Lecture notes and reading summaries on the philsophy of mind
6 views 0 purchase
Course
Institution
The University Of Sheffield (TUOS)
This document includes notes about the hard-problem of mind and body. It discusses Descartes, Behaviouralism, Identity Theory, Functionalism and property dualism and includes notes on the relevant readings as well
Week 1 Cartesian Dualism
Descartes’ 2nd meditation begins with setting aside anything that can be doubted as if some
‘malicious deceiver’ (p37 p24… recheck sections) is deceiving us. As a consequence, all
physical phenomena are called under question, including our bodies (because our senses
could be deceived).
Descartes however maintains that I still exists because there is a subject who experiences and
who formulates the question ‘What is reality’. However, what is the nature of this ‘I’?
A body = ‘determinable shape’ ‘definable location’ ‘excludes other bodies from its space’
‘perceived by senses’ (p35 line 36)
Thought does not fit the definition of the body therefore it is separate from the body.
Thought is inseparable from me and therefore I am a thing that thinks.
Does Wax remain the same after it is melted? What is it that we recognize distinctly in wax
that makes it wax (All of it’s physical qualities change)?
○ Wax is a body that presents itself as one form at one moment and a different
form at another moment. Flexibility and changeability remain
○ We don’t understand flexibility and change through our faculty of imagination
because it cannot go through all possible changes. Therefore we come to terms
with wax through the mind.
● What is the wax which Descartes perceives by his mind alone?
○ The wax is the same wax from the beginning except that it is known, not by
appearances, but by ‘mental scrutiny’ (p43 l53)
● Surely the eyes are involved in understanding the wax?
○ 3 men in hats and a coat walking down the street could easily be automated.
The eyes can easily be deceived. But we judge them to be men
● Is Descartes' knowledge of the wax more distinct at first glance by appearance and
common sense or after ‘careful examination’? (p45, l24)
○ At least the latter perception ‘requires a human mind’ (p25, l30)
All things, including bodies, are perceived by the mind alone.
Descartes's 6th meditation sets out to reestablish the existence of material objects such as the
body. For example, the faculty of imagination involves the application of the cognitive faculty
to a body which is intimately present to it and which therefore exists’ (p101 l72).
When the mind understands it turns inwards but when it imagines it turns outwards and
‘looks at something in the body which conforms to an idea understood by the mind or
perceived by the senses’ (p103 s73) This again indicates that the body exists…. But this is
only a ‘probable conjecture’ (p103 s73)
Everything that Descartes can understand, God is capable of creating. Therefore if he is able
to view two things as distinct this is evidence enough that they are distinct.
● ‘I am simply a thinking non-extended thing, and on the other hand, I have a distinct
idea of a body, insofar as it is an extended non-thinking thing.’ (p109 S78)
● ‘I can clearly and distinctly understand myself as a whole without these faculties but I
cannot conversely understand these faculties without me, that is, without an
, intellectual substance to inhere in’( p109 S78). The distinction between the mind
and faculties such as imagination and sensory perception is the distinction between
‘the modes of a thing and the thing itself (p109 S78)
● In order for us may have passive sensory perceptions there must be an active faculty
that brought about the perceptions. This faculty is not in us because it requires no
intellectual act on our part. God is not a deceiver and he has given evidence to believe
that this active faculty resides in corporeal objects… Therefore corporeal objects exist
although they may not correspond with what our sense perceptions indicate they are.
● God is not a deceiver so all of nature must contain some truth
● The biggest thing that my nature teaches me is that I have a body. I should not doubt
that there is some truth in this
● Nature teaches (through sensations) that me and my body are a unit
● Some sensory perceptions are agreeable to me and others are disagreeable; the things
my body comes across are beneficial or detrimental and the sense perceptions
indicate this to me.
● ‘My nature, in this limited sense, does indeed teach me to avoid what induces a
feeling of pain and to seek out what induces feelings of pleasure’ (p115 s82)
● Although I feel the heat if touch fire that does not necessarily mean there is
something in the fire that resembles heat.
● ‘The proper purpose of the sensory perceptions given me by nature is simply to
inform the mind of what is beneficial or harmful for the composite of which the mind
is a part’ (p117 s83)
The body is divisible but the mind is indivisible… if you chop off a foot nothing happens to
the mind
The rejection of material minds: A causal argument. Jaegwon Kim
Physical explanations of mental causation fall into two categories
● Reductionism: The mental is identical to the physical
● Epiphenomenalism: The mental has no causal efficacy
Cartesian Dualism and Mental Causation
Souls are entirely immaterial and lie entirely outside physical space and yet Descartes
supposes that they can causally influence things within the physical space
Princess Elizabeth of Bohemia put forth the problem of mental causation. Namely: how can
two entirely different substances influence each other
● Cause and effect must contain a certain degree of mutual affinity
● There can be no greater reality in an effect than a cause
● Physical causation requires the impact of one body onto another
The problem, in this form, is ‘incomplete and dissatisfying’ and can be summarised as a
problem of conceivability (it is hard to conceive how two different substances can interact.
Louis Loeb defends Descartes from the above formulation of the problem of mental
causation by claiming that Descartes takes a proto-Humean conception of causation. It is
sufficient for causation that two things are in constant conjunction
● Descartes's problem is not a problem of the primitiveness of causation. Rather the
issue lies in the non-spatiality of cartesian minds
, ● Smith and Jones are psychophysically connected. When Smith wills his hand to raise
Jones also wills his hand to raise and both hands rise. Smith’s willing is in constant
conjunction with Smith’s hand and Jones’ hand.
● What makes Smith’s body the body with which Smith’s mind is connected? How can
we show that Smith’s body is the only material thing that Smith’s mind can directly
affect
Causation and the pairing problem
Descartes cannot explain any type of causation (except physical-physical): mental-physical,
physical-mental, mental-mental
Pairing problem: A guns A and B shoot bullets at the same time. 1 of the bullets kills
Adam. How do we know which gun?
1. Ctrace a causal chain
2. Identify some pairing relation. In this case (and perhaps in all physical-physical
cases) this is a spatial relation (distance, orientation etc.)
However, Souls cannot appeal to spatial relations because they are non-spatial. As in the case
of of Smith and Jones.
Imagine a purely immaterial world. Soul A and Soul B act in a certain way which causes
changes in Soul A* and Soul B*. Which cause caused which effect?
1. Identifying pairing Relations
a. This relation cannot appeal to spatial or any other physical relation
b. It must be a psychological relation For example, Intentional relation:
i. Perhaps A singles out A* and causes a change in it.
ii. How might A single out A*
1. We must be able to perceptually identify it
2. For me to perceive 1 tree rather than another qualitatively
indistinguishable tree is for that tree to be the tree that causes
my perceptual experience
c. Ultimately psychological relations have to be explained by causal relations
d. We need a ‘non-physical coordinate system that gives every mental substance
e. We need a ‘non-physical coordinate system that gives every mental substance
a unique location (at a time) and which yields for each pair of mental entities
a determinate relationship defined by their locations’ A mental space
analogous to the distance orientation relation between a pair of spatial objects
2. Identifying a causal chain
a. Hume: a pair of causally connected spatiotemporally separated events must
be connected by a chain of spatially contiguous events
b. Presumably, this would require a further soul C between A and A*. A’s action
causes a change in C which causes the change in A*
i. This only causes a further pairing problem. A-C and C-A*
c. The idea of a causal chain only makes sense where there is a pre-established
notion of causation. Therefore we must again rely on some pairing relation.
Causation requires that causally connected items be in a space-like framework
Descartes's problem lies with his immaterial minds which cannot operate in a space-like
framework because they are non-spatial
Causality and space:
Physical causation invokes spatiotemporal relations
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller emurten1. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for $9.08. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
