Soul, Mind and Body Flashcards
What is Plato’s view on the relationship between the mind/soul and the body?
Plato is a dualist, believing that the mind or soul and the body are different types of existence. He considers the world of forms to be the real world, while the physical world, including the body, is not. Therefore, we are essentially a soul, not a body.
What is the world of forms according to Plato?
Plato’s world of forms is a non-physical realm where perfect forms or ideals, such as perfect circles or perfect justice, exist. Our world contains imperfect versions of these forms, and our knowledge of perfection is derived from our soul’s prior experience in the world of forms.
What is Plato’s argument from recollection?
Plato argues that we have ideas of perfect things, like a perfect circle or justice, even though we’ve never seen them. This suggests that our soul must have existed in the world of forms before birth, where it encountered these perfect forms, and we now have a dim recollection of them.
How does Hume counter Plato’s argument from recollection?
Hume argues that we can invent the idea of perfection ourselves. We observe imperfect things, like beauty or circles, and mentally remove their imperfections to imagine perfection. Therefore, the existence of a soul or world of forms is not required to explain how we conceive perfection.
Why might Hume’s explanation of perfection be preferred over Plato’s?
Hume’s explanation is simpler and can be supported by Ockham’s Razor, which states that we should accept the simplest explanation that works. Plato’s idea of a separate realm of forms is an unnecessary hypothesis, making Hume’s theory more compelling.
How does Aristotle’s view of the soul differ from Plato’s?
Aristotle rejects Plato’s idea of a separate world of forms. Instead, he believes that form is part of the physical world. For Aristotle, the soul is the ‘formal cause’ of the body, giving humans rational thought. The soul does not exist separately but is the essence or defining feature of a living being.
What is Aristotle’s stamp in wax analogy for the soul?
Aristotle compares the soul to the imprint left by a stamp in wax, where the stamp represents the soul and the wax represents the body. The soul, like the imprint, cannot exist independently of the body but gives form and function (in humans, rational thought) to it.
How does modern science challenge Aristotle’s concept of the soul?
Modern science, influenced by thinkers like Francis Bacon, rejects formal causation and focuses on material and efficient causation. Science explains rational thought as a result of brain processes, suggesting that there is no need for a soul to explain consciousness or rationality.
What is Descartes’ view of the mind and body?
Descartes is a substance dualist, believing that the mind and body are distinct substances. The body is a physical substance, while the mind (or soul) is a non-physical substance that cannot be divided
What is Descartes’ indivisibility argument for dualism?
Descartes argues that physical substances are divisible, while the mind is indivisible. According to Leibniz’s law, identical things must share the same properties. Since the body is divisible and the mind is not, they cannot be the same substance.
How do split-brain patients challenge Descartes’ indivisibility argument?
Split-brain patients, who have had the connection between the brain’s hemispheres severed, show behaviors suggesting that their mind has been divided. This evidence contradicts Descartes’ claim that the mind is indivisible and suggests that the mind is linked to the physical brain.
What is the modern scientific stance on the existence of the soul?
Modern science tends to reject the concept of a soul, especially in the Aristotelian or Cartesian sense. Rational thought and consciousness are understood as brain processes, and there is no need for a separate non-physical substance to explain them.
What is Descartes’ conceivability argument for dualism?
Descartes argues that if he can imagine the mind existing without the body, then it must be possible for the mind to exist separately. For example, imagining being a ghost walking through walls suggests the mind and body are not identical, so they must be separate substances.
How does the masked man fallacy critique Descartes’ conceivability argument?
The masked man fallacy shows that just because we can imagine something doesn’t make it possible. For example, someone might imagine that the masked man robbing a bank isn’t their father, even if it is. Likewise, Descartes’ imagining the mind without the body doesn’t prove they are separable or distinct.
Why does Descartes’ conceivability argument fail to prove mind-body dualism?
Descartes’ argument fails because imagining the mind without the body doesn’t prove it is possible. He could be imagining something impossible, as demonstrated by the masked man fallacy. Therefore, the argument does not conclusively show that the mind and body are separate substances.
What is Ryle’s category error critique of Descartes’ dualism?
Ryle argues that Descartes makes a category error by treating the mind as if it were a separate “thing.” Descartes assumes that since the mind isn’t physical, it must be non-physical. Ryle rejects this, suggesting that the mind is not a thing at all but a set of dispositions toward certain behaviors.
How does Ryle’s university analogy illustrate the category error?
Ryle’s analogy compares someone asking to see the “university” after seeing individual buildings, mistakenly treating the university as a separate entity. Similarly, Descartes treats the mind as a separate “thing” when it is not; instead, it’s a way of talking about dispositions and behaviors.
What does Ryle mean by the “ghost in the machine” analogy?
Ryle uses the “ghost in the machine” analogy to criticize Descartes’ idea that the mind is a separate entity controlling the body. He argues this is unscientific nonsense and that the mind should be understood in terms of behavioral dispositions, not as a separate non-physical substance.
What is Ryle’s soft behaviorism in relation to the mind?
Ryle’s soft behaviorism argues that talking about the mind is only meaningful when referring to observable behavioral dispositions. For example, saying someone is “angry” means they are disposed to certain behaviors like raising their voice, rather than referring to an internal, non-physical “thing.”
How does Ryle’s brittleness of glass analogy critique Descartes?
Ryle compares the mind to the brittleness of glass, which refers to a disposition rather than a separate “thing.” Descartes mistakenly treats the mind as a non-physical “thing” because it’s not divisible, but we don’t treat brittleness that way. Ryle concludes the mind, like brittleness, is not a separate substance but a disposition.
What are the limitations of Ryle’s critique of dualism?
Ryle’s view that the mind is not a “thing” seems counter-intuitive, as people commonly feel that their mind exists as a real entity. Additionally, Ryle’s reliance on a scientific, behavior-based understanding of the mind is often seen as overly restrictive, reducing the mind to merely observable behaviors.
What is Richard Dawkins’ view on the soul?
Dawkins believes there is no scientific evidence for the soul and that humans are purely physical beings made of DNA, flesh, and bones. He argues that the idea of a literal soul (soul 1) is a human invention driven by fear of death. He accepts the use of “soul” metaphorically (soul 2) to describe human feelings and experiences but rejects its existence as a real entity.
What are the two definitions of the soul according to Dawkins?
Dawkins distinguishes between two definitions: Soul 1 refers to the literal, traditional belief that the soul exists as part of us, which Dawkins rejects. Soul 2 is the metaphorical use of the word to describe human emotions, personality, or humanity, which Dawkins accepts as a valid way to talk about the soul.
Why does Dawkins believe people invent the idea of a soul?
Dawkins argues that people create the idea of a soul because they are afraid of death. The belief in a soul provides comfort by suggesting that some part of us continues after we die, but Dawkins considers this a baseless fear-driven invention.
What does Dawkins believe about the mind and consciousness?
Dawkins believes that the mind is simply the brain, and consciousness is a physical phenomenon. He holds that when a person dies, their consciousness ceases to exist, rejecting any notion of a non-physical aspect of existence.
What is David Chalmers’ “hard problem of consciousness”?
Chalmers distinguishes between the “easy problem” and “hard problem” of consciousness. The easy problem involves identifying which brain processes correspond to mental processes like memory or perception. The hard problem is explaining the very nature of consciousness itself, which neuroscience has not yet solved.
How does Chalmers critique Dawkins’ dismissal of the soul?
Chalmers argues that Dawkins is premature in dismissing a non-physical aspect of existence because science has not yet explained the “hard problem of consciousness.” While science has made progress on understanding mental processes, it has not begun to explain what causes consciousness itself, so Dawkins cannot conclusively claim that consciousness is purely physical.
How might one evaluate Chalmers’ critique of Dawkins?
Chalmers could be right in suggesting that the hard problem of consciousness remains unsolved, but it’s more reasonable to expect that science will one day fully explain it. Since there is still much to learn about the brain, it’s likely that the explanation for consciousness lies within areas of the brain we have yet to fully understand.
Why is Dawkins’ dismissal of non-physical existence potentially premature?
Dawkins’ dismissal is potentially premature because neuroscience has not yet explained consciousness itself. If science cannot fully explain the hard problem of consciousness, then the possibility of a non-physical aspect to human existence cannot be entirely ruled out.
What is emergentism, and how might it relate to Dawkins and Chalmers’ views on the soul and consciousness?
Emergentism is the view that complex properties, such as consciousness, emerge from physical systems (like the brain) but cannot be reduced to those systems. This theory offers a middle ground between Dawkins’ strict physicalism and Chalmers’ acknowledgment of the hard problem of consciousness. Emergentists argue that while consciousness is grounded in physical processes, it may have properties that are not fully explainable by those processes alone.
What is the “explanatory gap,” and how does it challenge Dawkins’ physicalist view?
The explanatory gap refers to the difficulty in explaining how subjective experiences (qualia) arise from physical brain processes. Even if neuroscience maps all brain activities, it still doesn’t explain why or how those processes generate the subjective feeling of consciousness. This gap challenges Dawkins’ physicalism because it suggests that consciousness might involve something beyond just brain activity
How does Thomas Nagel’s “What is it like to be a bat?” argument challenge materialist views of consciousness like Dawkins’?
Nagel argues that subjective experience, or “what it is like” to be a conscious being (like a bat), cannot be fully understood by physical descriptions alone. He claims that even a complete physical understanding of a bat’s brain processes wouldn’t help us grasp what it’s like to be a bat. This challenges reductionist views like Dawkins’ by suggesting that consciousness involves subjective experiences that cannot be reduced to physical facts.
