There is a great question on whether or not our conscious thoughts are something greater than a physical state: this question has two responses which state that yes, consciousness state and brain state are two separate states (dualism) and no, brain state and conscious state is one in the same (physicalism). I will be arguing that brain state and conscious state are the same by presenting scientific evidence and theories that support a physicalist view. This evidence will clearly state why the physical stance is supported while the dualist stance is not.
One type of dualism, property dualism, believes that there are two different states of the brain. One of those two states is brain states. Brain states can be described as things that occur
…show more content…
The activities we do on a daily basis are physical. For example, I feel lonely (mental) so I go out to socialize (physical) or I scrap my knee from tripping (physical) and as a result, I feel mad (mental). In the first example the mental thought that I am having is causing me to do a physical action and in the second example, the physical action causes a mental response. However, this is not possible from a dualist point of view. A mental state, which is non-physical, cannot interact with brain states which are physical. So, in order for mental states to cause physical activities then the mind must also be physical. This is argument is known as mental causation (Wright, Philosophy of Mind: …show more content…
In order for them to be the same thing they need to have the exact same characterizes and features. If they do not process all the same traits and characteristic they are, therefore, not the same. This argument is supported by Leibowitz Law. Some dualists argue that there are characteristic from mental states that brain states do not process. One characteristic that conscious state and brain state do not share is the location. This is present in the argument that “1. All brain states must occupy some particular position in space. 2) It is nonsense (meaningless) to attribute any particular spatial position to a state of consciousness. C) So (by Leibniz’s Law) conscious states cannot be identical with brain states.” (Carruthers, 7). An example of this argument is the occurrences of identical twins. Even though they can be explained with the exact same physical traits and characteristics, they are not the same person. They are not the same person since they are not in the same position in space. However, we know that you are you because you are in the same exact special position as yourself. Since brain states have a particular area in space while conscious thoughts cannot be located to a specific area in space then, therefore, according to Leibowitz Law, brain states, and mental states are
This paper will discuss the dualism’s Divisibility Argument. This argument relies on Leibniz’s Law and uses a different property to prove the distinctness of brain states of mental states. Mary, who is a materialist, presents several objections to that argument. Her main objection corresponds to the first/third-person approach. She believes that Dave presents that argument only from the first-person approach, which is introspection, and totally disregards the third-person approach, which is observation of another mind. Mary’s objections will follow by the Dave’s response on them from the dualist’s point of view.
Richard Taylor explained why the body and the mind are one, and why they are not two separate substances. In the article “The Mind as a Function of the Body”, Taylor divides his article in a number of sections and explains clearly why dualism, or the theory that the mind and the body are separate is not conceivable. In one of these sections it is explained in detail the origin of why some philosophers and people believe in dualist metaphysics. As stated by Taylor “when we form an idea of a body or a physical object, what is most likely to come to mind is not some person or animal but something much simpler, such as a stone or a marble”(133). The human has the tendency to believe a physical object as simple, and not containing anything complex. A problem with believing this is that unlike a stone or a marble a human (or an animal) has a brain and the body is composed of living cells (excluding dead skin cells, hair, and nails which are dead cells). The f...
Along with an argument usually comes a counter-argument or rebuttal. The main question about the mind-body issue is how can us humans determine the interaction between mind and matter. I believe property dualism is a logic, justifiable response because it separates the mental entity from brain states, and shows how it can be related to physical substances. The knowledge argument helps convey this view because it shows how non-physical properties such as consciousness, can be proven in any given person. The problems of interaction argument is a well structured rebuttal against property dualism, mostly because it brings about the issue that the mind is not a physical entity, thus it 's not possible for a non-physical substance to interact with a physical substance. According to scientism, this statement is correct but it can be refuted through a different perspective. A dualist could respond to this and bring out multiple points. The first one being that yes, the mind does act upon or bodies and the issue is only apparent, and does not exist. A good example of this can be pain. If a human breaks a bone, the pain is brought to the mental state of the person, then passed on to the brain for processing. This is direct evidence for the argument, and shows how the mind and body can interact. A second point I would consider a rebuttal for this argument, a dualist could
Despite having contrary qualities and fundamentally opposing natures, the mind and body are intertwined and interact with one another. Interactive dualism hold the idea that the mind is eternal and has the ability to exist apart from the body. Descartes holds the idea that if the physical realm in which the body material body exists ceased to exist, the mind would still be. However, if a circumstance arose which annihilated his ability to think, he would cease to exist. Interactive dualism explores the idea that the body is simply an extension of the forms of the individual in the physical world, that the demise of the material body does not render its fundamental nature to be obsolete. Interactive dualism can seem to diminish the importance of the material body, but it does not. Descartes states that the mind and body are united and interact so closely that it seems to create one whole. This unity is expressed by when the physical body experiences pain. If the mind simply related to the body in the manner a sailor relates to a ship, the mind would simply perceive pain through
Fodor begins his article on the mind-body problem with a review of the current theories of dualism and materialism. According to dualism, the mind and body are two separate entities with the body being physical and the mind being nonphysical. If this is the case, though, then there can be no interaction between the two. The mind could not influence anything physical without violating the laws of physics. The materialist theory, on the other hand, states that the mind is not distinct from the physical. In fact, supporters of the materialist theory believe that behavior does not have mental causes. When the materialist theory is split into logical behaviorism and the central-state identity theory, the foundation of functionalism begins to form. Logical behaviorism states that every mental feeling has the same meaning as an if-then statement. For example, instead of saying "Dr. Lux is hungry," one would say "If there was a quart of macadamia brittle nut in the freezer, Dr. Lux would eat it." The central-state identity theory states that a certain mental state equals a certain neurophysiological state. The theory works in a way similar to Berkeley’s representation of objects. Both mental states and objects are a certain collection of perceptions that together identify the particular state or object.
I do not think that the mind and body are the same thing. Both from arguments relating to my own beliefs, and with supporting arguments I hope to have thoroughly explained why I feel this way. I just don?t see how something as unique as the mind, with so much nonphysical substance to it, can be a part of the brain, an object which is so definitively physical. Although I feel the two are separate, this does not mean that I think they have no connections at all. The mind and brain are, without a doubt, a team. They interact together and run the body, however, they just are not the same thing.
Have you ever consciously thought about your consciousness throughout any given day? Throughout any given day regardless of the occurrences, actions are affected by differing states of consciousness. As frequently as stages of consciousness may change, one does not stop and consciously allocate parts of their day into different categories. It is important to note the importance of being aware of different conscious phases throughout any given day, because these different phases affect decision-making aspects of our lives, and are crucial in understanding our own actions and reactions. Periods throughout any given day for me are divided into asleep, alert, and daydreaming modes. Throughout my phases of the day I am sleeping, eating, studying
. There are two kinds of dualism. One is Substance dualism which holds that the mind or soul is a separate, non-physical entity, but there is also property dualism, according to which there is no soul distinct from the body, but only one thing, the person, that has two irreducibly different types of properties, mental and physical. Substance dualism leaves room for the possibility that the soul might be able to exist apart from the body, either before birth or after death; property dualism does not. A substance dualism is something with "an independent existence". It can exist on its own. This holds that each distinct non-physical entity mind composed a different kind of substance to material objects. Substance dualist believed only spiritual substances can have mental properties. It is “soul” along with certain memory and psychological continuities that constitutes the survival of the person. Physical properties of property dualism are properties like having a certain weight, conducting electricity and mental properties are properties like believing that 1+1=2, being in love, feeling pain, and etc. Property dualism allows for the compatibility of mental and physical causation, since the cause of an action might under one aspect is describable as a physical event in the brain and under another aspect as a desire, emotion, or thought; substance dualism usually requires causal interaction between the soul and the body. Dualistic theories at least acknowledge the serious difficulty of locating consciousness in a modern scientific conception of the physical world, but they really give metaphysical expression to the problem rather than solving it.
Functionalism is a materialist stance in the philosophy of mind that argues that mental states are purely functional, and thus categorized by their input and output associations and causes, rather than by the physical makeup that constitutes its parts. In this manner, functionalism argues that as long as something operates as a conscious entity, then it is conscious. Block describes functionalism, discusses its inherent dilemmas, and then discusses a more scientifically-driven counter solution called psychofunctionalism and its failings as well. Although Block’s assertions are cogent and well-presented, the psychofunctionalist is able to provide counterarguments to support his viewpoint against Block’s criticisms. I shall argue that though both concepts are not without issue, functionalism appears to satisfy a more acceptable description that philosophers can admit over psychofunctionalism’s chauvinistic disposition that attempts to limit consciousness only to the human race.
The mind body problem is the controversial idea of the connection between the mind and the body. Physicalism is a solution to the mind body problem, providing the idea that there is nothing above the world and accepts the mind to be a physical essence, nothing above the body. Physicalism provides different approaches in search of the mind and its constituents. By approaching the mind as a physical entity, behaviorist, a type of physicalism, view the mind as a category containing emotions, sensations and feelings. Another approach within physicalism is functionalism, the idea that the mind is a series of input and output of mental states. These and other approaches to physicalism, display the mind as something not out of the physical world and an entity that is not separated from the body. Physicalist believe the mind could be explained by physical sciences in the future. Some physicalist portray the mind through all the sciences while others reduced the
Physicalism, or the idea that everything, including the mind, is physical is one of the major groups of theories about how the nature of the mind, alongside dualism and monism. This viewpoint strongly influences many ways in which we interact with our surrounding world, but it is not universally supported. Many objections have been raised to various aspects of the physicalist viewpoint with regards to the mind, due to apparent gaps in its explanatory power. One of these objections is Frank Jackson’s Knowledge Argument. This argument claims to show that even if one has all of the physical information about a situation, they can still lack knowledge about what it’s like to be in that situation. This is a problem for physicalism because physicalism claims that if a person knows everything physical about a situation they should know everything about a situation. There are, however, responses to the Knowledge Argument that patch up physicalism to where the Knowledge Argument no longer holds.
...r differences between particular humans and changes within one particular brain. One obvious example of this objection is that stroke victims lose brain function and the mental states associated with them, but in time they are able to relearn mental states using different parts of their brain. This certainly discounts the fact that one mental state is identical to one brain state.
Materialism is the view that mental states are physical or material states. Many scientists and neuroscientists hold this view as they discovered that damaging parts of the brain lead to different types of mental deficits e.g. an inability to concentrate, an inability to form new memories etc. This concludes that the brain is where thinking takes place. But Dualists strongly disagree, as they believe that is not possible for thinking to take place in the brain. The spatial parts
Two-way interactive dualism accurately describes the connections between our bodies and minds because we can see they causally affect each other. As a result, we as human beings cannot always determine what physical state we are in, but we always know where we stand
Are minds physical things, or are they nonmaterial? If your beliefs and desires are caused by physical events outside of yourself, how can it be true that you act the way you do of your own free will? Are people genuinely moved by the welfare of others, or is all behavior, in reality, selfish? (Sober 203). These are questions relevant to philosophy of the mind and discussed through a variety of arguments. Two of the most important arguments with this discussion are Cartesian dualism and logical behaviorism, both of which argue the philosophy of the mind in two completely different ways. Robert Lane, a professor at the University of West Georgia, define the two as follows: Cartesian dualism is the theory that the mind and body are two totally different things, capable of existing separately, and logical behaviorism is the theory that our talk about beliefs, desires, and pains is not talk about ghostly or physical inner episodes, but instead about actual and potential patterns of behavior. Understanding of the two arguments is essential to interpret the decision making process; although dualism and behaviorism are prominent arguments for the philosophy of the mind, both have their strengths and weaknesses.