I move, therefore I am
Physical Literacy June 2013
Jens E. Birch
Oslo University College
jens.birch@hioa.no
Structure of the talk
– 1. What does dualism mean?
– 2. What is wrong with substance dualism?
– 3. If we deny substance dualism, where does that
leave us? Monism
– 4. What kind of monism should we support?
• The phiIosophical underpinnings of Physical
Literacy; is there such a thing as a free lunch?
1. Dualism
•
•
•
•
Dualism: the view that the world consists of two things/parts/substances
– Ontological- and epistemological dualism
Cartesian dualism, from René Descartes (1596-1650): the doctrine that the soul
is distinct from the body. It is a substance dualism, it has ontological claims
Why divide the world into two parts?
– Descartes wants to establish the fundament on which to build science. He
wants to find what we cannot doubt
– We may call into doubt every material object (like the body extended in
space). A demon may trick the senses, and my senses have been fooled
several times
– I cannot doubt that I doubt (doubt is to think). To think=to exist. It follows
– I think, therefore I am (Cogito ergo sum)
– Things not sharing all properties are different (I may doubt the body, but not
thinking)
– Thus, the material body and the thinking mind are not the same thing, they
are two different substances
• Material bodies are physical; the essence of the physical is extension in
space (res extensa)
• The thinking substance is immaterial; the essence of the immaterial mind
is to think. The immaterial substance must lack spatial location and
extension
Descartes (1996) held that there does in fact exist a two-way psychophysical
interaction between the physical body and the immaterial mind
2. Arguments against substance dualism
• The problem of interaction: the body has a causal potent effect on the
mind, and vice versa. But how can something immaterial, something
without extension and location in space cause something in the physical
realm?
– the physical world is causally closed. It is a basic principle of science,
and the psychophysical interaction of substance dualism goes against
any scientific understanding of the world
• The theory of evolution: when and how did an immaterial mind evolve in
humans? The same holds ontogenetically, from egg cell to mature adult:
our cognitive and mental capacities develop throughout the lifecourse
• Substance dualism is impossible to verify. It is non-scientific
• Substance dualism may also be interpreted as existentially problematic: it
rates everything physical; our bodies, our senses, earth, life on earth as
secondary to pure thinking (contemplation without body, brain and world)
• Why would anyone be a substance dualist then?
– Life after death
– Offers an escape from the body and the world, which seems profitable in
certain situations
– Substance dualism seems to explain how physical matter can be conscious.
But we are left with the problem of interaction. What is the alternative?
3. Monism
• Monism: the view that the world consists
of only one thing
• Idealism: everything that exists is
immaterial
• Physicalism: everything that exists is and
is necessitated by the physical
• If everything from sticks and stones and
humans are made of the same stuff, how
can the physical think and feel?
4a.What is problematic with this
brainbased view of ourselves?
• The brain is more important than the body.
The brain directs the body. It is in the brain
that everything really happens
– Joseph LeDoux: The Synaptic Self (2002)
• This leads to a new form of dualism: between
brain and body
• It is what Evan Thompson (2007) calls a
Cartesian Hangover: I can exist as brain,
without the body
– C.f The Matrix/the mad scientist/brain in the vat
4b. What could be an alternative to the brainbased view?
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Thompson: we must rethink the brain in the vat argument. Humans evolve as
bodies in the world
Andy Clark (2008): the extended view. The brainbased view is focused on
Internal control: (perception → cognition → action)
– Active dynamic (Asimo) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZeseJBzuF4&feature=related
vs the extended view’s focus on
External control: (perception → action)
– Passive dynamics is an approach to movement control, based on utilising the
momentum of swinging limbs for greater efficiency http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qwEWki9H0Ao
Rizzolatti & Sinigaglia (2008): motor actions are intentional and thus cognitive
– Not to be confused with automaticity and the non-conscious (Bargh, 1999). This
view must also be some cartesian hangover. Cf perception → cognition →
action
If motor actions are intentional and cognitive, then motor actions are also conscious
Understanding skills and know-how in physical activity may help us to understand
how human consciousness works in and through the world: humans are conscious
even if something (like motor movement) occurs without prereflection, an
accompanying- or declarative thought. Weaknesses?
Although we must accept that not all cognition is motor action, all motor actions are
cognitive. To move is to think
If moving is thinking, and thinking is existing
It follows
• I move, therefore I am
References
• Bargh, J. & T. Chartrand. (1999). The Unbearable
Automaticity of Being. American Psychologist 54:7
• Clark, A. (2008). Supersizing the Mind: Embodiment,
Action, and Cognitive Extension. Oxford: Oxford
University Press
• Descartes, R. (1996). Meditations on First Philosophy.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
• LeDoux, J. (2002). Synaptic Self: how our brains
become who we are. New York: Penguin Books
• Rizzolatti, G. & C. Sinigaglia. (2008). Mirrors in the Brain.
Oxford: Oxford University Press
• Thompson, E. (2007). Mind in Life. Cambridge: Harvard
University Press
Thank you for your attention
• jens.birch@hioa.no
Ontological dualism vs epistemological
dualism ?
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Part I: Descartes’ Sixth Meditation Case for Cartesian Dualism
Argument 1: The Divisibility Argument
(1) The body is divisible into parts.
(2) The mind is not divisible into parts.
Therefore,
(3) The mind is not identical to the body.
Two important assumptions (required for The Divisibility Argument):
Important assumption #1 – Leibniz’s Law of Identity:
(LL) Two things x and y are identical only if, for every property F, x is F if and only if y is F.
Important assumption #2 – The necessary divisibility of extended objects:
(DE) All extended things are divisible things.
Argument 2: The Master Argument (often referred to as The Epistemological Argument)
(1) I, Descartes, have a clear and distinct understanding of my self as essentially a thinking substance, but as not essentially extended.
(2) I, Descartes, have a clear and distinct understanding of my body as essentially extended substance, but as not essentially thinking.
Therefore,
(3) I, Descartes, have a clear and distinct understanding that I, my self, can exist separately from (my) body.
(4) Whatever I clearly and distinctly understand can be brought about by God as I understand it.
Therefore,
(5) I, Descartes, can exist separately from my body.
(6) If x can exist separately from y, then x and y are really distinct.
Therefore,
(7) I, Descartes, am really distinct from my body.