Obviously it is understandable that body is divisible because it is physical matter, which is visible, but mind is not a physical matter. Still Descartes distinguishes that the mind is indivisible. In Meditation VI: of the Existence of Material Things, and of the Real Distinction Between the Mind and Body of Man, he address that “ … quite the opposite holds in corporeal or extended thins; for I cannot imagine any on of them, which I cannot easily sunder in thought, and which therefore, I do not know to be divisible” (Descartes 3). He clarifies that the thinking process, which is done by the mind is not separated as body parts thus, it is realizable that the mind is
On the other hand, the Realm of Forms exists beyond the physical realm. The Theory of Forms declares that the physical realm is only image or copy of the true reality of the Realm of Forms. Forms are abstract, flawless, unchanging concepts or ideals that transcend time and space and they exist within the Realm of Forms. Although the forms are abstract, that doesn’t mean they aren’t real. Plato actually thought of them as more real than any individual physical object.
The functioning of body is affected by materialistic factor and not mental factors. If mental properties exist, they do not affect our physical body. Materialists are divided on the view, if mental factors exists. Some believe that they do not exist at all, while others claim them to be identical to brain. Greeks, Aristotle and Democritus were the earliest believers of Materialism.
The objective of this endeavor is to present the Dualist approach to Mind and Body as an alternative or possible solution to the dilemma of Determinism. To begin with, Dualism is the philosophical doctrine, first introduced by Rene Descartes, that the Mind and Body are two distinct separate entities. Rene Descartes believed that the Mind and Body were separate entities that were not only independent from one another, but that both were composed of dissimilar elements. Descartes explains that the body, and all its physiological attributes, are composed of “Physical” matter, and as such, dwells in the material realm and abides the laws of Physics or the laws of nature. Conversely, the Mind and all its attributes, thoughts, emotions and qualia, are composed of “Spiritual” matter, and as such, dwells in the immaterial realm and does not abide to the laws of physics or nature.
The mind does not need to take on a physical form in order to exist. Matter, on the other hand, is a substance that can be perceived, and is corporeal. From what has been mentioned above, we see that the mind and the body are two very different substances, with no bridge or causal relationship between them. According to Descartes, the mind and the body are able to exist by themselves, independent, able to sustain themselves without the other. It seems impossible for something that takes no form to be able to affect an extended, material object.
Mavrodes explains that if god is omnipotent, then the stone question is a contradiction in and of itself. His reasoning makes logical sense because if one agrees that god is an all powerful entity, then there is no realm in which god can create something that he cannot lift. As Mavrodes articulates, the crux of the question is its built in attempt to imply that god is not omnipotent. And, if one believes that God is not omnipotent, then it follows that of course god would not be able to lift the stone, or would not be able to create a stone heavy enough to lift thus rendering him non-omnipotent. And, if one believes that god is omnipotent, then this question is irrelevant because this question is a contradiction.
A philosophical zombie is functionally identical to something that has a mind. It reacts in the same way, but it is strictly physical and does not have qualia, units of conscious experience. Jackson's knowledge argument against physicalism is that physicalists' claim that "all facts are physical facts" is false because there is a subjective character of experience, therefore there is a difference between "knowing what red looks like" and "how red looks". Raffman's criticism of Jackson's argument is that they mean the same and what is different is "what it's like to see red", the qualia, the specific example of experience. In Jackson's thought experiment, Mary gains new knowledge by learning "what it's like to see red", an experience that was
To clarify, ‘in itself’ means that the substance can exist independently of anything else. ‘Conceived through itself’ means that the substance does not depend of anything to be conceive of. Attribute for Spinoza is ‘that which the intellect perceives of substance as constituting its essence’ (E1D4), meaning anything through which a substance can be understood by the mind. As for mode, he means ‘the affections of substance, that is, that which is in something else and is conceived through something else’
Firstly, the possibility of the idea originating from nothing is ruled out for obvious reasons, as Nolan and Nelson highlight how ‘nothing’ does not posses the ability to cause, as it does not contain any properties and the effect cannot have more reality than the cause (Nolan and Nelson, 2006:108). Furthermore, as humankind are imperfect beings, Nolan and Nelson state that as we are finite beings we cannot conjure the idea of a more perfect and infinite being ourselves (Nolan and Nelson, 1996:110). Therefore, Descartes argues that this leaves only the possibility that an infinite being could cause the idea of an infinite being to exist innately within the mind of the finite cogito, like ‘the mark of a craftsmen stamped on his work’ (Descartes, 1996:35). Moreover, Descartes further believes that it would be impossible to exist with the idea of God, if God did not exist, and that this God could not be one that
These arguments intend to determine God’s existence mostly through logic and non-aligned to experience. Anselm’s argument is founded on the belief that God exists in the mind, and thus it is probable for God to exist in reality. According to this claim, something that exists in the mind and can also possibly exist in reality is something greater than it is (Malcolm, 1960). In this case, Anselm contends that God cannot only exist in the mind, but it is possible that he also exists in reality since God is the greatest possible thing. However, there are some other philosophers, including Immanuel Kant, who object this argument, disputing facts about the existence of God.