Serendip is an independent site partnering with faculty at multiple colleges and universities around the world. Happy exploring!

Reply to comment

Adam Zakheim's picture

Undecided sides with science

        Originally, I was undecided and couldn’t conclude whether Dickenson or Descartes’ made the stronger argument. Dickenson’s point of view, combined with the scientific approach of Francis Crick, seemed more plausible. Truly, the nervous system, via signaling pathways and nerve cells, provides a human being with the ability to construct his or her reality. The scientific community is on the whole quite unequivocal that the senses, capacity for thought and other innate functions of the brain, are the result of various stimuli that are in turn processed and interpreted by the brain. For these reasons, I cannot discount Descartes’ view.

            Since the nervous system is of critical importance to life, it would seem right to suggest that the brain is the seat of the soul. This idea is typified by the Uniform Determination of Death Act (1981), which defined death as the “irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain, including the brain stem.” The function of the brain, legally and medically speaking, determines life and death.             Regardless, the overwhelming scientific evidence suggests that Dickenson and Crick are correct. The mind is part of the nervous system. And, the central nervous system controls behavior either by activating muscles, or by causing secretion of chemicals, such as hormones. Although modern science has endeavured to elucide the functions of the brain, there are still gaps in our knowledge. In the meantime, however, I will agree with Dickenson and Crick.

Reply

To prevent automated spam submissions leave this field empty.
3 + 15 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.