Final answer:
Berkeley and Merleau-Ponty argue against Descartes' notion that sensation is merely a mode of thought by highlighting the role of the divine and the inseparability of perception from the body, while Damasio's work in neuroscience underscores the essentiality of emotions and the brain in rational thought.
Step-by-step explanation:
Philosophers such as George Berkeley and Maurice Merleau-Ponty have argued against Descartes' ideology that sensation is simply a mode of thought. Berkeley asserted that our ideas, including those of sensation, emanate from the divine, inferring that physical things and our experience of them are ideas of God. Essentially, without the idea of an object generated by God, the sensation or perception of it would not occur. On the other hand, Merleau-Ponty rejected Descartes's mind-body dualism, emphasizing that perception is fundamentally intertwined with the body. He used phenomena like phantom-limb syndrome and hallucinations as evidence that the body and its experiences mediate our perception, suggesting a more holistic view where consciousness and the body are inseparable.
Furthermore, Antonio Damasio's critiques, notably in 'Descartes' Error', highlight that emotions play a crucial role in rational thinking, against the traditional philosophical bias that aims to separate emotion from rational thought. These arguments provide important counterpoints to Descartes' claim that 'I think therefore I am,' which centers on the existence of self as primarily a thinking thing, independent of the physical body and emotions. Modern neuroscience bolsters these arguments by establishing that the brain, a physical entity, is essential for thought, contradicting Descartes' separation of mind and body.