Is the mind distinct from the body Some would choose to declare that every human being is both a body and a mind. Both being gelled together until death, than having the mind go on to exist and the body being lifeless. A person lives throughout two collateral histories, one having to do with what happens to the body and in it, and the other being what happens in and to the mind. What happens to the body is public and what happens to the mind is private. The events which reply to the body consist of the physical world, and the events of the mind consist of the mental world. It has been argued whether a person can directly observe all or a select few of situations of one's own private history.
According to the official doctrine by Descartes at least some of these situations one has direct and unchallengeable cognizance. It is ordinary to declare branching of two lives and of two worlds by stating that the things and events which belong to the physical world as well as one's own body are external. While on the other hand the work of owns mind are internal. This contradiction of outer and inner is absolutely meant to be interpreted as a metaphor. Since minds could not be described as being spatially inside anything else, or as having things going on spatially inside themselves.
Even when "inner" and "outer" are construed as metaphors, the problem of how one's mind and body can influence one another is well-known charged with abstract difficulties. Therefore there is a popular conflict between mind and matter. A conflict which is often brought out as follows. Material objects are categorized as "space" and what happens to one body in one part of a space is mechanically combined with what happens to other bodies in other parts of space.
On the other hand, mental occurrences happen in insulated fields known as "minds" and there is no direct connection between what happens in another. Only from the public physical world can the mind of one person change or make a difference of another person. People can see, hear, and touch one another's bodies, but they are irremediably blind and deaf to the work of one another's mind and impaired upon them. A person has direct knowledge of the best possible kind of work of one's own mind. The inner life is a course of consciousness of such a sort that it would be foolish to suggest that the mind whose life is that course might be unaware of what is passing it down. A mind's reports of its own affairs has a certainty superior to the best that is possessed by its reports of matters in the physical world.
Direct access to the workings of a mind is the privileged of that mind itself. In error of such privileged access, the workings of one mind are eventually hidden to everyone else. Only one's own privileged access to the course of direct awareness and introspection could provide authentic testimony that these mental-conduct verbs were correctly or incorrectly utilized. Finding mental-conduct concepts being regularly and effectively used, they properly sought to fix their reasonable geography. On the other hand, the reasonable geography conventionally officially endorsed would require that there could be no regular or effective use of these mental-conduct concepts in our descriptions of and prescriptions for other people's minds. My conclusion is that the mind is distinct from the body.
Many examples by Gilbert Ryle show that when the body dies, the mind goes on into existence. Therefore the mind is distinct from the body. Although they are both a part of a human being, there are different levels of physical and mental emotions that show distinct from each other.