Mind/Body
Dualism and the Problem of Spirit and Matter
04/06/2004
Mind - n. A mysterious form of
matter secreted by the brain. Its chief activity consists in the endeavor to
ascertain its own nature, the futility of the attempt being due to the fact
that it has nothing but itself to know itself with. - Ambrose Bierce
Dualism:
Many ancient people divided the world into 2 categories:
There is not really any problem with this distinction, as long as we remember that it is only a matter of perspective and degree.
However, a significant number of people took an extra step, asserting that these 2 categories were mutually exclusive, separate substances, 2 different worlds coexisting – that the ‘spiritual’/ unseen world was somehow separate from the physical/seen world. This is called mind/body dualism. But dualism was an unnecessary leap and a mistake in logic. Today we know that just because you cannot see something does not mean it is made of some separate, special substance.
What’s wrong with dualism?
Dualism asserts that mind is thinking, completely non-physical substance and that matter is physical, completely non-thinking substance. Dualism makes mind and matter mutually exclusive. Yet it also states that mind and matter interact. The problem: if 2 things are truly mutually exclusive, they cannot interact [‘exclusive’ means ‘shut out’ from Latin, ex: out + claudo, -ere, clausī, clausum: to shut/cllose].
For there to be interaction between two things, they must have something in common, or one could not touch, move, influence, affect, sense, or in any way be aware of the other.
For one thing to influence another, there must be some point of contact, even if that point of contact cannot be seen with the naked eye. At that point of contact, some amount of energy is mutual/shared/transferred. At that point of contact, the ‘two’ things have something in common. Between two things, if each has a capacity to be influenced by the other, then they share that capacity for interaction, and are, thus, NOT mutually exclusive.
mind: has the capacity to influence and be influenced by matter
matter: has the capacity to influence and be influenced by mind
Each thing (mind and matter) is an integral part of the ‘definition’ of the other thing. Thus, they are not mutually exclusive.
The word “influence” itself means “flowing into” [from Latin, in: into + fluō, fluere: to flow]. Therefore, linguistically, to say that mind ‘influences’ matter is to say that mind flows into matter. To say that matter influences mind is to say that matter flows into mind. Mind and matter must be made of the same energy.
“Soul” and “Spirit”:
Understanding the history behind the terms “soul” and “spirit” reveals significant problems. For in the ancient societies from which we derive our ideas of soul and spirit, the words for “soul” and/or “spirit” are exactly the same words that were used to refer to air, wind, breath.
Ancient people believed in cause and effect. Sometimes causes and effects were visible, sometimes not. Cultures developed linguistic terms to indicate things/forces which were invisible to the naked eye, yet were still discernable from their effects – like thoughts, breath, and air/wind.
One of the questions they attempted to answer was, “What makes people/animals alive?” “What makes us move and think and act?” People noticed that when someone dies, he/she stops breathing. Thus, they concluded that the invisible breath/wind was what made them alive AND conscious. This was the case for the Jews, Greeks, and Romans from whom we have derived our ideas, and this becomes obvious when we study their languages.
Romans:
"Spirit" comes from Latin (Roman) spiritus (breathing, breath, breeze). The verb form is spiro, spirare – to breathe. We see it in our word “respiration,” breathing. The Romans had another word, animus, which we also sometimes translate as "spirit" or “mind.” Animus is from anima (wind, breath). We see it in our word “animal,” literally a breathing thing. The Greek word anemos (anemoV) also meant wind.
Hebrews/Jews:
The Hebrews had a word nephesh (something that breathes) from their word naphash (to breathe). The ancient Hebrews believed that man was dirt which El/Yahweh had shaped and breathed the air of life into: Man = dirt + wind/breath/air (see Genesis).
Hebrew has another word, ruwach, which meant "wind" and by association "breath." This wind/breath/ruwach blew the leaves and the clouds and gave people thoughts and emotions. When you see the word "spirit" in the English Old Testament, it is really the Hebrew word “ruwach.” In fact, even every time you read the word "wind" in the English version of the Old Testament, it is really the exact same Hebrew word, ruwach!! The ancient Hebrews made NO linguistic distinctions at all between the wind that blows locusts (Ex. 10:13), and clouds (1 Kg. 18:45), and dust (Ps. 18:42), or the wind that we breathe, and the wind that they thought was responsible for thoughts and emotions like jealousy (Num. 5:30), wisdom (Ex. 28:3), anguish (Ex. 6:9), anger (Ecc. 7:9), a troubled mind (Job 21:4). They thought that all of these phenomena were caused by the mysterious wind force – invisible air. And they came to believe that air was "non-physical" because they could not see it.
Greeks:
The New Testament contains two important Greek words relevant to our discussion: psyche (yuch) and pneuma (pneuma). The English translated psyche as soul, and pneuma as spirit. But this might be misleading. Psyche is Greek for "breath", from the Greek verb psycho (to breathe, blow air). We see it in our word "psychology", because the Greeks over time decided that our air/breath was also responsible for our thinking ability (like the ancient Hebrews). Pneuma means "a blowing, a breeze, wind, blast, breath, odor" and comes from Greek pneo (to blow, breathe). In fact, the Greek word for your lungs was pneumon. We see it in our word pneumonia.
What is the point? My point is that we now know that air (spiritus, anima, ruwach, psyche, pneuma) is made of the same stuff as our bodies and everything else. Just because air is invisible does not mean it is of a separate substance. We also know that air, our breath, is not of itself alone the thing that allows us to think and feel emotions. The ancients had no sound, logical basis for assuming that the seen and the unseen were 2 separate substances.
Solution – Monism, Unity in Diversity:
The mind is a physical thing; emotions and thinking are physical, chemical, electrical processes of energy transference. My proof:
If you take a certain drug, it will change your thinking process. Chemicals can make you feel love, affection, sadness, happiness, indifference, pleasure, pain. Drugs can cause you to see and hear things that other people do not see or hear. If thinking is a spiritual, non-physical process, then why do physical chemicals affect your thoughts or even destroy them? Depressed people can take pills to change their mood, their temperament. That is why ancient people thought marijuana and magic mushrooms were "the flesh of the gods," and that is why alcohol is called "distilled spirits"!!
Our thinking starts to deteriorate at the same time as our brain starts to deteriorate in old age. As people’s brains decay, their memory and thoughts decay also. In the same way, our mind and thoughts grow and develop as the rest of our body grows and develops. The health of the body and the health of the mind are interrelated because the mind is not separate from the body. If you start poking holes in your brain, do you think your thoughts will go on as normal because they are really spiritual? If you do, I dare you to try it and prove me wrong!
Dogs, cats, monkeys, and other animals have thoughts and emotions too, even if they are not quite as complex because of genetic differences in their DNA. Yet many Christians deny that animals have souls. Why?
I see no reason to believe that people have a non-physical soul or spirit that is not made of the same energy that makes up everything else. If spirit exists, it has to be made of the same energy / substance that makes up matter, or else spirit could have no interaction with matter at all. For there to be interaction between two things, they must have something in common, or one could not touch, move, influence, affect, sense, or in any way be aware of the other. If “spiritual beings” can see, or feel, or think, you might as well say they are physical beings, because seeing, feeling, and thinking are all physical. Our bodies/brains can sense light and objects because everything is made from the same energy in the form of atoms and sub-atomic particles and the forces among them. If our minds were not made of ‘matter,’ or of that which also makes up matter, they would have no way to sense or contact material things.[i]
Corporeality:
Science says that if the nucleus of an atom were enlarged to the size of the period at the end of this sentence, then the nearest electron might be across the street. So it “appears” that there is more “space” than “substance.” But this refers only to what we are able to detect/sense with our instruments/analyses. Even otherwise, the shifty, ephemeral, elusive, illusive nature of our existence does not warrant the dismissal of the term “physical;” it rather demands a deeper understand of what “physical” means.
When acquiring knowledge, it only makes sense to proceed from what is readily visible to us, perceptible by us.
Terminology: “Nature/Natural,” “Physics/Physical,” and “Matter/Material”:
PHYSICS/PHYSICAL:
jusiς – physis (noun, feminine) nature, the law/order of nature
jusikoς, h, on - physikos (adjective) natural; of or in the order of nature; physical; relating to nature
The root is related to:
juω – phyo [1] (verb) to bring forth, produce, beget, generate, procreate, put forth (offspring, leaves, hair, shoots); to grow, wax, spring up, arise
NATURE/NATURAL:
Our word ‘nature’ is from a Latin noun ‘natura’, from a verb ‘nascī’ (gnasci), which is basically a passive/deponent equivalent of the Greek verb juω:
nascor, nascī, nātus sum (gnasci)[2] – to be born, to arise, to spring up, to be produced / begotten / generated
Physics IS nature. To be natural is to be physical and to be physical is to be natural.
MATTER/MATERIAL:
‘Matter’
really means source, ‘mother material,’ ‘mother substance,’ that of which
something consists or, more accurately, from which something arises. It comes from Latin:
māteria - wood, timber, matter ... which, in turn, is from
māter – mother
Presumably
wood was called ‘materia’ because the woody part of a plant was seen as the
source of growth.
Idealists vs. Materialists:
Here are two typical solutions to the mind/body Problem. The “idealist” looks at the transitory, illusory nature of supposedly ‘solid,’ visible things, and says, “Everything is ultimately Mind.” The materialist looks at the biochemistry of psychology and says, “The mind is the brain and everything is Matter.” Both are really saying the same thing: Mind and body cannot be separate substances; mind and body share the same underlying composition (substance).
There is ultimately little difference between idealists and materialists. Both deny dualism, and both adhere to monism, asserting that there is ultimately only one kind of substance; they merely have different names for that underlying substance: “idea” vs. “matter.” This distinction, in terminology only, between idealists and materialists is superficial. Calling the ‘one substance’ by different names matters not, as long as people realize that mind and body are made of the same energy. Mind is matter. Matter is mind.[ii]
Consider again the etymology of ‘matter’ given above. If everything is Mind, then Mind is the Matter, the materia, the mother source, from which all arises. Even those who say everything comes from a God should consider the God to be the materia from which all arises. They would actually be materialists too.
Spirits, God(s), the After-Life:
It should be stated clearly that these arguments do NOT preclude the existence of “ghosts,” “spirits,” “God(s),” or ‘life’ after ‘death.’ I merely point out that whatever theoretical forms such lives might take, they would have to be made of the same energy/substance(s) which compose(s) everything else; otherwise, to speak of them is irrelevant, for one could not touch, move, influence, affect, sense, or in any way be aware of them.
However, I believe, as did the writer of Ecclesiates (in the Jewish holy writings), that in many ways there is little difference between humans and other animals. I believe what nature shows me, that our bodies/thoughts decay/disappear when we die. Animals and their thoughts disappear; their energy seems to dissipate and change forms. Nature gives me no evidence that I am permanent, only that the ultimate energy I am made of is permanent, in one form or another.
It is theoretically possible that thoughts, as subtler forms of energy, could continue existing for a time without the rest of the body. But it seems to me that such thoughts would eventually fade/dissipate too. For our thoughts seem to be in continuous relationship with other functions/concerns of the body. [Can you tell me anything you have ever thought about which did not in some way arise from or relate to your bodily existence? If so, I want to know. Does not the mind appear to be an interaction/reaction mechanism relating the body (of which it is part) to the environment (of which it and the body are both part)?]
I am not saying that mortality is necessarily easy to accept, but mortality is much harder to accept when we are presented shaky promises of eternal life either in the sky or in some fantastic unseen dimension. It is perhaps easier if we think of death as merely the changing of our energy into other forms. And it is logical to think so.
It is theoretically possible that we could learn to extend our bodily lives indefinitely, or that some have already learned this.
Note also: If you are inseparable from the Whole, and if you are ultimately energy that never dies, only changes forms, then you might choose to identify with the larger ‘self,’ which is immortal and all-inclusive. But it does seem that most people wish to retain their “finite” perspectives, attempting to prolong and augment them indefinitely. And I suppose this is theoretically possible.
God and a Spirit-World Outside Space/Time:
The idea sometimes surfaces among Christian circles that God and Spirit exist outside space and time. The idea that spirit is outside of space and time is likely a not-too-thoroughly-considered mistake, and the Bible does not even teach that to begin with. To exist is to occupy space-time. Without time, also, there could be no thinking, for you could not have one thought before or after another – so such a God or spirit could not think or compare thoughts, or even be known or sensed or thought about. And without time, you could not live forever, because there would be no duration. Without space-time, number would not exist, so there could not be multiple spirit beings; you would not be able to distinguish between one thing and another, or (more accurately worded) between one part of the whole and another part. For example, if there were no space-time in heaven, you could not say you were separate from God, since the word "separate" necessarily implies differentiation, which is space-time. "Separation" is a relative word; a thing is said to be separate "from" another thing. And there is no such thing as complete separation anyway; for example, I say my head is separate from my foot, but that does not mean that my head and foot are not connected. All things are connected in space-time. Without space-time, there can be no change. Without change there can be no thought or desire. Without change we cannot talk about life. To live, to know, to love, to think – all imply change, differentiation between multiple entities and events, i.e. space-time. If you exist, you are, or are in, space-time. If there were such a thing as a spiritual world, it would still have space-time.
I have seen a suggestion that space-time is not so much reality as it is our perception of reality. To which i respond, “OK.”
Free Will and Determinism:
I think the problem of free will is another linguistic problem, a misunderstanding. Do actions have consequences? Do you believe in cause and effect? If not, so what, the universe is meaningless, as things happen for no reason/cause. If yes, you are really a determinist. By definition, effects are determined by their causes. Thus, anything having causes is determined by those causes. That is pretty simple.
It is almost always meaningless for us to speak of an event which has no cause. For any event which we imagine, we presuppose that something, some set of influences, caused that event. To say that an event just occurred, with no preceding influences, defies our logic. Therefore, we should either admit that we believe all events to be determined by their causes, or else admit that things can happen senselessly for absolutely no reason whatsoever, and, thus, cannot be controlled.[iii]
Just because an event has cause(s), does not mean we are aware of the cause(s). Just because events are determined by causes does not mean we are aware of how they are determined. Our unawareness accounts for the way things (i.e. future things) appear “undetermined,” “open to possibility.”
The “freedom” of one’s will is a relative matter which depends on perspective. I should also say that “will” seems hardly separable from “desire” or “attraction.” People do not choose their will/attraction/desires. People notice/feel/recognize that they have a certain will/attraction. The desires either have causes in our selves and in our environment, and the desires are determined by these causes, or else the desires are uncaused and exist for no reason. Either way, they are not “free” in the sense that you choose them.
However, once we notice that we have will/desires, we may talk about our relative freedom to pursue those desires, to pursue the fulfillment/realization of our will. “Freedom” should be used only to refer to our relative ability to pursue desires without obstruction. “Freedom” is the relative absence of perceptible constraints.
Again, “free” is a relative term. You cannot simply be “free”; you must be free FROM something. John says, “I’m free!!!” Mary says, “Free from what? Free from financial obligations, free from demands on your time, free to pursue your desires without someone hindering you?”
“Choice” is a process in which we take action after becoming aware of multiple imagined, theoretical, future scenarios. The action we take is determined by our desires. If our choice is not determined, if it has no cause, then it is certainly not “free” in any meaningful way, and we have no control over it.
Possibilities are imagined scenarios. Potentiality (in typical usage) is never “real” until it is put into action.[3]
There is no good reason for determinism to make us feel bound, to make us mope around, griping that we have “no choice”, that we have to be and stay this way, that there is nothing one can do about the way things are or will be! That is shortsighted. In fact, the laws of cause and effect are the only reason we could ever have hope. Every action has a consequence. Therefore, we can and should choose/perform those actions which will bring the results we desire. Without cause/effect determinism, life would lack meaning. You might choose to tell the truth, but an uncaused lie may pop out of your mouth instead. Or a star may suddenly be born from your ass.[4] What kind of life would that be?
Is it not short-sighted to say, “Everything is determined. Why should I try?” Don’t be silly. You should try because every action has consequences, and those consequences affect you.
The belief that our choices are determined by processes of which we are unaware does not remove choice from our lives. We still face multiple, conflicting desires which must compete for fulfillment. You still must face the questions, “What am I?” “What do I want?” and “What shall I become?”
Conclusions:
Options:
Odds and Ends:
Question-Response Correspondence:
A reader comments: “I agree that there must be a connexion between mind and matter, and they must be made of the same "stuff." However, does the mind exist? I defend the existence of my mind because it is the only factor that defines "me" from everything else. Only I see the world from my perspective. But if mind and matter are composed of the same "energy" and matter can interact with and be perceived by everyone, shouldn't the same connexion exist with mind? The problem lies in that only I can perceive/interact with my mind, and only my mind. Same with each of you. So for each person, mind exists only within himself, what he perceives as his mind. But how can it be that one's mind exists for oneself but not for anyone else? If all our minds coexist, why can we only see our own? Does that mean that all our minds are a collective Mind?”
My Response:
Very nice thoughts.
Does the mind exist?
A: Is your mind not your thoughts, emotions, will, desires/attractions, senses, perspective, etc.?
But if mind and matter are composed of the same "energy" and matter can interact with and be perceived by everyone, shouldn't the same connexion exist with mind?
A: Connexion is one thing; the nature of the connexion is another. Just because matter interacts with us doesn't mean we always perceive it. And just because all things are made of matter, doesn't mean that all things interact directly. Ex. Isn't it true that some elements (special arrangements of matter) do not readily interact with certain other elements? Yet they are still made of the same 'matter.' And these elements can change; they can be broken into components. They may interact only indirectly for long periods of time. But this can be changed.
... only I can perceive/interact with my mind ...
A: Don't we all interact with each other's minds all the time? Was I not interacting with your mind when you sent your words into my head? And weren't those words reaction to my mind? Do people not share thoughts, emotions, desires? It seems to me that these are 'chain' reactions.
But you are wishing for more direct interaction, yes? I do too. And I will seek it.
But how can it be that one's mind exists for oneself but
not for anyone else?
A: I would say your mind does exist for me, but this does not mean that I see from your 'perspective' - i.e. it does not mean that I am aware of your mind in exactly the same way you are aware of it.
To interact with a sandwich does not mean we necessarily have the same perspective as a sandwich. Yet we still interact. We interact with each other's minds, but do not normally share each other's perspective precisely. To do that precisely wouldn't we have to occupy the same space/time? (OR, relatively - Not only would we have to share the same ratios in measurements from perceiver to perceived, but we would need to share exactly the same 'hardware,' at least in configuration. Everybody's hardware seems at least a little different.) And even one's unique perspective seems in constant flux. Are you the 'same' you from moment to moment?
You can hide your thoughts from me, yes? - In the same way many other subtle natural processes are hidden from my perception. Is photosynthesis hidden from my perception? Poor perception?
Also, I perceive a physical plant or a rock. That does not mean that I know what it is like to BE that plant or rock.
It seems to me that in some ways even I myself am hidden from my own perception!!!
(subconscious)
So I will a deeper consciousness.
Are you saying you want behind the masques?
Does that mean that all our minds are a collective Mind?
A: In some ways ???
[1] other links: jusa – (noun, fem.) bellows; a
wind, blast; stream of air or fire
jusaω – (verb) to blow; puff; kindle (a fire)
[2] gigno, gignere, genuī, genitum – to beget, bear, bring forth (root of English ‘generate’)
[3] However, it also seems true that everything is potentiality.
[4] I do not intend to deny the possibility that this could happen. : )
[i] … if physical things are said to be made of matter.
Also, in relation to Christianity, if the soul/spirit is not affected by the material world, why do Christians believe that material sins affect the soul/spirit? Christians also have trouble clearly separating their concepts of soul, mind, and spirit. What is the difference between the soul and the spirit? If your spirit cannot think or feel, what can it do?
[ii] Mind is matter – or at least a quality of matter in certain configurations.
Matter is mind – or at least has a quality called mind when in certain configurations
[iii] Only it seems that everyone
must suppose that the universe as a whole, or ‘God’ if you prefer,
simply IS. Either it is said to be its
own cause, or cause is said to be irrelevant to it. The universe as a whole (or God) can have no ultimate meaning or
purpose, except that it simply IS.
Any attempt to suppose a cause
of the universe (God) requires the cause itself to be labeled as part of the
universe. Can anyone meaningfully say
that the universe (God) “came into being”?
Does not this statement imply the existence of “time before” the
universe? Any such “time” must be part
of the universe, so the universe would have existed before itself. Anyway, the words “came into” imply process,
source, and directionality.
Cause/effect are said to operate within the universe; they cannot be applied ‘from without’ to the universe as a whole.