Relationship of Mind and Body

¶ … Relationship of Mind and Body

What about Smelly?

A it is nor hand, nor foot, nor arm, nor face, nor any other part belonging to a man..

O, be some other name! What's in a name? that which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.

From Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet.

While Juliet neglects to mention anything about the neo-cortex, our basic premise in dealing with this question is this: Is the name of Sam, or his intellectual personality imprint, alive apart from his hand foot or face, or does he dissolve into Smelly? Is he a Sam by any other name? Also, it seems that for the purposes of this experiment that we are negating any higher functions, psychologically or personally, to Shelly. She appears to have been reduced to simply female, with no outstanding characteristics other than instinctual. But is this true? For instance, say that Sam did not know how to type, but Shelly did. Smelly could certainly type, since we know that automatic knowledge and actions that become second nature, are processed by the spinal column and the brain stem. So there is certainly some of Shelly in Smelly. What we are really left with is the opposite of a taubla rasa, perhaps a tabula persona, a newborn, or new creation, with a mind that has an outline impressed upon it. A newborn in the sense that over time it will create a Smelly that is as unique as any newborn would be.

First let us look at Descartes' classic view of "I think therefore I am." What is existence after all? Is to exist simply to be aware, and who exists? Is there an essential soul that the personality of mind is created from? In some sense then the expression of the soul is always translated by the mind-body connection so that what can be expressed is not really the essential soul, but an interpretation thereof. A degraded form as it were, such as when truly trying to express what God is in language always falls short and is interpreted through many a cultural bias as well. It is the same with Smelly? The body-mind connection will interpret, ultimately, what that essence is again, this time in another new and unique way.

What will Smelly think when she first wakes up? I have said she since that is biologically correct and, for the sense of my continuing argument, philosophically correct as well. Initially, as with any newborn, there will be a sense of confusion. Sam will certainly be aware, but he will also be seeing through Shelly's eyes, hearing through Shelly's ears, and so on. Sam is certainly able to think, but through Shelly's senses he is only able to communicate those thoughts through Shelly's mind-body connection, again interpreted. These expressions will slowly become more fluid and the initial confusion, if any, between the Shelly - Sam duality will become less and less over time. This is, again, almost the opposite of the infant's problem. When first born the infant cannot distinguish itself from the world and feels that oceanic feeling, as Freud has put it. Over time the infant realizes the difference between self and other just as over time Smelly will realize there is no difference between Sam and Shelly. Smelly will begin to become a whole single personality as she evolves over time, much as an infant slowly evolves into a unique personality over the months and years as he or she grows and changes in response to the environment, both social and parental. Regarding the matter of gender, Smelly will also experience some confusion at first, but again as an infant, who after just being born and for some time also does not truly grasp the distinction between male and female, Smelly will eventually come to grips with this existing female identity.

This concept purported here is certainly more in line David Hume's hypothesis of a person, or personality, which is created by its reaction to a bundle of perceptions. However, this bundle of perceptions is in actuality a two-edged sword. The perceiver, the self, is individually interpreting his or her perception of reality, and conversely, anything that the perceiver express outwardly to the world is reinterpreted throughout the sense organs and then perceived by outsiders as that person. As with all people, Smelly will change and grow over time according to her experiences and interests. Initially there will be a period of adjustment, but one personality is not turning into another, rather a new person is becoming, mutually arising and evolving in the fullness of time. Much as in Mary Shelly's Frankenstein, the Monster has no memory of who he was in parts, only of who he is as a whole distinct person, although that abnormal brain certainly didn't help his feedback system.

Shelly, not our Shelly but Frankenstein's', reminds us that human beings are not just machines and trying to simply piece them together as if the parts are the only concern rarely works out well. However, is Frankenstein the ubermensch that Neitize talked about? If so there are certainly some problems. Of course this is metaphorical, in our experiment Smelly has been pieced together a bit, but more from a teleological standpoint in trying to ascertain the meaning of personality rather than the meaning of life. But in a sense there is also some reality to this metaphor. The scientific breakthroughs in cloning organisms and genetic manipulation, as well as this Smelly situation, certainly put the traditional view of God out to pasture in many ways. If human beings can take hold and shape their own destinies from the womb and before, recently only God's country, than perhaps the concept of a divine being needs to be readjusted to fit more in line with reality. Here is where religion and science often split their perspectives on the divinity and sacredness of life. Is God Dead? Certainly in this modern world the belief in God as the master controller of the universe is under a certain amount of circumspection. But is Neitze's Superman the replacement for God? No. As scientist are often fond of saying that human being are composed of star dust, then, the ultimate conclusion of religion is that everything is divine in nature and the spark of divinity is in us all. Is it the spark of divinity in us all that is our ultimate soul? Does that divinity express itself in Smelly as well as any cloned or naturally occurring organism? Of course it does.

One of the key words in the shaping of this argument is organism, and not just organism alone but organism-environment, there is no one without the other and both shape the personality into what it will ultimately become. So Smelly is the ultimate product of her organism-environment complex of experiences. From simple to complex functions one cannot describe and action without describing the organism and its environment. Walking, for instance, requires the organism to walk and the environment to walk on, i.e. walking down the hall, etc. There is no one without the other, and this holistic system is what Smelly as a finally product must reflect, as do all living things.