this explains a real-life experience whereby, a given sensation such as smell can cause a recall of a similar experience when one arrives at the scene where it had occurred.
Defense of the Position from the Objection
The issue of dualism is not resolved by stating that all the things are similar. The proposal that ideas and activities of people are the same as mountains and minerals cannot address it either. Dualism views knowledge as a consequence of the interaction between society and the world. Human beings get to learn about objects by interacting with them. Also, people’s ability to understand the meaning of anything depends on whether or not one is a member of a particular historical human community. Therefore, it is impossible for us to know ourselves as humans in the same way we perceive the materials in the world.
Bibliographies
Armstrong, David Malet. 2018. The mind-body problem: An opinionated introduction.
Abingdon: Routledge.
Bunge, Mario. 2014. The mind-body problem: A psychobiological approach.
Armsterdam: Elsevier.
Howard, Robinson. 2017. Dualism. Fall. Accessed Nov 16, 2018. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2017/entries/dualism.
Mehta, Neeta. 2011. "Mind-body Dualism: A critique from a Health Perspective." Mens Sana Monogram 9 (1): 202–209.
Moncrieff, Joana. 2017. "Philosophy Part 4: Dualism and the mind-body ‘problem.'" Critical Psychiatry. Nov 1. Accessed Nov 16, 2018. https://joannamoncrieff.com/2017/11/01/philosophy-part-4-dualism-and-the-mind-body-problem/.
Popper, Karl. 2013. Knowledge and the Body-Mind Problem: In defense of interaction.
Abingdon: Routledge.
[1] Bunge, Mario. 2014. The mind-body problem: A psychobiological approach. Armsterdam: Elsevier.
[2] Ibid, 45
[3] Moncrieff, Joana. 2017. "Philosophy Part 4: Dualism and the mind-body ‘problem.'" Critical Psychiatry. Nov 1. Accessed Nov 16, 2018
[4] Armstrong, David Malet. 2018. The mind-body problem: An opinionated introduction.
Abingdon: Routledge.
[5] Howard, Robinson. 2017. Dualism. Fall. Accessed Nov 16, 2018. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2017/entries/dualism.
[6] Popper, Karl. 2013. Knowledge and the Body-Mind Problem: In defense of interaction.
Abingdon: Routledge.
[7] Howard, Robinson. 2017. Dualism. Fall. Accessed Nov 16, 2018. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2017/entries/dualism.
[8] Popper, Karl. 2013. Knowledge and the Body-Mind Problem: In defence of interaction.
Abingdon: Routledge.
