Its difficult to understand fully how consuming the study of Mind, Body and Self could become. At first thought you found the questions posed as answers already known. As you press further into the questions, as the philosophers did, you find that these are not such easily answered questions. There are so many different takes on the same situations that it gets really confusing. Here we are going to try to summarize what some of these philosophers are trying to say.
             We start with Descartes in saying that we are only a mind and the body is just a three dimensional non-thinking craft for our minds to live in. This sounds strange wouldn't one have to wonder how they interact with each other so easily. Ryle's take is that they are two in the same thing and it takes one to have the other. He agrees that there are mental and physical processes but they are in the same existence. It would be hard to agree with Ryle, because with this belief you would be saying that thought is not an inner process. Armstrong's theory is that of a purely physicalist mind and he argues that consciousness of our own mental state may be assimilated to perception of our own mental state. To gather what he is saying is that our behavior is a result of being conscious of our own minds. So we react to what we are thinking in our minds and only if we are thinking it. His theory is rather difficult to understand. Griffiths maintains her thoughts on feelings and emotions are both physical and mental and require both the mind and the body as well as other people and situations. Although this being a rather neat read, it does not really fit well with the other philosopher's views on this topic. It didn't try to explain the phenomenon of mind and body like the others. But touched more on some of her more important views such as "feelings have been largely ignored in philosophical discus
             ...