In this paper I will explain and argue for functionalism. Functionalism is another form of mind-body physicalism, it accepts that many of our mental concepts are defined partly in terms of behavior and stimuli. What caused the rise of functionalism is the multiple realization theory. This theory objects to the identity theory because humans are able to feel pain due to a stimulus response in the ACC. Other animals and organisms are able to also feel pain because pain in their brains can be detected in different regions that are different from a human brain. The basic idea of functionalism is that our minds are organized in a functional way. The roles are defined by how we respond to a certain stimuli such as pain. Pain causes body damage, …show more content…
In that a dualist would state the argument that mental properties give us the power to reason, states of aboutness, qualia (experience qualities) and free will. Because mental properties are able to give that to a person, no functional property can necessarily give a person the power to reason, states of aboutness, qualia and free will. Therefore, mental properties and functional properties do not have the same meaning. Dualists would attack a functionalist at the point where functionalism is unable to solve the problem of qualia. Because qualia is defined as the experience of qualities, such as seeing the color red or riding a bike, functionalists cannot place the experience of seeing the color red in a robot. A dualist argument is a girl named Mary, is locked in a black and white room for all of her life, she knows all the physical properties of the color red but has never experience the color red. One day she leaves the house, and she stumbles upon something red. At that moment, it is said that Mary gains new knowledge of the color red because even though she knew all the facts to what the color red is, she can finally experience the color red. Now that she experienced the color red, she is able to close her eyes and imagine the color red. Dualists say that robots cannot see and experience the color red because they have never experienced the color red through the mental states that excites the brain when the color red is either right in front of their eyes or closing the eyes and thinking about the color. A possible reply to that statement about qualia is that if the robot has the right functional organization then that would be enough for the robot to be able to experience the color red. If a robot is built the exact way a human is, behavior and organization wise, then the robot would be able to reason with meaning, be able to feel emotions, and be conscious of their
Behaviorist identify mental states with dispositions. A mental state is identical when, given the same inputs the disposition toward a particular output in the same. Unlike functionalism, behaviorism recognizes dispositions according to merely outward behavior. Alternatively, a functional system includes a typical behavioral outputs given a range of inputs, as well as a tendency to experience a property of a mental state. Functionalists want to individuate mental states causally, but since mental states have mental effects, functionalist advance on behaviorism by acknowledging some similar input and output systems have similar descriptions without entailing similar mental effects. Functionalism, as an advancement of behaviorism, also describes the function of the mental state.
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.
The functionalist thoery can be traced to a movement in the late nineteenth-century under the influences of Darwinism on the biological and social sciences. It is an attempt to understand the world, and it tests the cause and effect of sociological behavior. Some of the more famous functionalists are Charles Darwin, Emile Durkheim, and Horace Kallen.
Everyone goes through stages of life and everyone goes through them differently, there are some people that will go through life and not have any problems. While there are some people who will go through life and then will get a disease that will slowly kill them. Does getting a disease in old age make it harder for a person to live the rest of their life out? The functionalist perspective would best explain the expected outcomes, because it tries to help out society and make sure there is some stability.
In this essay I am going to argue that sensations are “nothing over and above brain processes.” The exact point advanced by Smart in his paper “sensations and brain processes”. His claim is that sensations are strictly identical with physical brain processes, therefore physical themselves. This negates the idea held by dualists that sensations are constructed from a separate mental substance wholly separate from the physical brain processes. From Smart’s view it seems a logical step to the more generalized description of Physicalism by Hendel. “There is nothing over and above the physical” . I will argue that it is this theory that provides the greatest success in describing mental states, and in describing them concurrently with modern scientific discoveries and views.
Jaegwon Kim thinks that multiple realizability of mental properties would bring about the conclusion that psychology is most likely not a science. Several functionalists, specially, Fodor, take up the opposing stance to Kim, supporting that the multiple realizability of mental states is one of the reasons why psychology is an autonomous and justifiable science. Essentially, Kim think that in order for mental states to be multiply realizable then psychology must be fundamentally broken; with human psycho...
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
Structural Functionalism or what I call just functionalism, is just another theory that has society as a complex system whose parts work together to promote solidarity and stability. This approach looks at society through the macro-level of orientation, which is a broad focus on the social structures that shape society as a whole, and believes that society has evolved like organisms. This approach looks at both social structure and the social functions. Functionalism has society as a whole in terms of the function of its constituent elements; namely norms and customs, traditions, and institutions. There is a common analogy, popularized by Herbert Spencer that presents these parts of society as "organs" that works towards the proper functioning of the "body" as a whole. In the most basic terms, it simply emphasizes "the effort to impute and the rigorously as possible, to each feature, custom, or even practice the effect on the functioning of a supposedly stable and cohesive system.
There are three main theories of sociology; functionalism, conflict theory and symbolic interactionism. This paper will focus on two of those theories, functionalism and conflict theory. The objective is to delineate the assumptions of two out of the three theoretical perspectives and apply these assumptions to an analysis of social stratification. How this will be accomplished will be by comparing and contrasting their assumptions and by analyzing the two theories affect on social stratification. Then I will state my opinion on which of the two better fits my personal sociological views. Functionalism is many people's way to view the world sociologically. It states clearly that the objectivity of the researcher is necessary and can be accomplished. There are three main points, which make up a functionalist theory on sociological expression. The first point is that culture is made up of interacting, interdependent parts. Each of these parts has a function in maintaining the society as a system on the whole. The second point states that shared values and expectations(or beliefs) among the members of the society help hold the society together. The third point states that these systems have a need for stability and a need to try to keep all the parts working together congruously in a sort of system. Social change in this system is uncommon, and when it does happen, it is a very gradual change. Conflict theory is centered on the tension, or struggle that goes on in everyday life. There are many different parts, which make up the conflict theorist's view on the sociological perspective. The first main part is that society promotes general differences in wealth, power, and prestige. Wealth...
There are many criticisms of functionalism and their theories: Ø Functionalist ideas almost portray humans as being autonomous and that only socialisation determines our lives. They do not really see humans as the unpredictable creatures they are, not possible to stray away from the predictable ideas that functionalists have of people. Too much stress is placed on harmony and the potential for conflict and its affects are generally ignored. Ø There is no recognition of difference by class, region or ethnic group. The functionalist picture is simply reflective of happy middle-class American families.
But, “human persons have an ‘inner’ dimension that is just as important as the ‘outer’ embodiment” (Cortez, 71). The “inner” element cannot be wholly explained by the “outer” embodiment, but it does give rise to inimitable facets of the human life, such as human dignity and personal identity. The mind-body problem entails two theories, dualism and physicalism. Dualism contends that distinct mental and physical realms exist, and they both must be taken into account. Its counterpart (weak) physicalism views the human as being completely bodily and physical, encompassing no non-physical, or spiritual, substances.