Descartes believes that there exists both 'mind' and 'matter' (or 'body' - same thing). smart believes that there is only 'matter', or the material/physical world, and everything else, including thoughts, sensations and other apparently 'mental' processes are really just physical processes at bottom. which view do you find more plausible? explain why in 200 words. include links if outside sources are used.

Researcher

Explanation:

The mind-body problem, that is, the exact relationship and nature between the brain and consciousness, is a philosophical debate that has existed for centuries. Generally speaking, there has been two opposed traditions: monism, which argue that the mind and body can't be understood separately one from another, and dualism, which argue that the mind can't be reduced merely to matter and has a nature of its own. French philospher René Descartes was one of the most famous proponents of dualism. He argued that mind was separate from the body, and that the relationship between both was one where the mind influenced it through the brain. On the other hand, Austrian researcher J.J.C. Smart is a known defender of monism. Smart claims that mind can't be understood as being separate from the brain, but quite the opposite, the different states of mind can be understood as different  physical, chemical, biological and neurological processes which occur in the brain. In my understanding, Smart's view is a lot more plausible. This is not only because Descartes' view relies on a sort of immaterial mind, which can't be scientifically tested, but also because modern neuroscience can show through a series of tests the direct relationship between brain activity and certain states of mind. For example, how different areas of the brain light up in a MRI when reacting to certain stimuli is a clear example of the material relationship between brain and mind.

panem is a communist totalitarian dictatorship where all the resources and how they are allocated belongs to the capitol. the districts exist only to provide goods and services for the capital and most of the citizens live in poverty. it is a police state where the "peacekeepers" use force and threats to keep the people under control. dissent is outlawed and those who disobey the law are executed, flogged, or turned into avoxes. the games are another means in which the ruling elite in the capitol exert their power over the districts. when reading the books i drew parallels between panem and the soviet union and north korea. in no way is panem capitalist. the people in the capitol are wealthy but the majority of them are involved in the government somehow. it was the same way in the former soviet union where bigwigs in the communist party and high ranking government officials were given access to goods, services, medical treatments not available to the general public. if you think panem has a capitalist economy you need to brush up on your economics.