The justification of the sceptical method of doubting is too shaky to accept.The second issue we have is the issue of interactionism.
The justification of the sceptical method of doubting is too shaky to accept.The second issue we have is the issue of interactionism.It may be argued that at least Leibniz and Malebranche remain true to their philosophical values rather than accepting a dubious ‘out’ in the guise of the pineal gland to slip the noose of Interactionism.
If the mental is non-physical then how can it ‘cause’ anything to occur?
Rather like a ghost riding a bike it seems as though the mind is causally impotent. I am thinking about taking a sip of Green tea and Jasmine as I write.
The specification does mention ‘other concepts of the body/soul distinction;’ and this is where Descartes would be relevant along with ‘questions surrounding the nature of disembodied existence;’. When assessing Descartes’ view of the soul there are a number of issues which need addressing.
The first is the logical problems which arise from his original thoughts, the second the problem of interactionism, and the third is the problem of Descartes’ grammar which all go towards demonstrating that a Cartesian view of the soul is philosophically weak. Descartes was a substance dualist and a product of the renaissance.
As a DVD has soundtracks and visual files the world we experience has mental thoughts and physical activities or actions which coincide at the same time though are not causally linked.
It is as though these two separate tracks run in parallel.
He was influenced by Aristotle and the Christian world view.
He believed that the body and soul were two different substances.
Secondly he seems to forget that we only have one tongue as a sense organ.
Zinn (1749) argued that the brain is fully divisible after split brain experiments on dogs.