1. Explain Damasio’s view as to what Descartes’ error is, and why he thinks
Descartes is “in error”? How do Descartes and Damasio differ as to what the
“self” is? Damasio and Descartes differ greatly as to what the “self” is
all about. They have different answers to the philosophical question of what
makes up the self, and determines who a person is. A person’s identity is more
than just the body they both agree, but have different reasons why. Descartes is
also known as “ the founder of modern philosophy” he is most known for his
cogito argument of “I think therefore I am”. He thinks that one cannot doubt
their own existence because something must be doing the doubting. Although, that
statement was refuted later by some, who said the fact that you think
pre-assumes existence. Descartes also refutes skeptics by saying that they
cannot deny they are thinking and something must be undergoing that thinking, so
one cannot deny that they exist. Descartes starts his arguments by saying that
God is the guaranteed, and uses his existence to prove other things. First
though, he says he will not believe anything until he proves that God exists.
Once he does this using the circular argument, he proceeds to talk about the
separation of mind and body and his beliefs. The circular argument simply states
that if you believe in the light of nature, you believe in God, and if you
believe the causality principles you believe in the other two. He believes that
the mind and body are two entirely separate entities, the soul is independent
from the body, and the mind is for reason and rationality. The emotions of the
body are what interfere with reason, and the body is used for all of the sensory
things such as sound, sight, and pain. Based on this, he thinks that a person
cannot know a substance. The way a person can “know” a substance is only
through its qualities. For example, one cannot know soap; they can only
associate its qualities such as scent, shape, and color. “How does one know
the notion of color?” he speculates. One can only know a substance through
experience. Descartes argument with the wax shows his idea of how one does not
experience the thing itself, but its properties. These physical characteristics
are the only way to relate to the body, which one cannot know. One can only
experience or “know” the mind. This leads to his discussion of complex and
primitive ideas. Primitive ideas require experience, and complex ideas do not. A
complex idea is something like the notion of infinity, or language. Descartes
believed there was no definition of infinity, and would not accept a negative
definition to resolve his problem. He believed that God was the infinite thing.
The only widely accepted belief at that time was that mathematics were
undeniable, and ever present in the world. Essentially the world is composed of
mathematics, which gave a lot of merit to his proof of the existence of God.
Another two principles Descartes used to further his arguments were that of
formal and objective reality. The idea of formal reality is that formal reality
is what is actually out there in the world, kind of the ultimate truth.
Objective reality on the other hand is the ideas that are in our minds, what we
perceive to be true. Descartes comes to the conclusion that an idea must have at
least as much formal reality as objective reality. He also uses this notion to
further his proof of God’s existence. He wants to find an idea that has more
objective reality than formal reality. This, he deduces, is God. He also comes
to the conclusion that people cannot be the cause of an idea like God because it
doesn’t have as much formal reality as objective reality. This means that as
humans we cannot know for sure what the formal reality is, but what we do know
is objective reality. Unless God is a deceiving demon this must mean that he
exists, because why would he create a world of deception, when he is a perfect
being? In other words, God obviously exists because what we know to be true
about him must be true, because there is no truer formal reality in regards to
the idea of God. Eventually a problem arises for Descartes known as the
Mind-Body problem. He observes that one can fully understand their own mind,
thus understand their “self” without knowing anything about the body. He
wonders how they are related, and how the mind connects to the body. He says
that the mind is non-spatial and the body is spatial. How they work together
though, is a mystery to him. He knows there must be some connection due to the
fact that certain thinking brings about certain physical reactions. Also, there
is the Ontological argument for God’s existence. The theory here is that God
is the most perfect being, and he exists, so he is not a deceiver because he is
the most perfect. This statement is what Descartes bases his hypotheses on to
prove other things. This is contrary to the beliefs of other philosophers like
Augustine who believe they are always being deceived. Descartes also follows the
notion of causality in his thoughts. Causality is the principle that nothing
exists without a cause, and the reality of the cause exceeds the reality of the
effect. Ideas have objective reality, which is caused by formal reality. This
shows how we, as humans, must have been created by something with a greater
reality than ourselves, which Descartes believes to be God. This follows suit
with his argument about how God is the being with more objective reality than
formal reality. With God, you don’t have ideas that you can’t completely
understand. If God isn’t a deceiver, when you are mislead it is due to your
own free will. Descartes argues that, what “you” are is your ability to
think, and that you do not have direct access to yourself. All of your identity
comes from the mind, and the underlying self stays the same over time. He thinks
that your body undergoes many changes, but your mind stays the same. Now I will
move on to Damasio’s views and what influenced him to believe that the mind
and body weren’t separate after all. Damasio believes that for pain,
happiness, depression, sound, and pleasure, something happens in the brain. He
speculated, do the brain and body work together, or is it all a result of the
brain’s processes? He believes the brain just explains the emotions. He thinks
that pain is just an inbuilt mechanism for survival, and that all of the moral
principles in society were derived from survival techniques. He thinks that
reasoning involves immediate processes in the brain and that every single one of
our notions go back to some sort of biological basis. In Damasio’s work there
is a great focus on evolution and moral principles to explain the behavior of
the people. He got some insight from Freud, who had the idea of mind, soul, ego,
and super ego. You get ideas from your influences, which become internalized,
and these are the rules, which allow a person to live. He concluded that
reasoning is our only form of decision-making, and that certain markers in the
brain function in an automatic way. Reasoning, he deduces, is a conditioned
response in the ways and methods that the brain operates. Damasio thinks that
the mind is a condition of the body, and that there is no true “self”.
Another philosopher, Hume, says, you can be aware of things or unaware, there
are different ways of experiencing things. If you want to think of a “self”
you must construct it yourself. All the self could possibly be is a collection
of experiences tied to a certain body. You don’t find a true “self”. One
can remember certain experiences which no one else can, and feelings too. These
experiences are all related in memory, there is no difference between the
conscious state and the neural state. This is very similar to Damasio’s views,
of not believing in a “self” of any sort. There is also the notion of the
“amounculus” which is a body, holding a directing mind. The “self” is a
reconstructed biological state. In reality, there is only the neural state
according to Damasio. All you know about an object you get from experiences,
moment by moment you are experiencing yourself. Animals cannot think and have no
notion of self; he uses that idea to support his arguments about humans. Since
we evolved from animals we must be very similar to them. The so-called
“self” we believe to experience is just a series of successive responses in
the brain, and the ability to think this way is only a result of the advanced
development of the brain. Experiences are just part of a neural state. An
example that is brought up is the example of the water and the H2O, where the
water is the experience and the H2O is the neural state. Damasio notices how
these are the same, and this relation just furthers his point of how the mind
and body are the same. The mind is just made up of the physical states of the
brain. Damasio also ponders that although your body grows and changes, you are
the same person. There is the “Myth of the Self”, which also adds to
Damasio’s argument. It is a memory network, there is something behind these
experiences, and there is nothing that can be called “the” self because in
relation there is no “the” rose. So there is no “self” he concludes. The
mind is the brain, and when you have experiences it is due to a physical
occurrence in the brain, such as neurons interacting. Once a complete
neurobiology is completed, Damasio believes one could know “you”, simply due
to the patterns of neurons interacting in the brain or whatever processes are
discovered. He thinks that one could not have experiences without the actions of
the body, although the brain is continually generating mental experiences. The
sematic map: Pain is not in your knees, but in your mind, and the body
continually does things to regenerate the body image. Now, to compare the
thoughts of these two philosophers, one must recognize their most obvious
difference. Descartes believes that there is a distinct separation between mind
and body, and Damasio believes that the mind is the body. Damasio believes that
Descartes’ error is the fact that he separates the two. He thinks that this is
the greatest error possible because he strongly believes that the mind and body
are one, that the mind is the body. One area where they agree is the fact that
the body changes over time. According to Descartes that shows that one would not
be the same person if the mind is the body, but Damasio thinks that it is
obvious that one undergoes changes in thought process over the years as they
acquire more experiences. Which to him is what the “self” really is, simply
a collection of experiences linked to a body. Descartes believes the “self”
to be all of your thoughts, and a sense of being, a “soul” individual to
each person. He believes in the afterlife where you simply exist as a soul and
your soul is essentially your “self”. Damasio thinks that when you die and
are brain-dead you cease to be a person. Once no more neurons are interacting
you don’t have any thoughts or experiences. These two philosophers have very
different notions about all of the major principles, which leads to their
complete disagreement. Mainly, Damasio disagrees with Descartes because he
doesn’t believe in the idea of a “self” or a soul individual to each body.
Because of this, their views differ on almost everything else because without a
common foundation, it is impossible to agree on rational terms.