The Mind Body Problem

Rene Descartes makes two clear assertions: that the soul thinks, and that it

is a separate entity from the body, yet united together. Yet, this is a misinformed

perspective, and this essay aims to correct this perspective. Rather, I will argue

that the self is not composed of two distinct "things" of body and mind (which

will be used interchangeably with soul, although I will use the term "mind" more

often to establish a non-religious/spiritual connotation). Essentially, the position I

take is that the self is, as far as we know, purely physical. Yet, this does not

exclude the mind as an entity. In fact, the mind is a valuable constructed

perception of our cognitive processes. Moreover, the body and the mind are

components of the self. However, it is acknowledged, as Descartes states, that

most people do not have an accurate understanding of the self, mind, and body.

To establish this perspective, I will first establish the body as the only existing

thing within ourselves, essentially taking a monist perspective. Then, I will

explain the necessity and difference of the mind as a construct, rather than an

actual existence. Finally, I will differentiate body and thought from the self –

essentially, I take the stance that the self is different from body and mind –

rather, the body and mind are related to the self. From there, I will establish the

importance of understanding the self as such, and what effect it has.

Essentially, I will outline a system of how to use this perspective to enable a

better life.

____________________________________

THE MATERIALIST PERSPECTIVE

The body, as far as we know, is the only thing that exists. Previously,

spiritualists, religious people, and philosophers all explored the possibility of

something besides the body, which people collectively referred to as souls,

minds, or spirits. However, this argument sought to establish a descriptive statement – in other words, an assertion about what truly corresponds to

reality. To establish something as truly corresponding to reality, one must

support it through what could be known as a scientific perspective. Science is

generally agreed upon to aim to establish an objective system of reality. As

such, it must follow objective methods to establish truths about reality. These

individuals who sought to prove the existence of something "other" than the

body within the self did not follow such objective methods, but claimed to

pursue objective ends.

To pursue an objective end without using objective means would be

tantamount to pseudoscience. Karl Popper's doctrine of falsificationism aligns

with this perspective I have put forth. Falsificationism states that for a theory to

be scientific – or be a system of objective description – it must have the

capacity to be proven wrong. This is the precise reason why Popper criticized

philosophers like Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel and Karl Marx. Hegel's dialectics

of thesis clashing with antithesis to synthesize a new thesis could not be proven

wrong. Of course it would not be a problem if Hegel merely claimed that this

was a subjective lens through which he was analyzing history – that is the

course of action critical theorists took, simply providing a method of analysis for

understanding humanity. Rather, Hegel claimed that this was an objective,

rational course of action that corresponded with the very fabric of reality. Since

his theory could not be proven wrong, it would be considered pseudoscience.

Moreover, Marx, largely inspired by Hegel, provided similar theories, only in a

materialist sense – replacing rational dialectics with the evolution of labor and

means of productivity throughout history.

These theories, which purport objective reality yet do not use objective

systems to support their claims, cannot be used to describe objective reality.

They are using subjective means, not objective means, to prove certain

statements. This means that the focus is the subjective experience, or the

consciousness, rather than the objective external reality, while proving their

theories. As such, the theory conforms to their own perspective, rather than

their own perspective conforming to the evidence, which is what modern science aims to achieve.

This illustration of a misalignment between an objective claim and a non-

objective means of proving perfectly illustrates the claims that of those who

attempt to describe the soul as an actual existence. For example, George

Berkeley posited a solipsistic idealist perspective, famously claiming "esse est

percipi," or "to be is to be perceived." He took the stance that objective reality,

within our subjective consciousness, is only existent because we view them. The

external things that we could not see – for example, the famous example of the

sound of a falling tree without anyone to hear it – are simply perceived by God,

so that all of reality continues to exist without our own perspectives. Moreover,

Baruch Spinoza's neutral monism, which claimed that the body and mind are

made of a third substance, is similarly non-objective to prove an objective claim

as this substance can never really be documented through evidence, and much

of it remains theory.

Of course, this essay is not arrogant enough to claim that these philosophers

are undoubtedly wrong – to assert such a claim would require a degree of non-

objectiveness perhaps equal or greater than the non-objectiveness the

philosophers practiced in their claims. This is because, once again, it is a

definitive claim that must have justification to prove. To definitively say, "x is

false," is a statement that has truth value, and therefore has the capacity for

justification – the same way "x is true," also possesses truth value. Rather,

because there is no evidence to prove either "x is false" or "x is true" to be true,

we simply take a measured perspective and focus on only what we do have

evidence for, rather than dare to make claims of things we cannot prove to be

false.

This is a key part of intellectual humility, a valuable trait when dealing with

knowledge. We do not know certain things, so we must acknowledge that we do

not know these things – to do so would equate to pseudoscience, or using non-

objective means to pursue an objective end. Like so, Popper's falsificationism

supports this view. He stated that a theory that has yet to be proven false is only considered provisionally true. There is no reason why a black swan, or an

unpredictable event that breaks previous patterns, cannot happen. It is only

true for now – we cannot definitively say this is how it is universally and forever.

Because of this perspective of knowledge acquisition, we can come to realize

that the body purely materialistic – as far as we know. Once again, there is

clearly a possibility that there is an external metaphysical substance beyond the

body that makes up the self. However, the body being material is the greatest

extent to what we know. Thus, combining intellectual humility with falsifiability,

we know that the body is material. This is true because according to science,

which seeks to describe the objective, has led us to this conclusion with ample

evidence. Moreover, all other metaphysical theories attempting to describe a

thing beyond the body cannot be falsified, so theories dealing with the body are

the only things that we can deal with as of now.

______________________________________________

THE MIND AS A NECESSARY CONSTRUCT

While the only body exists objectively, as far as we know, this does not mean

the mind does not exist. Rather, the mind exists as a constructed concept. To

illustrate this, an analogy will be provided. Money does not actually exist –

rather, it is a conferred value upon specific physical units. The physical units,

whether it may be paper or coin, actually exist – but the concept of money

exists as something in our minds. As Yuval Noah Harari would it put, it would be

a shared myth, or a collective story that humans have created in order to

function within society. Similarly, the mind is a collective story that we have

created. Moreover, it seems, that the mind is constructed both out of necessity

and naturality – unlike money.

Being able to view the mind as a thing provides many benefits, which will be

explained. But perhaps, we view the mind to be a thing because it is intuitively

easy to grasp as a concept. Noam Chomsky has identified universal grammar –

or an underlying language structure within all languages common to the human linguistic development – and the language acquisition device – a universal and

perhaps genetic component of an infant's development process in which they

are naturally able to learn languages. Similarly, the tendency to view this

seemingly "non-body" aspect of ourselves as the mind could be a natural course

of our development. Psychologists have identified developmental periods within

babies' and infants' developments in which they develop a "theory of mind," or

the sense of self in relation to others, and are able to view themselves and

others in a perhaps proto-conceptual way.

So, even if the mind may or may not actually exist, it can definitely be viewed

through the subjective lens of constructed concepts. And the mind as a

concept is not harmful either – in fact, it has been extremely beneficial to

humanity. Pragmatically, the ability to view the mind as a separate entity from

the body, rather than ascribing to a purely and definitively materialistic

perspective, has massive upsides. It allows one to organize and develop one's

well-being, growth, and interpersonal/intrapersonal relationships. It could be

difficult to do so while viewing humans as exclusively flesh and DNA. Moreover,

the view of the mind as an entity has allowed us to map it and understand it

better, which cognitive psychology aims to do. While other branches of

psychology, such as evolutionary psychology or biopsychology, aim to study and

evaluate the physical and genetic components of psychology, examining

neurotransmitters, DNA, and proteins, cognitive psychology aims to study and

evaluate mental processes. For example, language, memory, judgment, and

emotions are all aspects of the self, that which understood through the lens of

the mind, can be controlled and modulated for human benefit.

We may be unsure of what the mind is exactly referring to. Modern science

seems to have the tendency that the mind is simply a constructed perception

to view the brain's mechanisms – but even modern science is severely limited in

its current understanding of the brain. However, by viewing ourselves through

the lens of the mind, it is certainly not unreasonable to say that it produces

great benefits.

The key difference with viewing the mind as an actual existence rather than

a method of understanding is one's acknowledgement of the difference

between the objective and the subjective. Claiming the mind as an actual

existence is an objective descriptor. On the other hand, claiming the mind as a

method of understanding is a subjective perception. Doing the former becomes

the misalignment of objective ends with non-objective methods, while doing the

latter fully understands and acknowledges the limits of subjective perception,

and even embraces it to maximize what it can do with a limited subjective

perception.

_____________________________________________

THE MIND AND BODY ARE NOT THE SELF

Now that the ontological natures of the mind and body have been

established, they should be differentiated with the self. Ultimately, the various

systems that have been created, whether it be the types of dualism or monism

that have been described, are all attempting to answer the question of what is

the self. As Albert Camus stated in the introduction to his collection of essays,

"The Myth of Sisyphus and Other Essays," the seriousness of a question

corresponds to how much it makes us act. And certainly, the historical attempts

to answer "who am I" (or even, "what am I") have proved the seriousness of its

weight.

The mind and body are different from the self – this itself may seem like a

truism, but this essay attempts to establish a different perspective from the

conventional one that the mind and body make up the self. Rather, the self

interacts with the mind and body. To establish an analogy, the conventional

perspective can be thought of as comparing the self to a circle, with the body

being one hemisphere and the mind the other. However, this essay establishes

the perspective that the self is a circle, which holds close, uses, and interacts

with these other circles outside the circle (albeit, these other circles are

extremely close to the "self circle," which leads to the perspective that these

circles are tantamount to being equal or part of each other) – and these other circles are the body and the mind.

Rather, this self is the subjective conscious experience of the human. The

mind and body are simply aspects of that conscious experience as a subject,

instead of actually being units or parts of the subjective conscious experience.

Initially, this may be difficult to grasp, but an intuitive introduction to this

perspective would be that one cannot control one's mind or body, many times.

Most of the time, the way one's mind and body act align with the self. However,

there are times when you think of things you don't want to. For example, many

people experience negative emotions or conditions such as guilt, depression,

psychological disorders, or even intrusive thoughts. It not be unreasonable to

say that these are not choices that these people made to feel this way.

Moreover, the body can also not align with the self. For example, the desire to

become well-built may not become true despite controlling the factors that can

achieve this goal (fitness, nutrition, etc.) and the body can contract undesirable

conditions such as maladies and diseases. The underlying principle is that the

subjective conscious experience, which is "you," is different from the mind and

the body.

Perhaps it should first be established that the self wants to do what is good

for itself. After all, self-sabotaging behavior does exist. People are said to

"engage in things that they know are bad for them, but they do it anyway." But

the process by which people come to making this decision, is ultimately, fulfilling

some sort of want. When people engage in conscious and willful behaviors, it

can be seen that the end one tries to achieve is aligned with some internal

desire of benefit. If this behavior ultimately ends up being detrimental, the

process by which one chose to engage in that behavior can be said to be faulty

or irrational. For example, when someone chooses to continue to engage in a

toxic relationship, it is possible that they know that disengaging from the

relationship is healthier. However, this want or knowledge is processed

alongside other wants or knowledge, such as the want for immediate

satisfaction or familiarity. Through the process of decision-making, all of these

wants or knowledge is processed in an irrational way, so the full weight of each want/knowledge is not properly recognized. In the end, after the processing of

the wants/knowledge, the person chooses to fulfill their want, just not in a fully

rational way. Of course, the less control one has over their decision, say through

external control or coercion, it is acknowledged that the degree to which the

self chose to fulfill the want decreased.

Because of this principle, when things do not go the way the self wants, it

can be considered not the self. Of course, it does not necessarily have to be

entirely external – meaning other subjects or the environment itself. Rather, in

this case, it is referring to the mind or body. And this is also seems to be

supported by science. The common consensus among the scientific community

is that the brain can generally be divided into three parts – the reptilian brain,

the mammalian brain, and the neocortex. The reptilian brain is responsible for

bodily functions – such as the heart pumping blood, digestion, and the fight-

flight-freeze response. The mammalian brain is responsible for cognitive

processing, but tends to be more on the emotional or subconscious side. Finally,

the neocortex is responsible for rational processing. Essentially, the reptilian

brain can be "equated" to the body, while the mammalian could be "equated" to

the passions, while the neocortex could be "equated" to reason.

In this way, Descartes' statement that the human is defined by thinking can

be false. If he is referring to the mind as different from the human self as a

thinking object, then it would align with this essay's perspective. However, his

statement, "Cogito ergo sum," seems to point otherwise. By stating, "I am

thinking therefore being," he seems to define the self's existence by thinking.

This is so because I conventionally refers to the self, and the existence of the

self is presupposed by thinking.

Then, it must be explored that if the self is different from the mind and body,

what exactly is the self? Previously, this essay referred to the self as a

subjective conscious experience. To elaborate on this further, the self

essentially is "experiencing things." As such, the self is, not exactly "defined" by

what is referred to as qualia, but rather can be most easily analyzed through the lens of such philosophical concepts. A qualia is the experience of something,

rather than the thing itself. For example, a qualia is the taste of chocolate, or

stubbing your toe. The thing that experiences these things is the subject, and

the self. The exact mechanisms through which this experience is processed

may be by utilizing and interacting with the body and the mind (in specific, the

physical taste buds or nerve endings in the body, which translate into memories

and associations with the experiences). However, the ultimate entity that is

experiencing the experience – not the mechanism by which it is experienced – is

the self, or subjective conscious experience.

____________________________________________

THE IMPORTANCE OF DIFFERENTIATION

In this sense, Descartes did acknowledge the limits of the average human

understanding of oneself. For most of history, and for most of society, people

generally do not inquire too deeply into the relationship between the body and

the mind and the self, and naturally and intuitively assume that they are their

bodies and minds. However, this leads to vastly misinformed perspectives, and

can have disastrous – or at the very least – suboptimal consequences for those

who ascribe to those perspectives.

By understanding to what extent the self has control, and by understanding

the various parts and aspects that the self can interact with, one can come to

live a more informed and effective life. While this essay does not prescribe this

viewpoint as an objective descriptor of what should be, it does offer this

perspective as a valuable and accurate system of philosophy to better manage

the self, the mind, and the body. Referring back to the explanation of the mind

and body acting in ways that the self may not entirely agree with, understanding

this perspective can better help inform what one is unable to control and what

one is able to control. By doing so, one can surely set onto the path of an

optimal self by being better at controlling what one can control and being

better at interacting with or even influencing what one cannot control.

One of the prime motivators for doing so is to become a better self. This

means being better at managing oneself in the present and guiding oneself

towards directions in the future. Understanding the self as different from the

mind and body, one can then understand that the parts of the mind and the

body that are undesirable can be modulated by other parts that they can

control. Individuals who do not have a good understanding of what they can or

cannot control can be said to have a misaligned locus of control. In psychology,

a locus of control is where an individual perceives what controls their life. An

internal locus of control means that the individual believes they can control their

lives, while an external locus of control means that the individual believes that

their life is primarily decided by external factors. Yet, the concept of the locus

of control is shallow in the aspect that it does not explore, what areas of one's

life one believes they can control. Many individuals believe that they have an

internal locus of control for what they cannot control, and thus this

misalignment frustrates or hurts them. For example, individuals stress about

external events like wars or online drama, without realizing it is out of their

control. On the other hand, many individuals believe that they have an external

locus of control for what they can control. For example, individuals often lament

about their grades, relationships, and logical reasoning.

By understanding the perspective outlined in this essay, individuals can come

to know for which aspects of their lives they should have a specific type of

locus of control. Most aptly, this involves the body and the mind, or what we

perceive as the internal.

Letting go of the external has already been defined extensively through

various philosophies, such as Stoicism or Buddhism. To put it simply, such

philosophies come to a state of ataraxia, or "without trouble," by accepting that

external events are out of their control. It may seem difficult to do so, but Zeno

of Citium, a Stoic philosopher, accepted and processed the fact that his entire

merchant cargo sank, effectively making his net worth null. Perhaps it is an

absurd reasoning to be able to process such a heavy and significant external

event, but using Stoic or Buddhist philosophy, one can come to better

understand how to process external events by letting go, and focusing on the

internal.

Processing the internal, or the self, the body, and the mind, can be done

through understanding what parts of the internal we cannot control. For

example, in relation to unwanted mental or physical processes, trauma is one of

the most common. Bessel van der Kolk, in his book, "The Body Keeps the

Score," outlined how trauma is surprisingly physiological, and that it is not a

simple problem of mind-over-matter. One's own behavior, thoughts, and

feelings are considered by many to be controllable, but trauma makes this

surprisingly difficult. But this does not mean that we simply cannot control them

anymore due to trauma. Understanding the different parts of the body and the

mind, such as the reptilian, mammalian, and neocortex brains, we can come to

modulate physiological systems, and with the aid of understanding these

processes through the lens of the construct of the mind, we can slowly change

our internal towards a direction that the self desires.

________________

CONCLUSION

Ultimately, this analysis of the mind and the body and the self serves as a

method of understanding, and never as an objective descriptor. It does not

purport to be scientifically accurate, but is simply a way to subjectively

understand our experiences. As far as we know, there is only the body. But that

does not mean we cannot use the analytical method of understanding ourselves

through the lens of body and mind – in fact, it is extremely beneficial and

natural. By doing so, we can come to understand the different roles of the self,

the body, and the mind, and how they interact – hopefully to facilitate a better

living for all. Rene Descartes was inaccurate in his understanding of the self, the

body, and the mind in his quote; however, his attempt to understand it was

certainly deserving of praise.