Reply to comment

             I like Descartes’ idea better than Dickinson’s idea. Dickinson believes that everything is a construction of the brain. Having everything be a construction of the brain means that everything we are-like our behavior and morals-is solely determined by the brain. Strictly speaking, I think that Dickinson’s language is beautiful. The brain can create and explore an infinite amount of things. However, if the brain is all that we are, if it completely constructs our reality, then it leaves little room for morals. If our brain is everything, that means that our actions are determined solely by our brain. Since we cannot control the way our brain is constructed, this would seem to mean that we couldn’t even control our actions. This would mean that we wouldn’t have to take moral responsibility for our actions. It bothers me that there wouldn’t be any external influence on our behavior because I want to believe that our actions aren’t solely based on something material. I like believing in the idea of a soul. I also feel that if there isn’t another force determining our behavior besides the brain, it is hard to argue for the idea of free will. If the way our brain is made, which we can’t control, is the only thing that determines our behavior, then it seems like we don’t have the ability to control what we do. I would like to think that we have that ability. It is for that reason that I like Descartes; however, I do not agree with him. I believe in Dickinson’s idea. There have been many cases where “normal” people with “normal” personalities have suffered severe brain damage, specifically in the frontal lobe, and then had complete changes in personality. I would again like to bring up the fact that people with “normal” brains would press a switch that would have a train kill one man in order to save five men, but would not push a man in front of that train in order to save five. Those with damaged frontal lobes didn't see a difference between the two situations. The observations that I see cause me to infer that the activity of someone’s brain completely determines how they act. The brain even determines what they think from a moral perspective. My thought on this, therefore, is that I like Descartes’ idea, because it is comforting, but I agree with Dickinson.