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.
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
Creation is the giving of isness from God. And that is why God becomes where any creature expresses God” (Eckhart 1-3). Ironically, the power of the story comes from asking: where is Dennett? Dennett was what corresponded to whatever was created to be. And so long as blood still coursed through his brain he would remain in contact with external existence. As long as he lives, he will be trapped within the construct of his brain, to which he would never be capable of escaping his own thoughts until death. However, this is not to say that there is an absolute separateness between the brain and the rest of existence. If we are capable of being aware of these two things and their possible distinctions, then there must exist a connection between the two. Dennett knows for a fact that he exists. He reflects on it with each thought he thinks. Therefore, the reflection reveals a connection, whether the mental representation is physically tangible or not, it establishes both physical and mental existence proven by the occurrence of questioning such. Where he exists is a result of causality. Why he exists is eternally under contention, but who he is: is revealed by
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
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,
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...
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.
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.
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
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.
As regards materialism, the downside of this doctrine is that when materialists attempt to reduce the mental realm to the physical by saying that mental experiences are brain processes, they deny the existence of consciousness, sometimes called ‘qualia’, which is nevertheless a subjective aspect of mental experiences. According to Dualism, having different properties is not the only difference between Mental and Physical realms, a third difference between the two as mentioned earlier is qualitative. Mental happenings have subjective qualities such as what it feels like, looks like or sounds like. Descartes' view claims that material properties could never produce something as perplexing as consciousness or awareness, because such qualities
He believed the body was non material with no relationship to material items. The body is not an essential part of the “I” which comes from the mind. “I am therefore precisely nothing but a thinking thing; that is, a mind, or intellect, or understanding or reason” (Descartes, 65) When he is talking as the “I” Descartes does not mention the body, there is a separation. The “I” is a thinking thing and the subject, the two cannot be separated. Body and mind dualism is something Descartes mentions in his Meditations. He believed the mind as a thinking thing and a body a doing thing. This could be applied to the film because once the person is transported into Malkovich’s body there is a separation between the mind and body. Malkovich’s body is the same while the mind and conscious is of a completely different person. Self-sufficiency is independent of everything else; to know itself, the self does not need external knowledge and when it looks into itself, it does not need any previous knowledge. The “I” recognizes itself immediately because it is a direct given of the self and believes “I think therefore I am”. So when Craig is in Malkovich’s body, he can look in the mirror and realize that it is Craig’s mind although he is in another body. He still recognizes himself as Craig although there is another person in 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.
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 ...
Truth of oneself makes it visible when faced with absurd events in life where all ethical issues fade away. One cannot always pinpoint to a specific trait or what the core essence they discover, but it is often described as “finding one’s self”. In religious context, the essential self would be regarded as soul. Whereas, for some there is no such concept as self that exists since they believe that humans are just animals caught in the mechanistic world. However, modern philosophy sheds a positive light and tries to prove the existence of a self. Modern philosophers, Descartes and Hume in particular, draw upon the notion of the transcendental self, thinking self, and the empirical self, self of public life. Hume’s bundle theory serves as a distinction between these two notions here and even when both of these conception in their distinction make valid points, neither of them is more accurate.