Including the existence of non-existence of the atman or the soul.

Materialism is the theory that our minds are inseparable form our bodies.

Dualism is the theory that there exists both bodies and minds, distinct form one another but linked together in some way.

In philosophy dualism is a set of views about the relationship between mind and matter, which begins with the claim that mental phenomena, are in some respects, non physical.

Plato maintained that people's "intelligence" (a faculty of the mind or soul) could not be identified with, or explained in terms of, their physical body.

A generally well known version of dualism is attributed to René Descartes (1641), which holds that the mind is a nonphysical substance. Descartes was the first to clearly identify the mind with consciousness and self-awareness and to distinguish this from the brain, which was the seat of intelligence. Hence, he was the first to formulate the mind-body problem in the form in which it exists today.

In the dialogue Phaedo, Plato formulated his famous Theory of Forms as distinct and immaterial substances of which the objects and other phenomena that we perceive in the world are nothing more than mere shadows.

Plato makes it clear, in the Phaedo, that the Forms are the universalia ante rem, i.e. they are universal concepts (or ideas) which make all of the phenomenal world intelligible. Consequently, in order for the intellect (the most important aspect of the mind in philosophy up until Descartes) to have access to any kind of knowledge with regard to any aspect of the universe, it must necessarily be a non-physical, immaterial entity (or property of some such entity) itself. So, it is clear on the basis of the texts that Plato was a very powerful precursor of Descartes and his subsequent more stringent formulation of the doctrine of dualism.

In his Meditations on First Philosophy, Descartes embarked upon a quest in which he called all his previous beliefs into doubt, in order to find out what he could be certain of. In doing so, he discovered that he could doubt whether he had a body (it could be that he was dreaming of it or that it was an illusion created by an evil demon), but he could not doubt whether he had a mind. This gave Descartes his first inkling that the mind and body were different things.

The mind, according to Descartes, was a "thinking thing" (lat. res cogitans), and an immaterial substance. This "thing" was the essence of himself, that which doubts, believes, hopes, and thinks. The distinction between mind and body is argued in Meditation VI as follows: I have a clear and distinct idea of myself as a thinking, non-extended thing, and a clear and distinct idea of body as an extended and non-thinking thing. Whatever I can conceive clearly and distinctly, God can so create. So, Descartes argues, the mind, a thinking thing, can exist apart from its extended body.

Therefore, the mind is a substance distinct from the body, a substance whose essence is thought.

The central claim of what is often called Cartesian dualism, in honor of Descartes, is that the immaterial mind and the material body, while being ontologically distinct substances, causally interact. This is an idea which continues to feature prominently in many non-European philosophies. Mental events cause physical events, and vice-versa. But this leads to a substantial problem for Cartesian dualism: How can an immaterial mind cause anything in a material body, and vice-versa? This has often been called the "problem of interactionism".

Descartes himself struggled to come up with a feasible answer to this problem. He suggested that animal spirits interacted with the body through the pineal gland, a small gland in the centre of the brain, between the two hemispheres.

However, this explanation was not satisfactory, how can an immaterial mind interact with the physical pineal gland?

Because Descartes's was such a difficult theory to defend, some of his disciples, such as Arnold Geulincx and Nicholas Malebranche, proposed a different explanation:

That all mind-body interactions required the direct intervention of God. According to these philosophers, the appropriate states of mind and body were only the occasions for such intervention, not real causes. These occasionalists maintained the strong thesis that all causation was directly dependent on God, instead of holding that all causation was natural except for that between mind and body.

Materialism does not accept that there is a separate part tot he body called the ‘soul’. An individual is a living physical body and nothing more.

Materialists believe an action is the result of a chain of events, and eventually science will be able to explain everything. Music is nothing but a set of vibrations in the air, a painting is nothing more than dots on a canvas, just like a person is nothing more than a brain attached to a body with a nervous system.

Emotional response, such as love or hate, is nothing more than a chemical reaction in our brain.

There is no distinction therefore, between body and soul.

Dawkins rejects any concept of an immortal soul, writing in River Out of Eden, Dawkins puts forward a case for biological materialism:

‘There is no spirit driven life force, no throbbing, heaving, pullulating, protoplasmic, mystic jelly. Life is just bytes and bytes and bytes of digital information.’

For Dawkins, there is no pre-existent soul that is by nature divine. Dawkins argues that scientific beliefs are supported by scientific evidence and reliable, whereas religious beliefs, such as the concept of the soul, depend on myth or faith, for which there is no empirical evidence.

Dawkins believes that humans are nothing more than the sum of there DNA and life is all about DNA survival.

Although Dawkins rejects the idea of an immortal soul in favour of a random evolutionary process, he still believes in human dignity and purpose through the marvellous way in which an individuals genetic code is passed on to future generations. The mere fact that humans have evolved to a stage where they are trying to discover the meaning of life is much greater than any creation myth.

Dawkins argues that humans thinking has gone wrong in trying to figure out the meaning of life as they do so by following a religion which gives the reward of a paradise. If people rejected all ideas of God and concentrated on thinking scientifically, then they would be better humans.

This is because science can answer questions on life whereas religion can only depend on faith.

Dawkins concludes that the evolution of consciousness has removed the need for gene replication. There is a new replicator, human culture, that Dawkins calls a meme. It is through a contribution to human culture that results cultural survival. Others would simply say that this development of the consciousness is the soul.

John Hick is a materialist in that he believes that the body and the soul are one, and at death both the body and soul die. He does, however, argue that given certain circumstances, it would be possible that the dead could exist after death as themselves if an exact replica of them were to appear. This was his replica theory.

This replica could be identified as the same person who had died, and therefore is the same person. Hick argues that as God is all powerful then it possible for him to create an exact replica of a person. This replica has all the same memories and characteristics as the dead person and is therefore the same person.

Hick believes that although death destroys us, God can re-create us in another place.

Other philosophers have criticised Hicks replica theory, arguing that an exact replica is not the original person.

An art expert would not be willing to pay millions for a replica of the Mona Lisa.

Another criticism of Hick is that his theory relies upon the existence of god, and since Gods existence is not accepted by all philosophers as proven. Then the replica theory is also disproven.

Hicks replica theory demonstrates that not all materialists accept that death is the end and believe that there is a life after death.

As materialists believe that the physical body cannot be seperated form the soul then this life after death must be by some other means, this involves the resurection of the body.

If this is the case then materialists are still rejecting the idea of a soul separate form the body.

Idealism claims that it is only human thought and ideas that make up our ‘reality’. A world of material objects could not actually exist without it being experienced by the human race, according to George Berkeley.

It belongs to the ‘monism’ school of theories, which claims that everything is ‘one’, like materialism and opposite to dualism.

‘Realism’ states that the ‘real’ must have absolute existence prior to and independent of our knowledge.

We cannot directly know things as they are a mental appearance.

This links to the ideas of Buddhism, in the area of ‘mind-only’ or ‘consciousness-only’ Buddhism, within the Yogacara school, where nothing is real except consciousness and nothing exists outside of the mind.

A separate doctrine, epistemological idealism asserts that minds are aware of or perceive only their own ideas, and not external objects. The basis of epistemological idealism is that we only know our own ideas (representations or mental images). Any data regarding external physical objects must be received through an observer's physiological neural system, and their own brain, therefore the external object is presented in accordance with that particlar observer's brain and nerves.

Therefore, it can be assumed that according to idealism, the body is not real, and Ludwig Noire said "The only space or place of the world is the soul”.

Again we can link this to Buddhism, in the sense that there is no need to be or benefit from being attached to the body, a material object.

Descartes’ famous quotation: ‘I think therefore I am’ is apparently the only statement that can be deemed true, as it claims only a knowledge of the mind of oneself, and is not based on assumptions about material objects or other people.

"Esse est aut percipi aut percipere" is the slogan of George Berkeley, which translates as ‘to be is to be perceived or to perceive’.

Similarly to Plato, Idealism states that because the body is not ‘real’ the soul/mind exists independently like in Plato’s world of the forms.

Anicca is the impermanence of all things The Buddha questioned all the things people regard as permanent and

came to the conclusion that there is nothing that is not subject to change. He explained that change operates on two levels; the gross ns the subtle.

The gross level of change = this is the obvious physical level of change; things we experience such as the weather, the seasons, the way things decay or get broken, the way people grow up, age and die. This gross level applies to all areas of life and the world. This is what we commonly call change - a phenomenon that we usually observe with our own eyes and that does not require special scientific or philosophical methods to be discovered. Buddhists consider that change in this sense is undeniable.

The subtle level of change is sometimes called ‘momentary change’: this means that everything is in a perpetual (everlasting) process of flux from moment to moment. Although objects like tables and chairs might look the same today a they did yesterday, in fact they are continually changing from each moment (e.g. atoms and molecules that objects are made of are in perpetual motion)

Momentary change cannot be observed by the naked eye. Nowadays we can relate to the idea by referring to modern science and using microscopes, however the Buddha did not have microscopes and made his observations of momentary change through the special insight he developed in meditation.

Buddhists explain that momentary change happens as a continuum of linked moments. Each moment is so short that we don’t notice it, that’s why most people have the impression that life is continuous.

The continuum happens in an orderly fashion because one moment produces the next, and a moment can only produce another moment that is similar to it because of causal connections between each of the factors that make up a situation. (similar to Aquinas’ ideas on motion or change in the Cosmological argument).

To help Buddhists remember the concept of Anicca they have certain symbols to help them; flowers are often used as a focus of meditation because their beauty does not last long and they therefore symbolise impermanence. Also, some Buddhists use an image of the Buddha lying on his right side passing into parinirvanna because this is a reminder that everything, even the people we value the most, are subject to death. By contemplating and reflecting on impermanence we may come to a deeper acceptance of the truth of change.

Anatta = no self or soul or ‘no essence’ This idea is linked to the Buddhists understanding of

causality (anicca), the fact that everything in the universe - and the universe itself - comes into existence through the power of certain causes and conditions. E.g. A causes B, X causes Y and so on. This is what is meant by conditional existence; everything arises from causes and conditions. Buddhists make it clear that nothing ever arises from a single cause, but a combination of causes and conditions.

The implication of conditional evidence is that everything must therefore be impermanent. Why? If there is a chain of causes and effects this logically means that causes must exist before their effects: and if this is so it means that effects begin to exist from a particular point in time and before that point they do not exist.

The Buddhist analysis goes one step further; impermanence in itself is not enough to prove non-inherent existence because it could be argued that change only applies to a thing’s secondary qualities and not to its essence.

Buddhists must show why they do not think there are essences. They do this by logically breaking things down and reducing them to their parts, and by reaching the conclusion that things are simply the sum of their parts. Buddhists argue that the existence of a thing can be fully accounted for by its parts without the need for positing an unchanging essence. An essence is something we cannot perceive and of which we have no experience, so its existence cannot be justified either logically or empirically.

Buddhists use an example of a chariot analogy where a monk called Nagasena asks King Milinda what mode of transport he used to come and meet him. He replied by chariot. Nagasena uses the chariot as an example to explain the principle of Anatta. He asks the King what a chariot is. Is it the axle, the wheels, the wooden frame, the yoke or the reins? Naturally, the answer is that none of these things on their own constitutes a chariot. So, if none of the parts is the chariot, where is the real chariot? The King replies: ‘ it is in dependence on the pole, the axle, the wheels, the framework etc that there takes place this denomination ‘chariot’, this designation, this conceptual term, a current appellation and a mere name’. basically, the King is saying that we conventionally call a chariot a chariot if it exists with all its parts. A chariot is not something that exists over and above the sum of its parts; it is simply a concept, a word that we apply when all the parts are assembled and function together in a particular way. We can go even further and conclude that there is nothing called a ‘chariot’ that exists in actuality; ‘chariot’ is simply a term used t designate a particular association of pieces of wood and metal. If we take all the pieces apart, the chariot no longer exists. Therefore chariots only have conditioned existence; they exist in dependence on certain causes and conditions coming together in a particular, and once those causes and conditions change, chariots cease to exist.

The chariot e.g. applies to the reductionist analysis to inanimate objects, but Nagasena extends the example to cover animate objects I.e. human beings.

He says that the Buddhist concept of a person is people have no unchanging, permanent, inherent essence or soul, they have no intrinsic identity, instead they are entirely dependent on the various processes that make them up. In fact, our names do not refer to any separate reality but merely to the sum of these parts functioning in a particular way.

Buddhists claim that we do not exist in the way we think we do. Understanding that humans lack a permanent self is perhaps the most important single attainment on the path to enlightenment.

What we call a person, according to buddhists, is a combination of ever-changing physical and mental energies, which can be divided into five groups called Skandas. They are:

1. .Form or Matter = refers to our body as well as the physical world around us.

2. .Feeling or sensation = refers to all of our sensations; sight, hearing, smell, taste, touch and the MIND. Each sense organ apprehends only the type of sense objects related to it, e.g. eyes apprehend only visible forms.

3. .Perceptions = identifying objects as mental or physical. Perceptions recognise, identify and classify, and put sensory experience into words.

4. .Mental formations = any mental activity that involves willpower, intention or determination, also karma because the moral effects of our actions are determined firstly by the intentions behind our actions.

5. .Consciousness = refers to a mental reaction or response that has one of the 6 senses as its basis.

As humans, we do not realise how these 5 skandas function. Instead we think we are a self that is permanent and separate from everything else, creating tension.

Once we die, the 5 skandas leave the body and moves into another realm, like moving the contents of a bowl into another bowl, and another bowl and so on.

Thank you