Cartesian dualism is a system of beliefs used to explain the nature of our existence and reality.

However, there are many problems with dualism, the most significant being the mind/body interaction issue which was raised by Elizabeth in her correspondence to Descartes. My essay will firstly expound the key principles of Cartesian dualism. Then, I will analyse the problems that Elizabeth raises for dualism and critically evaluate its counter arguments. Ultimately, I have concluded that Elizabeth presents a strong argument against Cartesian dualism.

The foundation of Cartesian dualism is that there are two different types of substances: physical and mental.1 Physical substances have the fundamental property of extension while mental substances have the fundamental property of thought. Furthermore, they are entirely distinct from each other; a physical substance cannot think and a mental substance cannot have extension.2

Another key principle of Cartesian dualism is that humans have a body, in the physical state, and a mind, in the mental state, which interact with each other.3 Descartes compared this union of mind and body to a sailor and his ship in Meditation 6; like how a sailor steers his ship, we too have a thinking thing, existing independently of the body, which controls our body.4 Thus our mind can affect our bodies. Furthermore, Descartes reasoned that our bodies can affect our mind because when our bodies are damaged, our mind perceives this as pain.

However, this raises the issue of mind/body interaction; it seems impossible for a mental substance, with no physical properties, and a material object to affect each other.5

Binder, MD, Hirokawa, N & Windhorst, U 2009, Encyclopedia of Neuroscience, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin.
2

Lloyd, M 2013, Week 3 Descartes I, PowerPoint slides, University of Queensland, Brisbane.

McLeod, S 2007, Mind Body Debate, viewed 13th April 2013, <http://www.simplypsychology.org/ saulmcleod.html#sthash.IIEYWY02.dpbs>.
4

Temple, C 2002, Meditations on First Philosophy, Philosophy Index, viewed 14 April 2013, <http://www.philosophy-index.com/descartes/meditations/>.
5

th

Lloyd, M 2013, Week 4 Descartes II, PowerPoint slides, University of Queensland, Brisbane.

Elizabeths argument focuses in particular on the problem of mental causation and how the mind could control the body.

Descartes explained mental causation by saying that the pineal gland in our brain acted as a gateway through which the material body and the immaterial mind could communicate. When the soul wanted the body to move, it pushed the gland in a way that "drove the surrounding spirits towards the pores of the brain, which directed themto the muscles".6 These spirits consequently caused movement.

However, Elizabeth asked "how the soul(being only thinking substances) [could] determine the bodily spirits, in order to bring about voluntary actions".7 She reasoned there are only three cases that cause an object to move; a force being directly applied to the object, the object being hit by another object or some particular quality of the object's surface. Yet, a mind has no extension and cannot account for any of these cases. Even Descartes implied that the mind has extension when he explained how it pushed again the pineal gland to move the spirits.

The fundamental concept of Elizabeth's argument is that only physical things can affect other physical things. This can be proved through proof by contradiction, using the premise of the law of energy conservation which states that energy must be conserved in the physical world. If we assume the mind can affect the body, then it must activate the brain activity that brings about bodily movement. Furthermore, it must input energy to initiate this activity. However, the mind is non-physical and doesnt have any energy to transfer to the brain.8 There would have to be a creation of energy for the brain activity to start. Hence,

Rene Descartes, The Passions of the Soul, trans. John Conttingham, Robert Stoothoff & Dougald Murdoch (Cambridge: CUP, 1985), 340.
7

Lisa Shapiro (ed.) The Correspondence Between Princess Elizabeth of Bohemia and Rene Descartes, (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 2007) 61-67.
8

Koksvik, O 2006, In Defense of Interactionism, Monash University, Melbourne, viewed 11th April 2013, <http://www.newdualism.org/papers/O.Koksvik/indefenceofinteractionism.htm>.

the mind cannot control the body without breaking the law of energy conservation. This is a strong reason to believe that Cartesian dualism is false.

Elizabeth's concern of mental causation is amplified by modern neuroscience. We observe through imaging techniques, that when parts of the brain are damaged, there is a corresponding loss in certain mental faculties. This suggests that our experience of consciousness is produced by the brain.9 However, this is inconsistent with Cartesian dualism, because it states our mind exists independently of our brain. Hence, any forms of brain damage should not affect the mind. This contradiction is a strong argument against the dualist model of a mind controlling our bodies.

There are several defences against Elizabeth's concerns. Descartes solved it by suggesting that in addition to the mind and body, there is third substance, "the soul and body together", which facilitates their interaction.10 For example, like how a physical substance has the fundamental notion of extension, from which comes dimension and movement, the substance of soul and body together have the fundamental notion of their union from which comes the power the soul has to move the body.11 While this overcomes the mindbody interaction problem, by introducing a third substance, it is not a defence of Cartesian dualism which states there are only two substances in the world.

Descartes then proved that the mind could interact with the body by illustraing the example of gravity. Gravity has "the power to move a body...and we do not think that this happens through the contact of one surface against another".12 Hence he reasoned that we do not need physical contact for movement, as Elizabeth suggested, and that it is possible for something immaterial to move a material object.

Bloom, P 2007, Lecture 2 Foundations: This is Your Brain transcript, Yale University, Connecticut. Lloyd, M 2013, Week 4 Descartes II, PowerPoint slides, University of Queensland, Brisbane.

10

11

Lisa Shapiro (ed.) The Correspondence Between Princess Elizabeth of Bohemia and Rene Descartes, (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 2007) 61-67.
12

Ibid.

However, this comparison is fallacious because unlike the mind, gravity exists within the physical realm; without any matter, gravity would cease to operate. Therefore, gravity is actually an example of one physical object attracting another physical object, not a mental substance affecting a physical substance.

Another defence is that mind body interaction is an anomaly and Elizabeth's argument is only based on her limited perception of reality, which may be false. Descartes claimed that the principal cause of our errors lies in [the] use of [physics] to explain those things to which they do not pertain; the union of mind and body can "be understood only through itself".13 Although this is unclear, Scott Calef refutes that being unable to clarify the nature of mind/body interaction, does not deny its existence. According to him, the problem of interaction doesn't threaten Cartesian dualism; it only means that "dualists do not know everything about metaphysics [like]... how [scientists] can't explain everything about their respective discipline".14

I agree that mental causation cannot be proven false. This is because we have no way of examining the mind/body interaction and hence, cannot provide physical evidence against it. Therefore Cartesian dualism might be true. However, because there is no evidence to support it, we have no reason to believe it is true. Furthermore, I disagree with Calef and argue that the lack of clarity in defining how mind and body interact, make dualism useless in achieving the fundamental aim of gaining deeper insight into the nature of our existence.

Overall, I conclude that Elizabeth's argument about how mental substances could not possibly interact with physical substances, gives us strong reason to reject Cartesian dualism. While it is possible that Cartesian dualism is true, I believe we should find a better model to explain our existence.

13

Ibid.

14

Calef, S 2005, Dualism and Mind, internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, viewed 12th April 2013, <http://www.iep.utm.edu/dualism/#SH7c>.

Bibliography
Binder, MD, Hirokawa, N & Windhorst, U 2009, Encyclopedia of Neuroscience, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin. Bloom, P 2007, Lecture 2 Foundations: This is Your Brain, Transcript, Yale University, Connecticut. Calef, S 2005, Dualism and Mind, Internet Encyclopaedia of Philosophy, viewed 12th April 2013, <http://www.iep.utm.edu/dualism/#SH7c>. Koksvik, O 2006, In Defense of Interactionism, Monash University, Melbourne, viewed 11th April 2013, <http://www.newdualism.org/papers/O.Koksvik/indefenceofinteractionism.htm>. Lisa Shapiro (ed.) The Correspondence Between Princess Elizabeth of Bohemia and Rene Descartes, (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 2007) 61-67. Lloyd, M 2013, Week 3 Descartes I, PowerPoint slides, University of Queensland, Brisbane. Lloyd, M 2013, Week 4 Descartes II, PowerPoint slides, University of Queensland, Brisbane. McLeod, S 2007, Mind Body Debate, viewed 13th April 2013, <http://www.simplypsychology.org/ saul-mcleod.html#sthash.IIEYWY02.dpbs>. Rene Descartes, The Passions of the Soul, trans. John Conttingham, Robert Stoothoff & Dougald Murdoch (Cambridge: CUP, 1985), 340. Temple, C 2002, Meditations on First Philosophy, Philosophy Index, viewed 14th April 2013, <http://www.philosophy-index.com/descartes/meditations/>.