Reply to comment

The philosophy of the mind, especially the mind-body relationship, has been a topic of debate for thousands of years. In the 5th century BC, Parmenides was the first philosopher that supported the mind and body represented as distinct entities. Then in the 17th century Descartes expressed that mind and body had a dualistic nature. These dualistic entities were matter and mind, where the nervous system is involved in actions of matter.  Two centuries later Emily Dickinson wrote that the action of seeing someone or something was a construction of the brain. This philosophy was different from dualism. Dickinson believed that there is a nervous system and everything else is a construction of the nervous system.  Both Descartes and Dickinson communicated valid arguments, but the philosophy of the mind is still defined by a group of problems.

After class on Thursday I was indecisive about my preference of Descartes' of Dickinson's philosophy of the mind. After some deliberation, I decided to skeptically endorse dualism. The dualistic concept is unpopular among neuroscientists, but there is proof in physiological, clinical and genetic studies of cognitive functions that the performance of cognitive functions is based on complex cooperative activity of "complex" neurons that are carriers of "elementary cognition" (Arshavsky, 2006). Although I approach the mind-body debate with skepticism, I look forward to a semester of debate and discussion.