Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
defining the self
self concept question
significance of self concept
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: defining the self
In the essay “Where am I?” by Daniel C. Dennett there are connections being made and questions that arise in nature of a ‘self’ and the relation to ‘mind’ and ‘body’. The essay starts out with information about how Daniel was approached by Pentagon officials in which they asked him if he would be inclined to volunteer to take on a very dangerous and secret mission. This mission involved Daniel to go underground in Oklahoma to retrieve a warhead that was placed down there that has become extremely radioactive in a new way. The nature of the device produced radiation that could cause severe abnormalities in certain tissues of the brain. There was no way to shield and protect the brain from these deadly radiation rays that the device put off in …show more content…
Daniel named his brain separately from the rest of his body. His brain in referred to as “Yorick” and his body is “Hamlet” and he himself is “Dennett”. Daniel was having a hard time grasping that if his brain, Yorick, was in the vat and his body, hamlet, was down the hall in the patient room, or wherever, then where was Dennett really at? He came up with some principles that could explain and possibly answer this question. The first principle was, “Where Hamlet goes there goes Dennett” in which he states that “it was clear enough, then, that my current body and I could part company, but not likely that I could be separated from my brain” (Dennett, 3). With this principle he then thought that maybe perhaps the truth was actually the second principle which was, “Where Yorick goes there goes Dennett”. The second principle states that in such an example if Dennett were to rob a bank in California and Yorick, his brain, was in Texas then where would the crime case take place and what kind of charge would come from it, “who” would go where for the punishment of the crime. If this principle were to be true then that leads to a third principle; “Dennett is wherever he thinks he is”. This third point of view states that “ at any given time a person has a point of view and the location of the point of view (which is determined internally by the content of the point of view) is also the location of the …show more content…
In this theory, since it is based upon matter alone then this is a theory that does not correspond the best, in my opinion, with the essay. In the essay Daniel mentions many times where his mind, Dennett, feels like it is elsewhere from his brain and his body. He contemplates on whether or not Dennett resides in his brain that is out of his body in a life support vat or between his ears in his empty skull. He clearly distinguishes that his brain and body and mind are all separate from each other. In this materialism theory, I personally feel like this does not support Daniel Dennett in his understanding of this situation he was put
Self could be defined in different ways. In John Perry’s “dialogue on personal identity and immorality”, both characters Weirob and Cohen are correct on their argument of personal identity, there are just some imperfections on each of the views. My view of “persons are identical with brains” fills the gaps of ideas of them. Brain is the junction that could bring mind and
Dennett leaves his own definition of the mind incomplete where we are in the readings, mulling over the concepts he reviewed and focusing on the border of sentience and sensitivity. Dennett’s own account of the mind is focused on drawing the line between sensitivity, exemplified by reacting to the environment, and sentience, which he defines as “the lowest grade of consciousness” (pg 64). In Dennett’s explanation on page 64, he proposes that while all intentional systems respond to the environment, sentient systems or “genuine minds” enjoy their sentience. Combining these theories, Dennett defines the mind as functional sensitivity in concert with an “undefined factor x” (pg 65) which allows the enjoyment and emotional aspects of thought to take place and therefore create a
As an extension to the short story “Where am I?” by Daniel Dennett, Dennett is taking the government to court, claiming that NASA owes him a new body, because he is currently forced to share his body with another person (Hubert). Wanting to make usage of my philosophical expertise, the government called upon me to give my recommendation to the court as to what validity, if any Dennett’s claim has, and whether or not Dennett should be awarded a second body transplant. After careful consideration on various philosophical issues pertaining to this case, I have concluded that there is absolutely some merit to Dennett’s claim, and that Daniel Dennett should be given a new body. I will expand upon the details of each specific issue that I investigated,
Anil Ananthaswamy describes the self as the role the brain plays in our notions of self and existence. That our sense of self is layered, pulling information from
Descartes’s approach to understanding the difference between mind and matter initially began by him doubting all truths which he had grown up believing to be true. He believed that if anything he held to be true was ever deceiving, he would reject its reliability all together. This extreme doubt resulted in Descartes
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.
The mind-body problem has kept philosophers busy ever since Descartes proposed it in the sixteenth century. The central question posed by the mind-body problem is the relationship between what we call the body and what we call the mind—one private, abstract, and the origin of all thoughts; the other public, concrete, and the executor of the mind’s commands. Paul Churchland, a proponent of the eliminative materialist view, believes that the solution to the mind-body problem lies in eliminating the single concept that allows this problem to perpetuate—the folk psychological concept of mental states. Churchland argues that the best theory of mind is a materialistic one, not a folk psychological one. Unlike other materialist views such as identity theory, Churchland wants to remove the idea of mental states from our ontology because mental states cannot be matched 1:1 with corresponding physical states. This is why Churchland’s view is called eliminative materialism—it is a materialistic account of the mind that eliminates the necessity for us to concern ourselves with mental events. At first this eliminative materialism appears to be a good solution to the mind-body problem because we need not concern ourselves with that problem if we adopt Churchland’s view. However, there is a basic flaw in his argument that raises the question of whether we should actually give up folk psychology. In this paper, we will first walk through the premises of Churchland’s argument, and then we will explore whether Churchland does a suitable job of justifying our adoption of eliminative materialism.
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.
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.
However, the primary energy for this type of interactive neurological function is always formed under the authority of God as the Creator. In this context, the flow of the soul/spirits is created by God, which then allows the brain to receive this energy through the pineal gland (brown, 2006, p.37). This is an important argument that shows the duality of God’s omnipotence and the soul’s energy as it flows into the brain and creates the mind. These are the vital characteristics of interactive dualism of the mind and body that occur in the brain of a human being. This type of interactive dualism defines a sensible aspect of brain function and the mysterious “energy” of the soul/spirit that enters the mind and forms a
Materialists claim that everything is either a physical thing or an aspect of a physical thing, and no physical thing is dependent on the mind. A physical thing is not necessarily a solid object, but...
The purpose of this essay is to discuss how dualism describes reality more accurate than materialism, idealism, and transcendental idealism. Even though dualism doesn’t describe reality one hundred percent just like the other theories about the nature of reality, it is the most accurate argument out of the four major theories about the nature of reality and substance. Dualism was a concept that was not originated by Rene Descartes but coined by him. The concept was that our mind is more than just our brain. The concept was not originated by Rene Descartes because the Bible explains that we are more than our body and brains. It teaches that we have a separate mind, soul, and spirit. One argument for dualism is that the physical and mental territories have different properties. The mental events have qualities such as what does it feel like, what does it look like, or what it sounds like. Another argument is the lack of any understanding of how any possible reaction can take place between the mind and brain. The essay will include reasons for favoring the Thomistic and Cartesian forms of substance dualism and the counter arguments that are against them.
While the great philosophical distinction between mind and body in western thought can be traced to the Greeks, it is to the influential work of René Descartes, French mathematician, philosopher, and physiologist, that we owe the first systematic account of the mind/body relationship. As the 19th century progressed, the problem of the relationship of mind to brain became ever more pressing.
Ryle rejects Descartes’ dualistic theory of the relation betwen mind and body. According to Ryle, this theory attempts to separate mental reality from physical reality, and it attempts to analyze mental processes as if the mind were distinct from the body. As an example of how this doctrine can be misleading, Ryle explains that knowing how to perform an act skillfully is not a matter of purely theoretical reasoning. Knowing how to perform an act skillfully is a matter of being able to think logically and practically, and is a matter of being able to put practical reasoning into action. Practical action is not necessarily produced by highly abstract reasoning, or by an intricate series of intellectual operations. The meaning of actions is not explained by making inferences about hidden mental processes, but is ...
...have struggled with the nature of human beings, especially with the concept of “self”. What Plato called “soul, Descartes named the “mind”, while Hume used the term “self”. This self, often visible during hardships, is what one can be certain of, whose existence is undoubtable. Descartes’s “I think, therefore I am” concept of transcendental self with just the conscious mind is too simplistic to capture the whole of one’s self. Similarly, the empirical self’s idea of brain in charge of one’s self also shows a narrow perspective. Hume’s bundle theory seeks to provide the distinction by claiming that a self is merely a habitual way of discussing certain perceptions. Although the idea of self is well established, philosophical insight still sees that there is no clear presentation of essential self and thus fails to prove that the true, essential self really exists.