RETURN

The Problem with Body and Mind
Thomas Hooker

            As a child, I watched quite a great deal of movies.  I noticed during this time an undue amount of attention given to the idea that one person’s body might be switched with another.  The earlier science fiction movies used the idea of surgically switching brains from one skull to another.  Later, this brain switch was abandoned in favor of a personality switch, which involved the two heads getting hooked up to what resembled a colander connected to some wires.  Finally, there was soul switch where through no external means, the two people switched personalities simply by willing it. So, was Hollywood right?  Is there such a thing as a soul to switch?  More importantly, how are constituted the living thing as opposed to objects?  If there is a soul, is it different from the mind, or are the two synonyms? This paper will attempt to answer all such questions, if possible.

            To start with, it is necessary to determine what the soul is, before any broad sweeping statements may be made about such a concept. In order to do this, it becomes necessary to ask some rhetorical questions.  When one carves a plant, what are the shavings made of?  Similarly, when one chops an onion in half, what are these pieces called?  Lastly, when the brain is separated from my body, whose brain is it?  The significance of such questions is not immediately clear, so it will be explained.  Objects have object names which break down into smaller components such as wood, the objects may be seen or heard or cast a shadow.  The onion is an example of the second classification of names called the racial or type name, since the nature of the substance is unchanged even divided, and thus the onion is still called the onion even cut; also, it is at this stage of naming that the object is ascribed lifelike qualities.  The third name is the personal name, that which distinguishes a specific personal or animal from another.  That which is given this sort of name is considered distinct from others of its kind, to not simply be a living thing but a living being with its own qualities; therefore, it is ridiculous to consider naming a plant Karen or Fluffy, as the plant is not ascribed distinctness of features.  However, even though named have been shown to have different classifications, this neither proves any existence of soul yet, nor does it at present connect the name at all with the soul.      

            This shows what names are, but what is the soul? In class it was said that the soul exists during one discussion. This statement was made as an empty proof, but perhaps if the same two words were thought of in a different way this would make more sense.  Consider the statement that a fish swims, a bird flies, and a person thinks.  All of these statements are separated between subject and best-suited action.  If one were to look at statement that the soul exists again, a soul would be defined as that which has the function of existence.  Thus, if the mind were associated with such function, the mind would therefore house the soul. Under Descartes’s theory, by dispelling all notions of what can be seen or sensed, he concluded that an “evil genius” had created everything which can be called reality, and thus anything we perceive might be an illusion.  He then proves that even if such does not exist, someone gives thoughts to him of the sort, and even if it a deceiver deceives him, the statement that he exists would be true every time, as this deceiver is considering him as target of deception.[1] Now to prove this, one may not simply ignore the cogito and simply make a line of reasoning that one exists because they are able to prove to others that “I’m here.”[2]  However, it is possible to find an alternative by using Descartes’s own reasoning and stopping short of the cogito part.  Without such reasoning, one may still assume the existence of the creator of this reality/illusion, the reality/illusion itself, and the target of the illusion.  But without the presence of rational thought all certainty is absent even certainty that one exists.  So is it prudent to collapse into unbelief about the whole nature of existence? Not at all, as even if there was no target, the illusion of being might not be dispelled.  Any attempt to do so, in fact would simply break it down into an illusion of an illusion, and an illusion of an illusion of an illusion of reality.  Even something which is not seen in the physical world, such as the unicorn is observed in books and movies; this is so far into the illusion cycle that it barely exists, yet even if the people writing the books died, the books themselves wore out, and the records of such books on file or sourcebook decayed, nothing could change the fact that all such things once existed.  That which is made will not be unmade.  Likewise, other people outside oneself might or might not exist, but it would take the metaphysics of time and yet some work to prove that a person or idea never existed.  The soul is thus shown to be distinct from the mind, as unlike the mind there is no means of proof, instead the soul is simply what sustains existence.         

The name was associated with the soul, as both function to identify the person or animal as being one’s self, but in different ways.  Whereas the name is usually given by another, and is a reflection of who the person is defined as, the soul is that which is seen of the person.  This is different from the consciousness, which is dependent upon how the person acts, as it is said that every act of consciousness there is something “presented,” that is every thought is of some physical object or abstract idea.[3]  As said before, though, the soul as it is most commonly known has only to do with the existence of the object or being and its personal sense of self.  However this is not entirely true, and in one sense the soul is and isn’t consciousness.  Much of the theories were drawn from Inuit religion, which I read in a rather dated book a few years back.  The Inuits believe in three souls, the breath soul, the spirit soul, and the name soul.[4] This was to be preferred over the haku (corporeal or body soul) and kon (conscious) souls found in Aikido mystical theory of Shinto religion.[5] The three parts of self as they are called, may actually be translated into the body (breath), the mind (spirit), and “heart” (name).  The mind is consciousness, but neither the body or the heart is truly involved in such but rather both concern being. The word “heart” is quoted as it is not the physical heart nor is it the emotional center, but rather it is simply the core of the person.  The emotions are largely excluded from this, and lumped with the mind, as the mind is in control of emotional interpretation. There is one more faction to this final soul than simply self identity and being, though, there is the intensity of emotion. The brain seems to function to interpret situations and promote an appropriate reaction within the emotional parameters, causing the heart to race or some such; however, it does not necessarily dictate that one person might not feel more strongly a reaction than another person.  In fact, there are no components that dictate that it should, as the brain is largely a mass of chemicals and electrical impulses.  In fact, even should it prove that such components are enough to provide such intensity, it does not follow why a machine such as a computer, which has quite the same general setup lacks emotional depth. Besides which, even a computer does not have all systems centered in one area, the brain or motherboard is accompanied by such devices as hard drives, memory cards, and video cards.  If three people were asked what they would do under a catastrophic situation, one might panic and stockpile goods, one might be fearful but act according to preset daily plan, and one might try to live fully in those last remaining moments.  I on the other hand, would be fearful barely react externally even if something dramatic happened. This intensity caused by the soul, or heart as it has now come to be known, has some side-effects as well, such as this same intensity may be put to the purpose of faith.  Faith is after all, an intensity of emotion directed not at solving philosophical problems but rather for maintaining the creed.

   Are robots living as it is called?  This seems a silly question (like much of the questions in this paper), but it warrants an entire chapter in a metaphysics book concerning the body and mind, so it needs mentioning.  The computer has a physical casing, and indeed it has a brain of sorts due to its processing units, and it even sends and receives electrical connections like the human brain and its synapses. It also makes choices, and it even may use a random number generator to even make guesses.[6]  Does this make it considered the same way as living things? Or is there something missing that excludes it from such consideration? It bears observation of the original characteristics of the name.  Recall how it was said of the type name that the object is ascribed life, this implies that it does not necessarily need to be alive, but just that one would treat it as though it were.  What does this mean?  It is that the object is maintained, unlike a rock or chair, the computer is given information and idea, and it grows from there.  However, it does not act independently of outside stimuli, it does not hold strong emotions, and it does not have a sense of self; thus, it has not a higher or name soul, and may only be classified as a semblance of life.  A thing such as a tree might rate higher, as it would truly react independent of the person tending it, though it would be disordered.  A tree as far as most people know does not hold strong feelings so it might not be considered to have this name soul, but it does have a rather complete spirit, so this is a living being.  A robot would rank just as well, particularly if it were one designed for emotional contact.  In this case, the robot respond independently of human intervention through prior programming.  In addition, the robot unlike a computer is designed to prioritize.  Thus, the body is existent and there is even a spirit or mind, though it is technical rather than natural, finally due to the prioritization programming, the emotional doll as it is called may consider one being to be a necessary factor in its maintenance, a strong intensity of emotional response mimicking love.  Further, because this being was involved somehow or another in its maintenance, even if it were its emotional wiring that is taken care of rather than mainframe wirings, the robot would assume that its structure would be intact, and would likely throw itself in front of an oncoming car to save the life of its owner.  Thus, this emotional doll has all the activities of the soul without actually having one, including having a distinct self (due largely to how its owner raised it), thoughts and ideas, intensity of emotion, and general notion of existence.  If technology continues along the lines of robotics rather than genetics, this may indeed be a consideration of the future, as even protests that the robots aren’t real might meet with some questioning.             

            What are some other issues dealt with under the Mind-Body theory? As so far, most work has been done without looking at former philosophy, attention needs to be made to the ancestors to avoid stomping on the toes of the various metaphysical views.  One such consideration is the various aspects of identity.  Under this theory, there are two nonmental types, the molar behavior terms and the physical object terms.  The molar behavior terms are depicted by action verbs such as “walk”, “swim”, “throw”, et cetera.  The mental and nonmental are said to not need to be related definitely.[7]  The problem shown earlier with this is just as mental processes were shown by Brentano to connect to a target object, these physical actions come from brain activity.  However, for the sake of my argument, I will agree that even though it is the case, there are not conditions saying that it must always follow this rule.  The body itself may be involved in limited reflexive actions, though it would have to be able to do them so naturally as to use minimal portions of the brain.  Presumably the soul, being of existence might be managing to animate the body, though it is unclear how this would happen.  Also, the body seems to  have effect on either the body or soul through that which happens to it.  For instance, the pain inflicted on the body will be felt by the brain, and if the damage is significant, the soul will be affected by the death of the body.

            Even materialism, perhaps the greatest threat to any theory of mind much less soul, is not totally against this idea.  As part of the psychological teachings, there is the Gestalt Theory.  The world gestalt refers to an object which has its whole as greater than its parts.  The Gestalt Theory thus refers to the fact that the brain is more than its parts. [8]  In essence, it is a way to make sure even materialism does not reduce the mind to only an organ, by showing as I said earlier on before even opening this book, that as another organ alone the brain is simply a mass of synapses. 

Gestalt theory claims that the body, soul, and mind are actually one cohesive unit.  It goes on to say that humans have the power to pick their own living environments, and decide what in society and even their basic living arrangements is fit or unfit.  Next, it states that the higher self, usually either the brain or the conscience, is traditionally thought must control the lower self, the body or id.  This unfortunately, causes both to become corrupted.[9]  I have found both parts of this statement to be true in my own life, as although I reject materialism, it does seem to work that all parts merge into the singular being. The body is truly a temple, and as one that acts as a conduit to the true spirit, it is best to find a proper purpose in one's life to dedicate such worship to.  

Bibliography

Brentano, Franz. “The Distinction between Mental and Physical Phenomena.”  Handout 

Cheng, Chung-ying. Philosophical Aspects of Mind-Body Problem. Hawaii University Press: Honolulu, p.1968.

Descartes, Rene. “Synopsis of the Following Six Meditations.” Handout.

Levin, Michael E. Metaphysics and the Min-Body Problem. Clarenon Press: Oxford, 1979.

Owen, D.R.G. Body and Soul: A Study on the Christian View of Man.  Westminster Press: Philadelphia, 1956.

Scheler, Max. Man’s Place in Nature. Beacon Press: New York, 1961.

Walker, James Lynwood. Body and Soul: Gestalt Theory and Religious Experience. Abington Press: New York, 1971.

Wesselman, Hank, PhD. Spirit Medicine: Healing in The Sacred Realms.  Hay House Publishing: Australia, 2004.

Return to Top