[u]Descartes[/u] Rene Descartes once had a horrible dream. It consisted of him waking on morning and going about his routine. Then he woke up and realised the vivid dream of his normal routine had in fact been a dream. He then woke up. And realised once again that it had been a dream. This continued to happen to him, until he did properly awake. At this stage, Descartes asked himself, "How can I know that what I am seeing is real". After thinking more on this, he went away and begun his Meditations. The sum of his meditations were this. God is real and Innate in all of us, and Cogito Ergo Sum, "I think therefore I am". It's based around the idea that 'what if' an evil demon is tricking our senses, what can be know is real. The answer is, if we are thinking, then we must exist. The conclusion of 'Cogito Ergo Sum' is not reliant on external factors. You wrote: [quote]First, that I am, I exist. Second, that I am a thinking being capable of forming thoughts about the world around me.[/quote] This is not true. Descartes' statement came with the fine print that the mind only existed when involved in Mathematics or Pure Logic. Mathematics (without application, aka pure mathematics) and Pure Logic (deduction, syllogistic logic for starters) are a universal constant, there is no necessity of the senses in it's production. [quote]Descartes holds that the body and mind are two separate substances; working in unison no doubt, but also independent of one another.[/quote] Descartes has actually been quoted as saying that the Soul resides in the Pineal Gland located where the two thelamic bodies join. He was a mathematician, a scientist, a religious man and a philosopher. Although the Pineal Gland theory has been dismissed, he still believed it. [quote]I believe that I am what the religious would call a soul; a being of energy working in tangent with both my body and mind in order to achieve life. I do not believe that I am supernatural in that I am made from God and that the essence of me is not of this earth.[/quote] The soul and the body have very many differing religious approaches. I myself am not a religious person. Nonetheless, there are some religions that believe in the sanctity of the body and the soul, others believing that the body is a prison for the soul (see 'self flagellation'). The Soul itself is mostly considered to be the same thing. It is our person and a part of God. We also have Free Will, it allows us to determine who we are. Also, there is nothing Supernatural about God. If God is in fact existing, then he has not bestowed you with a soul that is in no way other-worldly. If He does exist, then it is entirely worldly. [quote]It would follow that plants and animals as well are endowed with this energy.[/quote] It does not follow. In all of the major three monotheistic religious texts, the Torah, the Koran and the Bible, animals and plants are said not to have souls. [quote]I will venture a guess here and say that the energy comes from cells themselves.[/quote] This is kind of circular logic. Up until this point you build up the idea that the Soul, or Energy, is your life force. With this statement, you are saying that the Soul/Energy is powered by the cells. Previously you were building up the notion that the Soul/Energy powered the cells. It's kind of mutually exclusive. [quote]The proof that energy is different from the mind is the notion of decision. Remember, the mind is a thinking thing as are we. However, the mind is not only limited to thought. The mind retains... ... It is truly a marvel in itself and if we were to try and control all of its actions in addition to living life, we would not be able to function.)[/quote] You said up above that you were doing Philosophical studies, so I'm sure that you're aware of [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dualism]Dualism[/url]. From what I gather, in this first section you are saying that you personally believe in a triad of self existance. It's a bit confusing and you haven't really concluded with a Mind-Body-???? finish. But as far as I can tell you are basing it on dualistic principles plus something else. I personally believe that you have just confused your syntax and thrown in a whole bunch of lexicon. You've disassociated the Body aspect of the theory by calling it the Mind. [quote] Remember, the mind is a thinking thing as are we. However, the mind is not only limited to thought. The mind retains information and is able to recall it when situations arise that require specific information.[/quote] This is very much a function of the human brain, which is Body. The brain, or as you were calling it, the Mind, is in charge of a lot of things that we do passively. The beat of our heart, the breathing of our lungs and the example that you used, the retention of information. At this stage it's convoluted further. [quote]This is how we are able to make split second decisions and arrive at logical conclusions, because the mind evaluates the information we have learned and provides us with what is most relevant at a time of need.[/quote] The Mind which you have declared to be passive, is now making decisions without active thought process of the Dualist Mind. But! We know that in a situation like the fire you mention, we all would actively be thinking about outcomes. [quote]What it cannot do, however, is act on those decisions and determine the right choice of action.[/quote] The Brain/Our Body, although retrieving the information for us, isn't making conclusions then sending it to the Mind, it is working in concert. That's Dualism. From that point on, I'm sorry but I can't really make sense of it. Try breaking it down into [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic#Syllogistic_logic]syllogistic logic[/url] (x=y, y=z, therefore x=z). Actually [url=http://www.philosophypages.com/lg/e08a.htm]this site[/url] is even better. It's a fairly crude form of pure logic, but it can help to outline clearly how you're reaching your conclusions. [quote]I think I have sufficiently proved that what we are is indeed separate from the body and mind, yet utterly dependent on both to define the essence of what we are.[/quote] All you have created here is another form of Humanism with different labels. You have used lexicology such as Body and Mind, but to mean the same thing. In Body, you seem to have referred to arms and legs, and Mind you seem to mean Brain. The third element you attempt to glue onto this is the metaphysical mind. But without doing so much as saying that. [quote]The Milky Way galaxy is 1000 light years thick and has a diameter of 100,000 light years. In addition the universe is composed of HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS of galaxies. Thus, even traveling at the fastest speed possible, that of light, and assuming heaven and hell were exactly outside of the Milky Way, it would still take 1,000 years after death to reach those places.[/quote] This actually does not mean anything. You are mixing two things that are totally binary and mutually exclusive. Heaven and Hell would be located outside of the universe? They're not physical PLACES. There is a transcedence involved, the soul rejoining with God and being part of one huge over-arching entity. It is something totally metaphysical and not at all a substance located within any travellable distance. Depictions of Heaven and Hell as places are simply that, Human interpretations of heavenly (adjective) bliss, and hellish (adjective) existance. Transcedence is beyond our comprehension so paintings depict as well as we can imagine. Essentially you've written plain Materialism with a David M. Armstrong twist on the Human mind and perception, with a dash of Frued's Id, Ego and Superego. The only way this could be considered as Dualism (at the most) is if we count the giant question mark at the end to be rhetorical because you obviously mean the part... that is us... outside of ourselves... that is totally us... even though the mind and body is us.... is the metaphysical energy soul... thing that isn't the mind but something else that can't remember things itself, and doesn't make decisions but holds the essence of our being. Regardless it's somehow a transcedence of our being and is therefore seperate but in concert with the body. [quote][/quote] I'm quite tired now so I didn't get around to reading the rest because there was so much I wanted to say about that section. I feel like a bit of a jerk, but this is just how I see it after also studying philosophy for 3 years.