Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Reflection about Neuroplasticity
The theory and principles underpinning neuroplasticity
The theory and principles underpinning neuroplasticity
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Reflection about Neuroplasticity
In their article, Dennett and Kinsbourne (1992) discuss Cartesian Materialism and compare it to the Multiple Drafts Model. They try to point out issues with Cartesian Materialism to prove that their model (The Multiple Drafts Model) is superior. I believe that Multiple Drafts Model is better than Cartesian Materialism because it is better at dealing with the experiential anomalies. However, I believe that it possess issues and does not suffice as a model of consciousness. I find the Multiple Drafts Model to be problematic because it does not account for phenomenal consciousness, the possibility of multiple Cartesian Theatres and the possibility of information integration. What do Dennett and Kinsbourne (D&K) mean by “Cartesian materialism” and the “Cartesian Theater”? Cartesian Materialism follows Descartes’s dualistic ideas. In the past, Descartes thought the pineal gland was the center in the brain in which …show more content…
According to Hebbian theory, “neurons that fire together wire together” which can shape the organization of the brain and allow for neuroplasticity. If there is random distribution of processing, then there will be random pathways and organizations of the brain. This can’t be true considering what we know about neuroplasticity, which is not random. There must be a more purposeful integration or distribution across the brain to account for way the brain is organized. According to many brain lesion studies, it seems that the brain has compensatory strategies for certain functions in the event there is failure in some part of the brain. This suggests to me, that although there are unstable pathways that change all the time, they can’t be changing randomly. I believe Dennett & Kinsbourne (1992) should revise or clarify what they mean by random distribution and perhaps suggest a mechanism to support it with real life
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
He explains the concept of Cartesian body in which he states that there is some connection between mind and body. Mind doesn’t necessarily need any imagination for thinking process but body is somewhere linked to imagination. He explains many links between mind and body. He gives examples like if he feels hungry, his mind would tell his body to eat something. These types of examples make him understand that mind and body works in a parallel way. But mind is distinct from the body, as Descartes’s existence is a thinking thing which is independent of body and Descartes’s body is an extended thing which is independent of mind. So he concludes that he being a thinking thing can exist without a body. But mind and body are combined to form one unit. This leads him to the idea of Cartesian dualism, which is mind-body dualism. If we carefully use our mind, we can avoid judgments which consist of errors. Furthermore, he explains the existence of external material things. He proves it by explaining that he believes in the existence of external material things because of his senses. God has created him with this nature and as God is not a deciever, material things exist and contain the properties necessary for
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.
Every since Plato introduced the idea of dualism thousands of years ago meta-physicians have been faced with the mind-body problem. Even so Plato idea of dualism did not become a major issue of debate in the philosophical world until the seventeenth century when French philosopher Rene Descartes publicized his ideas concerning the mental and physical world. During this paper, I will analyze the issue of individuation and identity in Descartes’ philosophical view of the mind-body dualism. I will first start by explaining the structure of Cartesian dualism. I will also analyze the challenges of individuation and identity as they interact with Descartes. With a bit of luck, subsequently breaking down Descartes’ reasoning and later on offering my response, I can present wit a high degree of confidence that the problems of individuation and identity offer a hindrance to the Cartesians’ principle of mind-body dualism. I give a critical analysis of these two problems, I will first explain the basis of Descartes’ philosophical views.
Some have suggested that René Descartes argues that sense perception relies on the mind rather than on the body. Descartes asserts that we can know our mind more readily than we can know our body. In support of this idea he gives the example of a piece of wax which is observed in its solid form and its liquid form. After pointing out the difficulties of relying on the senses of the physical body to understand the nature of the wax he makes this claim: [P]erception ... is neither a seeing, nor a touching, nor an imagining. ... [R]ather it is an inspection on the part of the mind alone (Section 31). 1 This quote is perhaps the most direct statement of the author's thesis on this subject.
Outline and assess Descartes' arguments for the conclusion that mind and body are distinct substances.
René Descartes laid the foundations for Cartesian Dualism within his Meditations on First Philosophy. Descartes provides most of his dualist view within the second and sixth meditations. Dualism is the belief, or school, within philosophy of mind that the mind and body are separate. Cartesian Dualism, specifically, is essentially substance dualism, which argues that the mind and body are of separate substances, in Descartes’ case, the mind being spiritual and the body being physical. This viewpoint was a common one during Hobbe...
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...
In his Meditations on First Philosophy, Descartes states “I have a clear and distinct idea of myself, in as far as I am only a thinking and unextended thing, and as, on the other hand, I possess a distinct idea of body, in as far as it is only an extended and unthinking thing”. [1] The concept that the mind is an intangible, thinking entity while the body is a tangible entity not capable of thought is known as Cartesian Dualism. The purpose of this essay is to examine how Descartes tries to prove that the mind or soul is, in its essential nature, entirely distinct from the
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.
At the heart of Neuroplasticity is the idea of synaptic pruning. It is the ability to prune away unused connections, as well as to form new connections. The term is probably best explained in the aphorism, “Neurons that fire together, wire together” (Doidge, 2007, p. 63). The idea being that if two or more neurons fire simultaneously on a continual basis, they will eventually fire on the same cortical map, thus strengthening the connection. The reverse is true in that if two or more neurons begin firing separately, they will eventually form separate cortical maps. In the words of Donald Hebb:
In Meditation Six entitled “Concerning the Existence of Material Things, and Real Distinction between the Mind and Body”, one important thing Descartes explores is the relationship between the mind and body. Descartes believes the mind and body are separated and they are two difference substances. He believes this to be clearly and distinctly true which is a Cartesian quality for true knowledge. I, on the other hand, disagree that the mind and body are separate and that the mind can exist without the body. First, I will present Descartes position on mind/body dualism and his proof for such ideas. Secondly, I will discuss why I think his argument is weak and offer my own ideas that dispute his reasoning while I keep in mind how he might dispute my argument.
Descartes is a very well-known philosopher and has influenced much of modern philosophy. He is also commonly held as the father of the mind-body problem, thus any paper covering the major answers of the problem would not be complete without covering his argument. It is in Descartes’ most famous work, Meditations, that he gives his view for dualism. Descartes holds that mind and body are com...
"Patterns of activity in small, more primitive areas of the brain are recapitulated in larger, more advanced parts," Sutton says. "This means that nature did not have to develop new rules of operation for different levels of the brain from small clusters of cells to large systems."