Descartes: Distinguishing Man From Animal & Machine - Essay Sample

Introduction

Descartes was a philosopher who worked mostly on the mind and consciousness of different things. Descartes has two formulated theories in which, firstly, he tries to distinguish between humans and animals. Trying to differentiate between a man and an animal. Secondly, he tries to differentiate between a man and a machine, (Nobis, Nathan. Animals and Ethics 101). In his project, he begins an investigation with a pair of touchstones that were invested in the language testing without forgetting testing of the actions, which was formulated by Keith Gunderson. Descartes first formulated these two tests, (Striedter, Georg F. 1). It should be understood that the so-called touchstones were not invented to distinguish between a human who have a mind. Instead, they were designed and used to differentiate real human beings who are made by God from the machines caused by human beings who perform similar functions. In short, they were introduced to distinguish the behaviors of an actual human who is created by God from humanmade humanlike machines (automata). The second instance is that these substances by the name touchstones were destined to show the important differences among humans and faunas in terms of thinking and performing duties.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Descartes puts his test inaction, whereby he comes up with a conclusion. First, he begins with a language test. The first action of recognizing as showing that God-made humanlike machine is not human is that this God-made humanlike machine could not use words to speak out their feelings as human beings do. Human beings speak out their thoughts and whatever they need to express themselves to others to the concerned or involved parties. On the side of the action test in distinguishing that God-made humans are not real beings is that, though these machineries might perform the duties more perfectly than the actual human beings, you may discover that they cannot function effectively on the other whereby they may need the assistant of the real human beings. In this case, we get to understand that they do not use their minds in perform their duties; instead, they do whatever they do through the disposition of their organs. Following this case, we get to understand that it is ethically impossible that there will/might be an organ disposition in humanmade automata to make it act like a real human being. The above characterization about the language test in considered as intuitive since it conveys an idea of the writer that a machine cannot speak but a human being can. Descartes himself believed the formulation as uncritical since he has plans for revisiting it because he terms it as unclear.

As time goes on, Descartes brings in another philosopher by the name W.V.O Quine who, after scrutinization about the translation thesis he terms the approach as uncritical. Quine guided his uncritical analysis with two new versions of ideas and formulations, which he considered as clear and precise. As we all know, the work of the philosophers is to deal with falsity or truth value. So, at this point, philosophers seek the thesis to discredit them. In the philosopher's passionate work in identifying and digging into the animal consciousness, another philosopher by the name, Randers, interprets Descartes test for a mind in a way that developed animals permit the test of mind with a very high level of degree. Differing from Descartes's formulation whereby he thought some animals could not pass these tests, Randers has a simple answer in which he states that; for an animal to pass the test, Descartes interprets the test as a pure sample of pure thought. Radner says that to conclude that the animal lacks the sense of view, he needs to look the matter in all ways dimensions, which includes feeling presuppose in which pure thought is a necessary condition.

Philosophy is all about new ideas and the formulation of the thesis. The main aim of Rander's purpose is to defeat Descartes through his means, and he tries to show that through his investigation and research, Descartes's conclusion about the animals lacks since of mind is not warranted. As a rule to the philosophers, Radner's decides to take the weaker direction by following the logically stronger path. The unhappy bit about the matter is that Radner does not succeed in refuting Descartes's idea; instead, he succeeds in refuting the idea of Straw Man. Thus by so concluding, then their behavior of Descartes's two examinations about the mind shows what a lousy philosophy is. In the world of historians, they have many issues about their studies which the main difference from philosophers is that the idea of truth and falsity of the philosophical thesis does not exist. When it comes to Qua historians their case is so different, their work is not to know whether Descartes idea I right in identifying the thinkers from the non-thinkers, instead their work just to do an investigation about a rumination of a thinker and do a communication of the ideas In a way that facilitates the work/job/duty of a philosopher. Qua historians do not provide a thesis to show whether the purposes of Descartes are right or wrong but distinguishing between a real human being from automata. However, at some point, it will indicate whether a philosopher will succeed in his doings or not and still to offer a solution.

At this point, we get to understand why DescartesDescartes thought that his two exegetical criterions were the test for the mind.

One of the reasons why we think DescartesDescartes took the two tests in being the diagnostic of mind has started from his metaphysical dualism. Descartes believes that there are only two sources of principals of bodily motion, which include mental and mechanical. But the main problem is that, faced Descartes's law is that he was not able to differentiate a movement that is produced mentally and a motion that was produced mechanically,( Herrmann, Debra S. 1). He describes a nonmechanical movement as a type of action where our concentration has played a contributory role. From Descartes's dualistic perspective, which concerns the bodily mechanism and the mechanical movement, the test that is required is as evident as the question. In this case, to determine whether the organism has a mind or not according to Descartes, a divide needs to be used that will be able to detect the non-mechanical motion, (Herrmann, Debra S 1). When a body is equipped with such advice, an investigator will have to conclude whether the animal has a mind or not according to the device. The device that is put is animal A has to detect the nonmechanical motion for an animal to be justified to have a mind. When the device fails to identify any nonmechanical action, especially in a state where the nonmechanical movement has to be experienced, then the investigator is permitted to accomplish that perhaps animal A prepares not own mind. Therefor a challenge arises where it becomes now difficult to in detecting nonmechanical motions of humanlike creatures.

The problem is further sub reduced, whereby it now depends on whether the mediator or creature is humanlike or not,( Johnson, R. Burke, and Larry Christensen 1). Descartes's challenge is a new sub-cut whereby Descartes speculative neurophysiology found a way of detecting the nonmechanical motions of the humankind agent to that of identifying the nonmechanical actions of the canarium which is a small organ of the cerebral organ made unmerited by Descartes. Williams alleges that "Descartes particularly selected this organ because it appeared unique in the brain in being single and also because he falsely believed that it did not occur in other animals, for which the question of the relations of soul and body did not arise.". Descartes offers a picture such that when Saul moves the pineal gland, then it affects the animal spirit, which the intern considers as a "mechanical, hydraulic transmission system that changes the body. So to conclude on the first test is that, for a person to test whether the humanlike character possess the mind, he /she needs a device that detects motions which are nonmechanical of the pineal gland

Here we get to know well about the Descartes second exegetical criterion:

In this case, we all know that Descartes tests are aimed at discriminating, the minded owned from the amended ones. According to Descartes, though, an act of thinking and reasoning is the exclusive work designed for the mind, so the tests are intended to discriminate the thinkers from the non-thinkers. For Descartes so, "thoughts are simply the passions and the actions of the mind or soul." We get to understand that for Descartes, our discernments are uttered in language, and wishes comprehended in activities. Descartes calculated his linguistic test to stop separate units that are conscious of the non-perceptive ones, and his exploit exam was to demarcate between the go-betweens with violation from the ones without breach. Descartes states clearly that if you are going to substitute the term movement from the term action, you will have an insightful impression overdue the act test, which is took into relief by Descartes. He trusts that once it is practical to humanlike creatures and faunas, his experiment in act nevertheless imperfect in an complete intelligence is completely delicate and completely precise of attention.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Descartes argues that if a machine were made having a shape and an appearance like that of some animals like monkeys who do not have minds, and then it could be very difficult for them to be identified from the specimens found in nature,( Striedter Georg1) He adds that if they were created an outlook like that of a human being, then it could be straightforward to distinguish machines from human characters due to its inability to talk. Descartes also admits that humans and animal bodies can be understood best to be like the "machines made on earth which God forms." He states that just like a wall clock whereby it is followed employing configuration and through the motion of its hands, it is assumed to be similar to human and animal parts.

Work Cited

Nobis, Nathan. Animals and Ethics 101: Thinking Critically About Animal Rights. Open Philosophy Press, 2016.

Striedter, Georg F. Neurobiology: a functional approach. Oxford University Press, 2016.

Herrmann, Debra S. Avian cognition: Exploring the intelligence, behavior, and individuality of birds. CRC Press, 2016.

Herrmann, Debra S. Avian cognition: Exploring the intelligence, behavior, and individuality of birds. CRC Press, 2016.

Johnson, R. Burke, and Larry Christensen. Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed approaches. SAGE Publications, Incorporated, 2019.

Striedter, Georg F. Neurobiology: a functional approach. Oxford University Press, 2016.