Descartes’ Mind-Body Dualism

Descartes’ Mind-Body Dualism
It can be very simple. Just look at the world and ask yourself, “Is everything material? Or are there things in the world that are not material, but I still know actually exist?” Then, ask yourself a second question, “How can I reach at a definition so that the two cannot be mistaken for one another other?” Descartes defined every material thing as having an extension, which is another way of saying it occupies space. Furthermore, those material things cannot share that space with other things. You must realize water or gas can be reduced to particles, and then they become extended things, so each occupies a unique portion of space. So the first substance that he referred to, which he called ‘res extensa’, is clearly matter. The things not viewed in this sense by Descartes, those which are not extended and do not occupy space, would include our mind, emotions and beliefs. So they must be considered non-material substances. These he referred to ‘res cogitans’, or thought-like things. Now the distinctions between the two are clearly obvious. If you can measure something in space, then it must be a material substance but if you can’t measure it, then it must be a thought-like substance. This is the origin of his mind-body dualism belief. A human being is both matter (flesh and bones) and thought-like things (mind, emotions, and beliefs).
Descartes argued that the nature of the mind is completely different from that of the body, and therefore it is possible for one to exist without the other. This is why he also viewed the mind and the body to be totally separate beings, because a part of the body could be removed without taking away from the mind, but still closely intertwined. He goes on to say that the mind is really a thinking thing, while the body is really an extended thing or something that just occupies space. It helps by trying to view the mind as separate and independent from the body. Although we are human beings with a body and a mind, it’s said that the two separate entities are combined in one person. But one must always realize that the mind affects the body and the body affects the mind, which happens whenever we act. The mind decides to do something and the body does it, and damage to our brain or the influence of drugs on our body often affects our mind.
One way to understand the of concept mind-body dualism is for us to consider ourselves as a container that includes our physical body and our physical brain along with a separate non-physical mind, spirit, or the soul. The mind, spirit, or the soul is considered the conscious part that manifests itself through the brain in a way that is similar to the way picture and sound waves manifest themselves through the TV. The picture and sound waves are also non-material just like the mind, spirit, or the soul. This touches on the point that he made when he said, “Our mind is more than just our brain,” which is why I agree with it because we are more than what you can see and feel. We have various emotions that we experience on a day-to-day basis and none of them can be seen, heard, or touched, which could cause them to be considered non-material just as someone would say about the spirit or soul.
As a counterargument to Descartes, I want to briefly introduce the identity theory because it seems to present the most problems for mind-body dualism. While identity theory does not explain the subjective concept of mental states, it does take into account the practical observation of minds always being paired with bodies. However, the theory doesn’t fully account for minds being explained in terms of physical things. The mind allows an independent perception of things because, according to the dualist view, it is a non-material thing and therefore “not subject to the objective physical laws” which govern the behavior and working of the physical universe. The mind is free to explore and perceive apparently at will, which is what may explain why mental experience and perception must be independent from the other. It is for the reasons I just stated that I believe Descartes most accurate by establishing the mind as a more basic thing than physical things. It does seem far more believable that it will be possible to explain physical objects in terms of mental characteristics than it will be to explain mental characteristics in terms of physical ones, but I just thought the identity theory just presented the strongest counterargument to Descartes’ mind-body dualism.
While I personally agree with Descartes' overall findings and beliefs, I think his argument is a little inaccurate because of the nature of human existence and the inability of humans to correctly evaluate something with complete certainty. We are basically hardwired to doubt what we do not understand, but at the same time we also choose to believe that which we do not understand as well. Humans are willing to full heartedly devote themselves to the thought of anything, whether it is the understanding of what a soul is or what it is not. It all falls on the belief of each individual as far as what will be deemed “real”. I can believe there is such a thing as a soul, but someone else could believe that it’s just something that the physical mind has fabricated. I personally do not think that you have to necessarily believe in mind-body dualism in order for you to know or believe that there is life after death, because it is my belief that the mind is placed into a completely different body or form once this life here on Earth is over, i.e. reincarnation. In other words I’m saying that the mind lives on while the body is left here, therefore the need for both of them to exist together makes no difference when they are not both carried over into our afterlife. Once again, this is another question that is left up to perception and just personal belief. “I think, therefor I am” is Descartes’ most famous quote that explains his philosophical position on mind-body dualism. In conclusion, our minds and our body are two distinct substances, one material and the other non-material, both capable of existing apart.