In Meditation IV, Descartes felt he had shown all that in the intellectual sphere. To Descartes, the human minds were decidedly different from that of an average person. To him the human mind was just a thinking thing. He felt that the human mind does not increase to any way be it in depth, height, or length. However, because the brain had nothing from the body, he felt like that by not depending on the body and so she considered that God did not get the mind imperfect. The proviso he gave was that god might have made an mistake, which to him again is a wrong judgment. He said that the whole embody may be appropriate but a function might be imperfect. He further states that, through the will, he perceived the impression that corresponds with something existing on the world.
Implications of Meditation IV for the philosophy of mind
According to Bruner, (1984), Descartes argued that the mind is separate from the body, but they are augmented by the actual notion of the will. However, judgment seems to amplify both of them. In his opinion, judgment looks at the world from far and decides from its seat. Nevertheless, he points that will is supreme. In addition, that the body is separate from the world, the only connection with the brain that receives the messages of will.
According to the understanding of Descartes, the body is not a member of the story of humanity and so is he mental capabilities of the two. According to him belief of errors are not part of the human mind however, he gives prominence to the use of clear and distinctive patterns of the mind.
In his rule about the direction of the mind, he prescribed a collection of rules for appropriate act of thinking. From then, the rules have been used for virtually everything in the modern world.
He writes, “How can I be sure but that … I am always mistaken when I add two and three or count the sides of a square, or when I judge of something else even easier” (Meditations, I, p. 20). If one cannot be clear about the state of the mind or cases with exemplary sharpness and lucidity, then the following cannot be a real threat of being. He further states that the understanding of man is relative to the person (Alciphron, 1950). Understanding is also unique to the embodiment of the individual. Descartes goes on to announce that:
“everything which I appreciate clearly and distinctly as occurring in [corporeal objects]–that is to say, everything, generally speaking, which is discussed in pure mathematics or geometry–does in fact appear in them” (Meditations, VI, p 76).
Berger, (1982) argues that Descartes had doubts about many things, he had to prove the existence of God, he states that he can prove the existence of God before proving the existence of the objects , just like the priory of John Locke he tried to explain that God was not a liar. He tried to prove hat if god was correct he could not necessarily betray: he states
For any effect, there must be as much reality (positive properties) in the action as there are in that effect. Ideas may fail to correspond to something outside of me, but their action must contain as much reality as the situation they are ideas of. I have an sense of God, as the most real thing .The source of this idea of God must be at least as real as God. The problem at least as real as the most real issue is the most real thing. God is the purpose of my idea of God .God exists (Meditation III)
Mind and body problem
Descartes says, if the essence of human consists of assessment, then it is not completely extended, he argues that the actual development is doubted. He states, “That I am entirely and truly distinct from my [extended] body.” he even goes on to say that, he can survive without the body (Meditations, VI; ed. cit., p. 74). However, he contradicts himself by saying that the mind and the body is deceptively simple:
“The body, from its nature, is always divisible and the reason is completely indivisible” (ibid., p. 81).
He explains,
“it is one and like mind which as a complete unit wills, perceives, and understands and so forth. But just the opposite is the case with corporeal or extended objects” (ibid.).
Classic mind body problem:
With the above argument, it is important to note that we are back to the proverbial tale of the egg and the chick or better yet, the classical problem of the mind and the body. According to him, he says that the non-extended issue cannot be a part of the body and have regular interaction with the body. To him the outside and physical world exists to the point of being a visible object and a separate perception. Accordingly he states that because man has a clear distinct feeling of the of himself then, he is only thinking and not an extended life (Meditations VI; ed. cit., p. 74). Descartes tried to mediate between two distinctions. He proposed that the soul communicates to the machine of the body by the pineal; by moving it one moves the whole body (Passions of the Soul, p112), John Locke also affirmed that there can never be a credible relationship between consciousness and physical activity
References
Berger,A., (1982). Media Analysis Techniques (London: Sage Publisher). BERKELEY, George. 1732.
Alciphron, K, (1950). The Minute Philosopher, Volume III of The Works of George Berkeley, Bishop of Cloyne, ed. T. Jessop (London: Thomas Nelson and Sons).
Bruner, J., (1984). “Topics in Developmental Pragmatics” Quotation from opening lecture for ISISSS ’84 course
