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
Dualism is tenacious and flexible because it is not running counter to people’s intuition – mind and body are different. This is the most common opinion towards the mind-and-body issue, which is something we take for granted. In our daily lives, the difference between the state of mind and state of material is obvious: First of all, subject of material occupies space; it takes up space and is presented dimensionally. The subject of mind is invisible and therefore does not take up space. Second, attributes of mind are different from those of material. For example, when pain is inflicted upon our body, we can only FEEL it but according to neurologist’s account there’s nothing in our nerves that is found identical to the characteristics of pain. Third, the cognitive characteristics that we have for knowledge are different. Put it this way, perception towards material is ‘public’, or say, every individual who has certain intact body structure ...
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...
...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.
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
When addressing the mind and body issue, there are often multiple explanations. Out of those multiple explanations, Dualism and Materialism are the ones to stick out. Dualism stands on the ground that the mind and body are two fundamentally different things. There is in no way that you can make a distinction between the two. For no one can explain how a non-physical entity can affect a physical body. On the other hand Materialism (aka physicalism) stands the ground that there is only one entity in the world, which has to be physical. That everything in the universe has meaning in physical terms, for the brain is the mind.
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.
I am not religious so I do not believe in a supernatural selection process where someone is imbued with a soul. I agree with the scientific proof that we are born as a physical being and nothing is added on. We can trace the evolution of a human fetus from when it begins in its earliest stages, and there is no evidence of a mental entity being placed in a child at birth. There are just too many questions that remain unanswered for me to believe in dualism. So many speculations of unexplained and unexplainable phenomenon that happen in the conscious mind that I cannot come to believe that there is a separate mind entity. I just cannot agree with the assumption that there exists a part of the body that isn’t part of the body, so to speak, that there is almost like an invisible thought bubble that floats above our head that is this spatial mind realm, where things like thoughts and reactions come from. Without any physical proof there is no argument for such a thing therefore I cannot believe that dualism is a logical
. 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.
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.
The self-directed motion argument from Dualism concludes that there is a part of us that doesn’t consist of matter: Matter is incapable of self-directed motion. The human brain and body consists merely of matter. Therefore, the human brain and body is incapable of self-directed motion. But human beings are capable of purposeful intelligent self-directed motion. Are we merely matter? But physical forces do not push us around. Therefore, we human beings cannot consist of merely matter. But there must be the existence of a non-material component of a human being that justifies our power of self-directed motion (Russell, Mind and Morality Lecture
The mind-body problem can be a difficult issue to discuss due to the many opinions and issues that linger. The main issue behind the mind-body problem is the question regarding if us humans are only made up of matter, or a combination of both matter and mind. If we consist of both, how can we justify the interaction between the two? A significant philosophical issue that has been depicted by many, there are many prominent stances on the mind-body problem. I believe property dualism is a strong philosophical position on the mind-body issue, which can be defended through the knowledge argument against physicalism, also refuted through the problems of interaction.
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.
René Descartes was the 17th century, French philosopher responsible for many well-known philosophical arguments, such as Cartesian dualism. Briefly discussed previously, according to dualism, brains and the bodies are physical things; the mind, which is a nonphysical object, is distinct from both the brain and from all other body parts (Sober 204). Sober makes a point to note Descartes never denied that there are causal interactions between mental and physical aspects (such as medication healing ailments), and this recognition di...
Cartesian dualism is a type of mind-body dualism formulated by the infamous Rene Descartes (1596-1650). Descartes’ dualism is about entities: he states there are