The concept of duality within the self has been rejected by many great minds who study cognition. It is argued that since alteration of the physical structure of the brain results in alteration of the thoughts of an individual, it is impossible for thoughts to be distinct from the brain that created them.
A very compelling argument to be sure, if one does not have a brain then they cannot have thoughts... But I wonder about it...
A thought does not have a physical form, in fact we cannot isolate an area of the brain where a specific thought forms. We have found areas of increased activity associated with different actions and specific thought patterns and behaviours, but this does not effectively isolate where that thought really comes from. As such, we cannot truly know what happens to these thoughts.
As a hypothetical experiment, let us examine the possibility of dualism and presume that the material body is what gives expression to the thought. That is, our bodies exist for the sole purpose of giving life or voice or expression to our thoughts. Our thoughts and psyche represent an ephemeral existence that lies somewhere within the physical form that gives it expression. If this were to be the case, death of the brain would result in a mind that may not die with the body, but exists without a receptacle or body to give it expression.
When you think about anything, these thoughts find expression as a "voice in your head." This voice can then interact with the world through physical expression or it can remain within "your head." Either way, the fact that there is an "ear to listen" to the voice means that it is being heard, it has a physical expression... This can be likened to the philosophical dilemma made popular by Bart and Lisa Simpson, "If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?" If a soul exists as thoughts, and no one is around to hear it, does it have physical expression? Does it exist?
The same can be said of our tree in the forest, if no one is around to hear it, perhaps the argument can be made that it does not make a sound, for the existence of sound requires a listener. However, the existence of the tree and the forest... that is more difficult to debate. If no one knows of the existence of a forest, does that negate it's existence?
Of course, this whole premise rests on several assumptions, and in science the theory that makes the fewest assumptions is presumed correct until a null hypothesis can be found to disprove the initial theory. This means that looking at it from a scientific perspective, dualism meets with a great deal of resistance. The concept requires too many assumptions for a scientific mind.
... If a theory makes many assumptions but cannot be dis-proven does that mean it is wrong?
No comments:
Post a Comment