Interaction

However, the main problem which Descartes faced - and debatedly could not resolve - was how the body and mind interacted. Here are some of the answers which have been given over the years:

(a) Descartes' own view, called Interactionism, stated that both mind and body affected one another through a gland in the brain called the pineal gland. However, exactly how the immaterial and physical substances of mind and body performed this interaction Descartes was unable satisfactorily to explain.

(b) Parallelism states that no causal connection exists but that mind and body simply behave like synchronised watches. This, however, leaves us with the alterative problem of how both mind and body come to be sychronised, and which - if either - are actually responsible for decision making.

(c) Epiphenomenalism argues that bodily actions can cause mental events, but that the mind is powerless to cause physical actions. As well as being against common experience, this view supposes a form of determinism, whereby all acts are physically caused.

(d) Idealism, proposed by the Irish philosopher Bishop Berkley (1685-1753), argues that it is possible that since we cannot prove bodies actually exist, we can only be certain that we are minds. This is obviously a sceptical viewpoint and is not easily disproven.

(e) Materialism argues that there is no such thing as an immaterial substance called a mind and that all mental events are ultimately physical phenomena. Therefore, nothing exists apart from the body - or, rather, the mind is only a by-product of the body and disappears when the body dies.

(f) Identity Theory sought to solve the problem by stating that mental and physical events are one and the same - thus there is no need for interaction. However, it is impossible to prove or disprove this as we have no way of knowing whether every mental event has a physical counterpart.

 

Mind and Body

From ancient times - such as pharaonic Egypt - to the present day, religious belief in the separate nature of body and soul has been important. But it has also been important to some philosophers, such as Plato, where it has formed a central part of their philosophical system.

In more recent times, the notion of dualism - as this idea has been called - has been famously championed by the French philosopher Rene Descartes. For Descartes, the separation of mind and body was a vital concept, allowing him to base his method of achieving certainty on the sole fact that he is sure that he - the mental "I" - exists (or, to give it its Latin phrase, "cogito ergo sum", "I think therefore I am").

Introduction

Many religious beliefs are based on the idea that humans possess a "soul" or "spirit" which exists independently of the body. The notion of life after death is therefore of central concern to religious believers and it is important to establish what exactly is meant by "surviving" death.

Evidence of Survival

In 1882 the Society of Psychical Research was set up with the intention of studying scientifically the various claims for paranormal events. Many of these types of experiences seem to point to the existence of a separate entity or soul - such as seeing ghosts, "remembering" past lives, having out of body experiences, etc.

However, many of these experiences are open to the same sceptical doubts as ordinary experiences and are even more vulnerable because:

(a) They tend to happen to individuals or small groups of people.

(b) They happen unpredictably and infrequently.

(c) They are difficult to verify.

(d) There are many other plausible explanations (such as fraud, hallucination, gullibility, etc.).

Furthermore, knowledge of information which could not otherwise have been known is not necessarily proof of reincarnation or spirit contact because it might be accountable for in terms of telepathy or clairvoyance (neither of which necessarily supposes the existence of a soul).

Identity and Resurrection

The problem of identity touches upon many issues within the life-after-death debate. Fundamentally, the problem consists in how we may identify an individual who no longer possesses a body.

The first aspect of this problem concerns the sort of existence a disembodied spirit might face. If, for instance, I were to die and ascend to heaven, how would others there recognise me? If I met my grandfather, how would he know me from the boy he left behind? What if I die when I am older than he was when he died? Furthermore, how would he look to his grandfather at the same time?

Apart from issues like this, the main problem lies in the suggestion that an individual is defined by a body and the relationships maintained whilst inhabiting one. If an individual were to continue existence in a disembodied state, how would we know it was the same person? This viewpoint argues that all our memories which make us a single individual are held together by a single point of reference: our body. Divorced from this, where is our "I"?

The last main issue concerns the Christian doctrine of bodily ressurection. If, as it is believed, our bodies are raised out of the grave on Judgement Day and made anew, how can we call such a body the same person? If someone were to rebuild the Titanic, for instance, we would not call it the same ship. So, wouldn't this body be no more than a replica or copy?