Legacies of Cartesianism in Psychology

Cognition Analysis Paper
Student Name
College/University
Course
Professor’s Name
Due Date
What are the legacies of Cartesianism in Psychology? Give an example from cognitive psychology and neuropsychology? How does Darwinism critique this view?
A crucial aspect of our normal understanding of the concept of mind started as an authentic philosophical proposition and developed into what is now termed as common sense. As suggested by Descartes, the philosophical conception is referred to as the Cartesian thesis. This proposition defines the concept of mind minds as an entity, sentiment components on a par with livers and hearts. While the liver regulates metabolism, the heart moves the blood, and the mind thinks and feels. A human’s mind receives stimuli from bodily nerves to an individual’s brain. The Cartesian psychology holds that the brain and the mind are distinct entities, and events happening within the mind differ from those happening within the brain. In this context, Descartes believed that the brain’s functioning is tied to mechanical principles exclusively, whereas the canons of reason govern the mind. There was no perspective or rationale to derive the mind from brain; thus, the former should be conceptualized as distinct, non-physical materials, and latter be understood as physical models. The Creator did not design a sentiment robot, the physical tool with the ability to think and feel. Thoughts and feelings need a non-physical mental rationale. The other epistemological legacy of the Cartesian conception of the mind is also prominent. Descartes suggests that our minds’ contents are infallible and always present to us (Heil, n.d.). I instantly and confidently know my thoughts – my desires, beliefs, feelings, and choices.
The Cartesian conception of mind incorporates, as discussed above, creating an impetus for other legacies. First, Cartesianism establishes a position termed Cartesian or significant dualism (body and mind constitute different materials). Second, it creates the potential for diverse forms of skepticism about both the existence of others’ minds and the external ecosystem. Third, it shows that the mind can be conceptualized as an arena private to the philosopher (thinker) whose constituents are incorrigible and infallible. Fourth, it incorporates the term cogitatio (thought), not only feeling but also imagination, understanding, willingness, and the like. Fifth, Cartesianism depicts a clear rejection of the conventional approach to thinking concerning the soul. In this vein, Descartes affirmed that the mind is different from the soul but is instead a thinking soul on its own. The implications of such developments are significant. While the ancients restricted the mind to all human animals, with the soul being allowed for all living organisms, Descartes holds that the mind or soul is solely present in humans. Therefore, all non-human organisms constitute mere mechanisms (Heil, n.d.). Fascinatingly, Descartes viewed the human body as a machine that the Creator endowed with a soul or mind.
In providing examples of Cartesianism legacies in psychology and neuropsychology, it is crucial to recognize that Descartes differentiated the physical and mental realms. He noted that only human animals have a mind, a distinct immaterial substance. In addition, he argued that the mind is connected to the brain causally. By delineating the brain and body as different from the mind, Descartes opposed Aristotelian tradition and ultimately categorized the discipline of nature from the study of consciousness and thought. Human beings can access the internal cognitive realm (it is not part of the public construct). An excellent example of Cartesianism legacy from cognitive psychology is the inability of an individual to access others’ mental experiences (they are unable to peer into their friend’s mind). Accordingly, humans have information sources concerning the self as well as its operation that are unavailable to different external entities (Smit, 2020). If an individual performs an act, they develop an internal experience of striving for an objective and the different types of proprioception of human behavior when they act to achieve the objective.
Moreover, Cartesianism legacies apply to understanding the mind and behavior, as well as their interaction with the central nervous system. Regarding neuropsychology, a child learns voluntary, goal-based movements via experience and proprioception, as well as by immersing in their experiences during the initial development stages. However, this presumption fails to consider how an individual’s inner experiences play out in developing purposeful, goal-centered behavior. This example includes the issue of how a child learns to comprehend mental acts, states, processes, and others’ events. The simulation hypothesis offers the solution as it can be argued that children comprehend mental states, acts, and others’ events by leveraging the “like me” analogy of self (Smit, 2020). For example, a child aged 9 to 12 months understand their goals, intentions, and wants and can also make sense of the caregiver’s psychological functioning via their own analogy, which is most intimately and direct known to them.
Darwinism critiques Descartes’s conceptions by producing alternative explanations for the rationales behind the child’s cognitive development and neuropsychology constructs. Darwin’s evolutionary theory discredited nearly all the conceptions related to bringing this to life. It is predominantly non-mechanistic and non-mathematical and considered contingency and history. It also entailed a remarkable integration of two apparently opposite concepts: evolution and adaptation. Instead of indicating that the child performs cognitive acts because they have an inherent experience tailored to strive for a goal, there are two tiers of rationales, a mechanical and causal, a functional and causal explanation. At the functional level, children learn to obtain a comprehension of mental states, acts, and others’ events because they are more likely to survive than their counterparts who do not. At the second mechanical level, children have growth hormones that produce an inherent push for them to learn to obtain a comprehension of mental states, acts, and others’ events. Survival functions within these explanations, although it is not the child’s goal – it is simply something that happens. Therefore, this explanation has converted the conditional. Rather than indicating to survive, the child has to learn to develop cognitive constructs and the interaction between the mind, behavior, and the nervous system; Darwin’s critique of the same indicates that children will undergo these developmental stages because of hormones and because it is standard for them to perform them and is likely to survive compared those that do not (Searle, 2013). Overall, Cartesian dualism differs from Darwin’s evolution theory. Dualism does not create a connection between Cartesian egos and the natural section. In addition, immaterial substances, such as Cartesian egos, are the exact opposite of Darwin’s law of adaptation.
What are some of the errors we identified in recent neuroscience research seeking to link brain structure to psychological functions? List at least three. Where do they come from historically? Describe an alternative ...