Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
“epiphenomenal qualia”, frank jackson summary
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: “epiphenomenal qualia”, frank jackson summary
In the “Knowledge Argument” also Frank Jackson proposed known as Mary’s room, in his article called Epiphenomenal Qualia, Jackson argues against physicalism and the view that the universe, including all that is conscious/mental is fully physical. While Jackson no longer consents to it, it is still known as one of the most significant arguments in the philosophy of mind. In this paper, I will explain the argument, assess the argument for validity and soundness, explain what problem it presents for physicalism, the basic structure for Lewis’s reply, and if Lewis’s reply is convincing.
The Knowledge Argument is made to be valid. If an argument is valid then that means the structure guarantees that, if the premises are true, then the conclusion must also be true. The Knowledge Argument isn’t sound because if it was sound then that would mean physicalism is false; but phyiscalism is not false, therefore the Knowledge Argument is valid. I believe that that physicalism is true and that everything that could/does exist is either physical or depends on the physical. Since I believe the knowledge argument states that physicalism is true, the argument is valid. The Knowledge Argument can be simply put as one that may know all the objective and physical facts about conscious experiences, but still doesn’t fully know human conscious experiences, so physicalism is false. Frank Jackson has two cases concerning physicalism: The Mary case and the Fred case. The Fred case is a case where a man named Fred sees two colors; his conscious developed his own use for two words red and red. “In any case he explains to us that it would be quite wrong to think that because ‘red’ appears in both ‘red (1)’ and ‘red (2)’ that they two colors are shades of the...
... middle of paper ...
...ary’s change after she leaves the black and white room. The Ability Hypothesis simply states that knowing what an experience is like is the same as knowing how to imagine having an experience. I agree with Lewis because there are no facts to back up knowing how to do a certain action because you actually have to experience something yourself in order to know how to do something.
In conclusion, the Knowledge Argument is shown to be a valid argument, but not sound. I explained all the premises that went along with the Knowledge Argument and what problem affects physicalism. I also examined and displayed Lewis’s reply to the Knowledge Argument, and whether Lewis’s is convincing or not. Overall, I believe that almost everything in this universe is physical. The Knowledge Argument will always be known as one of the most significant arguments in the philosophy of mind.
The original thought experiment did not mention that science has advanced far enough to be able to explain the qualia of colour. Nor did it mention that Mary is able to imagine what it is like to experience colour vision. So, the knowledge argument argues that even though Mary does know all of the facts of colour vision; because, Mary does not know the experience of colour, physicalism must be false (pg. 35). However, this argument is flawed because it seems to be based off of ignorance (pg. 36). It is possible for Mary to have never seen red, but still know what it would look like (pg. 36). My argument is that if physicalism is more likely to be able to explain the qualia of colour than property dualism, then physicalism must be possible and more plausible than property dualism. If physicalism is possible, then someone like Mary could possibly exist in the future and know everything about colour vision, including the qualia of colour, without directly experiencing it (pg. 35). Someone like Mary in the future could possibly know everything about colour vision (pg. 36). Therefore, physicalism could possibly be true. If the
Smart argues from the stance of identity theorist and believes that mental sensations are identical to a corresponding brain-process. Much of Smart’s paper is a counter argument against an identity theorist’s greatest rival, the dualist. Most of the human body has been explained by science in terms of biology, chemistry, and physics; though the brain remains largely mysterious. Recent technological advances regarding the research of the brain has allowed us to understand the mind in much better ways which is why Smart feels “that science is increasingly giving us a viewpoint whereby organisms are able to be seen as physicochemical mechanism” (61). He introduces the concept of Ockham’s razor and feels that scientists use it to introduce simplicity into their theories, which makes their explanations of concepts simpler. This simplicity is preferred because it also adds a sense of beauty to the laws discovered. With regards to his lightning example, Smart highlights how our experience of lightning is the physical process of discharged electrons from the ionization of water vapor in the atmosphere. Important to note here is that the two cannot be separated; you will not have a flash of lightning and then an electric discharge, rather lightning is electric discharge. This metaphor is crucial essay’s argument that sensations are identical to brain-processes. Ockham’s razor eliminates unnecessary nomological danglers from scientific theories, so why not apply the same concept to a theory of mind? We wouldn’t describe in our theory of lightning the ‘flashiness’ or ‘jaggedne...
The problem I hope to expose in this paper is the lack of evidence in The Argument from Analogy for Other Minds supporting that A, a thought or feeling, is the only cause of B. Russell believes that there are other minds because he can see actions in others that are analogous to his own without thinking about them. He believes that all actions are caused by thoughts, but what happens when we have a reaction resulting as an action of something forced upon one’s self? Such as when a doctor hits your patellar tendon with a reflex hammer to test your knee-jerk reflex. Russell does not answer this question. He is only “highly probable” that we are to know other minds exist through his A is the cause of B postulate.
The Absent Qualia Argument’s counterexample suggests functionalism is susceptible to similar problems behaviorism faces. The additional requirement functionalism holds, namely functionally equivalent internal states, mental states possibly differ. Block argues it is plausible to not only have type identical behavior states, but also functionally equivalent mental states. However, functionally equivalent functional states cannot ensure equivalent mental states. So, functionalist theories of mental states are insufficient theories of the nature of mental
The doctrine of physicalism is a widely discussed philosophical issue in which the mind-body problem is heavily explored. This controversial topic has left philosophers questioning the relationship between mind and matter, and more specifically, consciousness and the brain. There are a number of arguments supporting either side, but two that are rather compelling are Nagel’s What is it like to be a bat? and Jackson’s What Mary didn’t know. These two objections of physicalism use the subjective aspect of experience to suggest that the mind exists as something separate from the brain. Although both of these objections are a challenge physicalism, Nagel’s argument poses more of a threat to it because of his specific use of bats rather than humans. In this paper, I will be discussing how Nagel’s objection is more damaging to the doctrine of physicalism than Jackson’s.
Frank Jackson begins his article by writing about what he feels to be a fatal flaw in physicalism. He writes a story about a girl named Mary who is raised in a black-and-white room. In this room Mary was taught everything there is to know about the physical world. The only catch is she learned only from media, which was black-and-white, so she knows nothing of the colors outside this room. After learning everything about the physical world, she is then given the chance to see color. She will then "learn" what color is in the world. For this reason Jackson believes physicalism to be false.
Barbara Montero is an associate professor of philosophy at the City University of New York. In her article “Post-Physicalism” she aims to convince people, mainly physicalists, to begin thinking of the mind/body problem from a new perspective. Montero reasons that the term “physical” is too difficult a term to define, which leads to a serious flaw of the direction of physicalist arguments. Her main idea is that the mind/body problem is really the problem of finding a place for mentality in a fundamentally nonmental world, not a fundamentally physical world. Directing the question towards “Is mentality a fundamental feature of the world?”, in her opinion, relieves the conflict between naturalism and ontological significance, and paves the way
...equence of the fact that certain happenings in the brain cause both. The physical changes observed in Mary after experiencing color may be the result of these enigmatic occurrences. While interactions with qualia may precede physical changes, it is in violation of Humean philosophy to claim that correlation indicates causation.
This paper aims to endorse physicalism over dualism by means of Smart’s concept of identity theory. Smart’s article Sensations and the Brain provides a strong argument for identity theory and accounts for many of it primary objections. Here I plan to first discuss the main arguments for physicalism over dualism, then more specific arguments for identity theory, and finish with further criticisms of identity theory.
In this paper, I will explain and argue for two-way interactive substance dualism. Dualism is a term referred to the idea that there are only two basic kinds of things and everything real is categorized under those two things. Dualism is split into two types, substance dualism, and property dualism. Substance dualism is the idea that the mind and body are two different sorts of basic substance, whereas property dualism is our mental and physical properties are two separate types of basic properties even though they may be properties of the same thing (lecture). Branching from dualism, mind-body dualism argues that the mind and body are two separate entities. Although they are two different substances, i.e. brain/body being material and
Mary has several objections to this argument. First, she believes that the mind is an entity, which is composed of several mental states: thoughts, beliefs, memories, desires, etc. Mary strongly disagrees with Descartes’ claim that the mind employs itself in its different properties: willing, desiring, understanding, and so on. Secondly, she clarifies the meaning of the word “conceive” in the Dave’s argument. The term “conceive” might mean either “imagine” or “understand.” Imagining literally involves “forming an image of” or “picturing” in one’s mind, whereas understanding is more “conceptual” and does not require the ability to picture something.
The desire to avoid dualism has been the driving motive behind much contemporary work on the mind-body problem. Gilbert Ryle made fun of it as the theory of 'the ghost in the machine', and various forms of behaviorism and materialism are designed to show that a place can be found for thoughts, sensations, feelings, and other mental phenomena in a purely physical world. But these theories have trouble accounting for consciousness and its subjective qualia. As the science develops and we discover facts, dualism does not seems likely to be true.
The 'mind-body' problem has troubled philosophers for centuries. This is because no human being has been able to sufficiently explain how the mind actually works and how this mind relates to the body - most importantly to the brain. If this were not true then there would not be such heated debates on the subject. No one objects to the notion that the Earth revolves around the sun because it is empirical fact. However, there is no current explanation on the mind that can be accepted as fact. In 'What is it like to be a bat?', Thomas Nagel does not attempt to solve this 'problem'. Instead, he attempts to reject the reductionist views with his argument on subjectivity. He examines the difficulties of the mind-body problem by investigating the conscious experience of an organism, which is usually ignored by the reductionists. Unfortunately, his arguments contain some flaws but they do shed some light as to why the physicalist view may never be able to solve the mind-body problem.
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.
...ocesses which are distinct from observable behavioral responses. Acts such as thinking, remembering, perceiving, and willing are defined by behavioral actions and by dispositions to perform behavioral actions. However, Ryle criticises Behaviorist theory for being overly simplistic and mechanistic, just as he criticizes Cartesian theory for being overly simplistic and mechanistic. While Cartesian theory asserts that hidden mental processes cause the behavioral responses of the conscious individual, Behaviorism asserts that stimulus-response mechanisms cause the behavioral responses of the conscious individual. Ryle argues that both the Cartesian theory and the Behaviorist theory are too simplistic and mechanistic to enable us to fully understand the Concept of Mind.