Dawkins on the Mind / Body Problem

Dualism is rejected by Dawkins, a scientific naturalist whom as an atheist does not believe in the metaphysical. Rather as a materialistic monist, Dawkins believes that the mind is merely a product of the body, and thus since it is not a distinct substance, cannot exist separate from the body. In fact he believes that the mind isn't what makes a person at all, but rather genes and memes. Genes and memes cannot exist separately of the physical world, but rather rely on physical things to propagate them, so that they can be carried on into future generations. If all the carriers of a gene or meme were to die, the particular gene or meme would cease to exist. Because genes and memes rely on physical things, they are not immortal entities, and thus when someone dies, nothing immortal or immaterial survives them, this includes the mind. Thus since the mind is a product of the body, there is no need to explain the problem of how the mind and body interact.

or

Dawkins is a monist, believing that humans are essentially physical beings. As an evolutionary biologist, Dawkins explains everything in terms of evolution. Dawkins rejected any idea of the soul. According to Dawkins, the soul or idea of the soul is ‘dangerous to human endeavour’, and it is a restrictive and inappropriate thing to believe in. He believes in a world that is entirely physical, rather than metaphysical. His view is that human beings are just carriers of DNA, and that any opposition to this was a myth supported by no evidence. He claimed that if an individual felt a sense of individuality or that they had a soul; it was just their thoughts based on digital information. He argued that consciousness, and an idea of the self, ‘arises when the brain’s simulation of the world becomes so complete that it must include a model of itself’. Dawkins disregarded the opposing idea that we are mental, rather than physical beings, claiming the soul to be a non-existent ‘mystic-jelly’. He believed that there was no possibility of an afterlife, and that all was left of us once we died was genes, and his invention memes which he used to describe the continuance of ideas, inventions and cultures.

or

Another monism concept which does not have an issue with the relationship between mind and body was presented by Dawkins. He explained that what we understand as a mind is really an activity of the body. The mind simply arises as a result of the body’s interaction with the world. The world is only physical matter and there is no other “mystic jelly” or “spirit driven life force” that controls our actions. We are simply carriers of DNA so there is no mind and there is no soul that continues to exits after death. Although we as humans feel that there is a mind and a driving force behind our actions this is simply a misunderstanding. Dawkins outlines our consciousness as arising when our view of the world becomes so complex that it has to involve a model of ourselves. He argued that the mind is only a property of the body so it has no individuality and is not a separate substance. The world and humans exist because of evolution and natural selection so there is no God and a soul that returns to him after death. He argued that the soul is “dangerous to human endeavour”. As only the body exists, the only thing left after our life has ended is genes and memes. Dawkins explained that there is no need to argue that there is a relationship between mind and body as body is the only thing that exists. The mind is a property of the body so it is only one substance. This therefore argues against this claim that the relationship cannot be explained as Dawkins believes that he has explained that the body doesn’t interact with something which does not exist.

Bits of Dawkins

- Dawkins: Identity doesn’t survive death; the only part of us that “lives” on is genes and memes.

- Dawkins: Richard Dawkins would definitely argue that disembodied consciousness is impossible. He believes that the mind is not a separate entity, but instead a physical process that the body performs when our brain’s model of the world becomes so complete that it needs to include itself.

- Dawkins: Dawkins would say that the mind is just a physical process the body performs, and that it is not an ontologically distinct substance. He said that there is no “mystic jelly” driving us around, and that belief in the mind is a “dangerous myth”, as no scientific evidence supports it.

- Dawkins: As a physicalist, Dawkins would say that the mind is reducible to physical processes. He would say that we are completely physical, because the mind is just a process the body performs and is therefore not a separate substance. We are simply just bodies; there is no “mystic jelly”.

Dawkins (mind) – Dawkins was a monist who believed that the mind and body are not ontologically distinct. Dawkins believed that the mind is a product of the body and it is something the body does. Therefore as humans are no ontologically distinct, once dead, we will remain dead, as the mind is simply digital information.

Dawkins (body) – Dawkins was a monist who believed that the mind and body are not ontologically distinct. Dawkins further believes that once dead we remain dead, however believes that out genes and memes survive the death of our body.

Dawkins (personality/memories) – once dead we remain dead, yet our genes and memes live on.

1. Describe what Dawkins believes about the body in 50 words.

Richard Dawkins is a physicalist and so believes everything is reducible to physical processes, this means as a whole we are just a body with a brain and nothing more. Dawkins believes that our body dies and decays and the only thing that does live on is our genetic code.

2. Describe what Dawkins believes about the mind in 49 words.

Dawkins believes there is no such thing as a mind and it is not ontologically distinct from our body it is just digital information that describes what bodies do. The mind is not some mystical jelly that lives on after death and there’s no scientific evidence to believe so.

3. Describe what Dawkins believes about our self identity in 16 words.

It doesn’t live on in but memories of who we were may be remembered through others.

4. Describe what Dawkins believes about our disembodied consciousness in 45 words.

Dawkins believes there is no scientific evidence to suggest that we have some sort of mysterious, immaterial and eternal consciousness that lives on after death. Believing such things is dangerous to the human endeavour and can stop us as humans moving on as a species.

Dawkins on the mind – Dawkins believes that there is no such thing as a mind, or as it is sometimes referred to as the soul. However, he also states that the mind is just something the body does. Dawkins refers to the mind as mystical jelly, as he believes it just floats around. He’s a physicalist.

Dawkins on the body – Dawkins is a physicalist, which means he believes in the physical body being the main substance. As he is an atheist, he doesn’t believe that the mind lives on, but the physical body dies. Dawkins also says that we are carriers of genes and memes, which are memories.

Dawkins on self identity – Dawkins believes that our self identity dies with the body as there’s no personality in the mind.

Dawkins on disembodied consciousness – Dawkins believes that the mind is just something a body does, and this doesn’t make us, any more aware of the world around us than other animals. He believes that once the physical body dies, nothing is left behind as he calls the mind “mystical jelly”

Dawkins: When we die, our personality dies but our genes (genetic code) and memes, (ideas), survive us.

.Dawkins: He says there's no "spirit-driven life force, no throbbing, heaving, pullulating, protoplasmic mystic jelly", meaning there is no soul within us. Belief in the soul is "dangerous to human endeavour" This is because there's no physical evidence. It's just a bronze age myth.

DAWKINS -> MIND

Dawkins a 21st century monist thinks that belief in the mind or soul is dangerous myths that have no evidence to support them. He compared the mind to 'mystic jelly' inferring that there is no mysterious mind. To conclude the mind is just digital information, reducible to physical processes

DAWKINS -> BODY

Dawkins is a physicalist who believes everything is reducible to physical processes. He believes we are simply carriers of DNA and that mind and body are not separable. The mind is just a way of describing what bodies do. When our bodies die our genes and memes survive

DAWKINS -> SELF-IDENTITY

A sense of individuality is based on digital information, not the soul. We leave memes behind

DAWKINS -> SELF-AWARENESS

Dawkins is a evolutionary biologist who believes everything is reducible to physical processes. He rejected the idea of a soul or a 'mystic' mind. He believed the mind or consciousness arises when the brain's stimulation is so complete that it includes a model of itself

Dawkins – Self Identity
Dawkins believes that our self identity dies with the body

Dawkins – Disembodied Consciousness
Dawkins believes that when we die we are not conscious of things around us, because we are just simply carriers of DNA, and that we have no eternal soul. The only things we leave behind are genes and memes, the soul is just “mystical jelly.”

Dawkins – Mind
Dawkins believes that there is no such thing as the mind or as it sometimes referred to, as the soul. However he also states that the mind is just something the body doe. Dawkins refers to the mind as mystical jelly, as he believes it just floats around. He’s a physicalist.

Dawkins – Body
Dawkins is a physicalist, which means he believes in the physical body being the main substance. As he is an atheist, he doesn’t believe that the mind lives on, but the physical body dies. Dawkins also says that we are carriers of memes and genes, which are memories.

Dawkins on Consciousness - Dawkins believes that the conscience (which is the inner component of the human body showing awareness) dies at the same time as the body and will simply not continue to remain after the event of death. Similar to his concept of the personality, he states that it is not an immediate part of the human body that remains.

Dawkins on Personality - Richard Dawkins believe that the personality of a human body will certainly die in the event of death. He brands the personality as unexplainable (or to a certain degree) as the mind - which he entitles "Mystic Jelly". Similar to a Cartesian view, he appears vague with regards to after death.

Descartes on Consciousness - Descartes wholeheartedly believes that the consciousness (an awareness of the world around us) lives on past death and that it will continue to live on. Regardless of this statement, Descartes is quite vague with regards to what happens after. He mentions that this crucial awareness will most certainly remain past the event of the death of a body.

Dawkins on Body - Richard Dawkins believes that the body is a massively important part of life. We should trust in the body since, unlike the body, mind and soul, we have empirical evidence to prove we have one. He states that the body is the main component in life and that it will certainly not live on past death since we are witness to its falling and we can be certain of this. The body works mechanically and systematically and will fulfil its purpose of keeping us alive, its nature can be determined easily and therefore, it is the strongest representation of human

Bits of Descartes

Descartes – Self identity

survives death

Descartes – Disembodied consciousness

Descartes believes that we are constantly aware of everything around us; this is because our mind and personality live on after our physical body dies. He believes in a much more personal view on our rational mind. Descartes states that it is implied that our mind and memories carry on in an afterlife. He believes that once our body dies and decays the two substances of the mind and the body seperate. The body has extension and emotions compared to the mind which does not. Descartes is a rationalist.

Descartes: consciousness survives death.

Descartes: Disembodied Consciousness - As a substance dualist and the father of Cartesian Dualism, Descartes would argue that it is possible to have a conscious mind without a body, because mind and body are both ontologically distinct substances that differ in the very nature of their existence. When our ephemeral bodies die the eternal mind endures death and lives on, and is therefore still a conscious mind, but one without a body. For Descartes, this is our afterlife, and although his account of it is not very detailed, it is his example of disembodied consciousness.

Descartes (disembodied consciousness) – Descartes believes that the mind and body are ontologically distinct. The mind is non-physical and lacks motion, whereas the body is physical and has extension and motion. Descartes believes that once dead the rational part of out mind lives on.

Describe what Descartes believes about the mind in 77 words.

Descartes believes the mind is ontologically distinct from the body; they are separate because Descartes can have a clear and distinct idea of each one. The mind lets your body function through thought and that source of though comes from the rational part of our minds. He believes the mind is eternal and implies life after death for it but as he cannot prove it he does not say it will happen indefinitely. It’s also the soul

Describe what Descartes believes about the body in 43 words.

The body can influence the actions of the mind through the pineal gland because of the body’s passions. He also believes the body is like a machine as they have extension and motion but are subject to the laws of physics, nothing else.

Describe what Descartes believes about our self identity in 2 words.

Lives on.

Describe what Descartes believes about our disembodied consciousness in 91 words.

Descartes implies that our disembodied consciousness does exist and is eternal which means it shall live on after death. This is because Descartes was a Christian and so this has influences him because Christians believe that we as a person and what makes us us will move on to heaven of hell and exist there for eternity. So the only thing in Descartes theory that is not eternal is our body and that dies and decays as it is subject to the laws of physics but the rest does live on.

Descartes on self identity – It survives.

Descartes: Personality survives.

Descartes: As a substance dualist, Descartes believes the soul and body are two separate substances. This because Descartes says:

I can have a clear and distinct idea of the soul and body. Whatever I can think of as clear and distinct, god can create it clearly and distinctively so the soul and body must be ontologically distinct. Descartes believes that when we die our body dies, yet our soul is eternal and endures. As a christian, Descartes believes the soul is eternal and retains the personal identity but he can't prove this.

DESCARTES -> SELF-AWARENESS

Descartes, a 17th century rationalist and substance dualist believed that the mind and body are ontologically different, but they can interact. The mind has no motion or extension and does not follow laws of physics. Whereas the body has motion and extension and does follow the laws of physics. Descartes believed that the mind and soul survive after the death of the body but he never specified what happened to them after our death. Therefore Descartes believed that our mind lives on, possibly implying that we go to heaven, as well as our passions and consciousness

Descartes – Self Identity

They survive.

Bits of Plato

Plato-Self Identity
Plato believes that when our physical body dies our memories and personality go with them. However, our knowledge if forms don’t.

Plato – Disembodied consciousness
He believes that we are only aware of the physical world when we’re alive.

Plato (personality/memories) - Plato was a substance dualist who believed that once you’re your memories and personality are also lost; yet knowledge of the forms is reborn.

Describe what Plato believes about the mind in 67 words.
Plato believes the mind is ontologically distinct from the body, the body has completely separate qualities from the mind and so how can they be deemed as one thing? For instance the mind is eternal, immortal and imitable and so can exist after death. What happens when we die is our knowledge of the forms is reincarnated endlessly into other humans to be rediscovered forever and ever

Describe what Plato believes about the body in 92 words.
Plato believes the body is ontologically distinct from the mind and has no connection with it, however the body’s life processes can ‘clutter’ up the mind in a sense because our bodily functions take up our mind instead of our true knowledge of the forms which is what we are supposed to focus on. He believes our bodies exist in the physical world or ‘The realm of Shadows and Illusions’, basically saying that what our eyes perceive and our body’s feel are just illusions of the true knowledge of what’s real.

Describe what Plato believes about self identity in 20 words.
Plato feels our sense of our personal identity dies and decays with our body and our personal memories die too.

Describe what Plato believes about our disembodied consciousness in 9 words.
Our consciousness dies, our knowledge of the forms lives.

Plato on self identity – Plato believes that when our physical body dies, our memories and personality goes with it. However, knowledge of forms remain.
Plato: When the body dies, memories are lost and the personality dies. Our knowledge of the forms survives to be reincarnated.

PLATO -> SELF-IDENTITY
Half of mind is full of passions and memories of physical events that disappear when our mortal physical body dies

PLATO -> SELF-AWARENESS
All our physical memories die - as well as consciousness

Plato – Self Identity
Plato believes that when our physical body dies, our memories and personality goes with it. Knowledge of forms don’t.

Plato-personality
Personality dies with the body, only the knowledge of the forms lives on. The things that contain the mind must therefore live on as well. Plato also believes that the realm of ideas is the real world and that the physical world is just a shadow of the perfect world. Although Plato believes that the mind and body are separate he believes that personalities belong in the body, so die with it. The mind is reincarnated and is eternal whereas the body is mortal and ephemeral.

Hard & Soft Materialism

Only use this stuff if you want to!


Swinburne criticises hard and soft materialism :

The first view, which I shall call 'hard materialism', claims that the only substances are material objects, and persons (including humans) are such substances. A person is the same thing as his body (and his brain is the same thing as his mind). The only events which occur are physical events, viz, ones which consist in the instantiation of physical properties in material objects. There are no mental events in the sense in which I have analysed this notion; for there are no events distinct from physical events to which the subject has privileged access. Hard materialism seems to me obviously false. There really are events which humans experience and which in consequence they can know about better than does anyone else who studies their behaviour or inspects their brain. My sensations, for example - my having a red after-image or a smell of roast beef - are such that I have an additional way of knowing about them other than those available to the best student of my behaviour or brain; I actually experience them. Consequently they must be distinct from brain events, or any other bodily events. A neurophysiologist cannot observe the quality of the colour in my visual field, or the pungency of the smell of roast beef which I smell. A Martian who came to Earth and captured a human being and inspected his brain, could discover everything that was happening in that brain but would still wonder whether a human really feel anything when his toe is stamped upon. There must be mental events in addition to physical events.

The second view in the history of thought about the mind/body problem is the view which I shall call 'soft materialism'. It is often called 'property dualism'. Soft materialism agrees with hard materialism that the only substances are material objects, but it claims that some of these (that is, persons) have mental properties which are distinct from physical properties. Brain-events certainly often cause mental events and vice versa. Neurones firing in certain patterns cause me to have a red after-image. And - in the other direction - trying to move my arm causes the brain-events which cause my arm to move. These are causal relations between distinct events - just as the ignition of gunpowder is a distinct event from the explosion which it causes.

The basic difficulty, however, with soft materialism as with hard materialism, is that there seem to be more truths about the world than the doctrine says that there can be. Hard materialism says that you have told the whole story of the world when you have said which material objects exist and which physical properties they have. But, as we have seen, there is also the issue of which mental properties are instantiated. Soft materialism says that you have told the whole story of the world when you have said which material objects exist and which properties (mental and physical) they have. However, full information of this kind would still leave you ignorant of whether some person continued to exist or not. Knowledge of what happens to bodies and their parts will not show you for certain what happens to persons. I have tried to illustrate this with the example of brain transplants.

Swinburne's Brain Hemisphere Thought Experiment

It's an attempt to show that mind and body MUST be separate things

It goes like this:

In theory, I could take the two hemispheres of your brain and put each one in a new body.

In theory, both of those bodies could be 'alive' - with half of your brain in each one.

In this situation, it'd be hard to say which one was really 'you' wouldn't it?... which one has your mind?

In theory, both could be conscious*

So where is your mind?

We're not sure are we?

So, I know exactly where all the bits of your body are

But, I'm not sure where your mind is

So, mind and body must be separate things mustn't they?

Therefore, this is support for substance dualism

(*in fact, there's some debate amongst scientist over whether the right hemisphere could ever really be conscious - but it doesn't control language, so how could we ask it anyway?)



Here's the argument in Swinburne's own words:

"Knowledge of what happens to bodies and their parts will not show you for certain what happens to persons. Let me illustrate this with the example of brain transplants.

The brain, as you will know, consists of two hemispheres, and a brain-stem. There is good evidence that humans can survive and behave as conscious being if much of one hemisphere is destroyed. Now suppose my brain (hemisphere plus brain-stem) was divided into two, and each half brain taken out of my skull and transplanted into the empty skull of a body from which a brain has just been removed; and there to be added to each half-brain from some other brain (e.g. the brain of my identical twin) whatever other parts (e.g. more brain stem) are necessary in order for the transplant to take and for there to be two living persons with lives of conscious experiences. Which of these two resulting persons would be me? Probably both would to some extent behave like me and make my memory claims; for behaviour and speech depend, at any rate in very large part, on brain-states, and there is very considerable overlap between the _information_ carried by the two hemispheres which gives rise to behaviour and speech. But both persons would not be me. For if they were both identical with me they would be the same person as each other (if a is the same as b, and b is the same as c, then a is the same as c) and they are not. They now have different experiences and lead different lives. There remain three other possibilities - that the person with my right half-brain is me, or that the person with my left half-brain is me, or that neither is me. But we cannot be certain which holds. It follows that that mere knowledge of what happens to bodies does not tell you what happens to persons.

It is tempting to say that it is a matter of arbitrary definition which of the three possibilities is correct. But this temptation must be resisted. There is a crucial factual issue here - which can be shown if we alter our thought experiment a little. Suppose that I am captured by a mad surgeon. He explains that he is going to perform this operation on my brain, in consequence of which there will be two living persons, one made partly out of my right brain hemisphere and the other made partly out of my left brain hemisphere. He announces that he will give one of these later persons ten million dollars and that he will subject the other one to torture. He allows me to choose which of the later persons will get ten million dollars and which will be tortured; that is, to choose whether the person who has my left half-brain will become a rich man while the one who has my right half-brain will suffer, or whether if will be the other way around.
How ought I to choose in order to become rich? It is evident that whether I shall survive the operation and whether my life will be happy or sad are factual questions. (Only someone under the grip of some very strong philosophical dogma would deny that), and yet, as I await the transplant and know exactly what will happen to my brain, each of the two choices would be very risky - if I choose that the person with my left half-brain will be rewarded, I do not know whether it will be me; and also, if I choose that the person with my right half-brain will be rewarded, I do not know if that person will be me.

And even after the operation no one will know for certain whether I have survived, or which of the later persons is me. Even if one subsequent person resembles the earlier me more in character and memory claims than does the other, that one may not be me. Maybe I've survived the operation but am changed in character and have lost much of my memory as a result of it, in consequence of which the other subsequent person resembles the earlier me more in his public behaviour than I do. And even if a fourth possibility, that they are both to some extent me, were (despite its apparent incoherence) correct, neither science nor philosophy could show that to us for certain, for all the evidence which could ever be obtained would be compatible with the other possibilities as well.

Reflection on this thought experiment shows that however much we come to know for certain about what has happened to my brain (and other parts of my body), and however much we come to know for certain about which mental properties are instantiated in which subsequent persons, we would not know for certain what has happened to me. What we would not know is which substance each of the later persons is. But since we do know - we may suppose - what has happened to each atom of my body, I must be different from my body. I must have a further essential immaterial part whose continuing in existence makes the brain (and so body) to which it is linked my brain (and my body), and to this something I give the traditional name of 'soul'. I am my soul plus whatever brain (and body) it is connected to. Normally my soul goes when my brain goes, but in unusual circumstances (such as when my brain is split) it is uncertain where it goes

Descartes

An example of dualism is Cartesian Dualism proposedd by Descartes. He distinguished the body as having properties of extension, and motion which is subjugated by the laws of physics, whilst the mind is non-material without extension and free of influence by the laws of physics. He believed he could prove this by the fact that he had a clear and distinct idea of himself as a thinking non-extended thing, whilst he had a clear and distinct idea of his body as a non-thinking extended thing. He believed that anything he could think of distinctly, God can create distinctly, therefore meaning that the mind and body are distinct from each other. Since he believed that the mind and body are ontologically different in their nature, he was a substance dualist and believed that the mind could exist separately from the body since it is a different substance from the body and thus does not rely on the body. He proposed that the mind controls the body, which he considered to be like a machine. Nevertheless the body can also affect the rational mind, such as with desires of the flesh. He proposed that this interaction was through the pineal gland in the brain. He believed that only humans had souls, which incumbent the mind, and that this soul lives after the death of the body, as it is not bound by nature, because of this Descartes believed it to be immortal, and to live on afterwards without a body.

Good article upon Cartesian Dualism, with good discussion material

Plato

Plato on the body

Short section on Plato on Wikipedia

Plato's arguments in support of dualism

Aquinas

Good comparison between Descartes and Aquinas on the mind-body issue.

Some good simple revision notes on a range of philosophers, including Aquinas

Well laid out, but quite detailed, notes on Aquinas

Good comparison between Aquinas (who we're studying) and Augustine (who we're not)

Ghost in the Machine: Is there a soul?

Randall Niles sorts out Dualism / Monism

Can I survive after death?

Watch it on Academic Earth

what happens after I die?.... one simple answer is here.

Schopenhauer

Short description of "the Will"

Another good short description

A brief discussion of why Schopenhauer is so grumpy

Longer overview of his approach

Berkeley's Idealism

God has it covered - straightforward blog post that explains the central ideas clearly

Short, useful essay on Berkeley

Good outline of subjective idealism (only really need first half)