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…
thus humans will try to avoid having the same feeling again and withdraw from a certain situation. Pain can also interfere with other parts of the brain/ body system because the feeling of pain can form an unsettling memory for the human, leaving the human to not place him/herself in the same situation again. The overarching reason for functionalism is that what matters is the function, not what it is made of. Just because it has a different structure, doesn’t mean it cannot carry out the same function such as the comparison between a squid eye, fly eye or a dog eye. They all allow the organism to have sight, but the structure of each are different from the next. A functionalist is capable of realizing mental properties playing an important role rather than properties of anything being identical to mental properties where there is no division between it. Because functionalism is able to tie in the good points of the identity theory that are at base physical, avoid the problems that the identity theory causes such as a chauvinistic approach, accept mental concepts that are defined as behavior and stimuli, and lastly accommodate mental holism, these are good reasons as to why a physicalist should accept functionalism. It is able to solve the mental holism approach by having a want, such as whether to drink coffee or not, be a whole want rather than factoring in individual wants that come along with coffee such as wanting to sleep, but also enjoying coffee. Mental holism from the identity theory brings in a circular argument that functionalism does not like, therefore a functionalist would argue that all wants arise at the same time. Functionalism is able to recognize that different physical structures can realize the mental state in different physical systems as long as they are able to play the role needed in that system. To further support functionalism is the structure/function argument, which states that neural properties are structural properties defined by their structure, mental properties are functional properties that are defined by what they do by how they do, and that structural properties are different from functional properties, therefore concluding that mental properties are not identical to neural properties. This argument is against the identity theory by stating mental types cannot be identical with neural types because mental types are functional and neural types are structural. The structure/function argument is a good argument because it is able to give a strict category for a mental and a neural type rather than stating that they are identical and spatially indivisible. Function meets the structure, no matter what the structure is which is why an identity theorist can object to that. An identity theorist can say that if functional and structural are always relative, neural types can also be functional rather than structural depending on how a person describes them and on what level. As a response to that objection, a functionalist is able to restate his/her statement by saying mental and neural types are not absolutely structural or functional, but that mental types are held at a higher functional level compared to a neural type. The opposing argument towards functionalism is most likely to be brought up by a dualist.
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
surroundings. The robot, just like Mary would be able to point out the color red if it was asked to because that would be its function. The function is to point out the color red and know the color red, not the structure, whether it be a human body or a robot. If both are capable of doing the same task then they ultimately are the same and carry out the same function such as a dog eye or a squid’s eye with a different structure/appearance. Another objection to the functionalist position would be the questioning of chauvinism. Although functionalism solves chauvinism through the identity theory, it solves it as when a function meets its structure, it is able to carry out its function while when a structure meets its function, it doesn’t matter what the structure is as long as the function is carried out. A dualist would say that, that argument is very circular because a structure is defined by its function, while the function is also defined through its structure. For example, the difference between a sticky mouse trap and the mouse trap that has cheese. They both perform the same function, but one is different from the other in structure. The sticky mouse trap uses poison to kill the mouse, while the mouse trap with the cheese clamps the mouse's’ head and kills it that way. The function is different in the way it kills the mouse and structures are different. It is said that functionalism privileges function over structure. A possible functionalist reply would be that it doesn’t matter what the structure of the mouse trap is, as long as in the end the mouse is dead due to either poison or the clamping on the head. Attacking functionalism on the grounds of qualia is merely accepted because it is true that one must experience something in order to identify with it, but it’s also wrong through the robot perspective because if a robot is capable of identifying the color like a human, there should not be a difference. Functionalism serves as a great platform for the mind-body argument because it simplifies all of the other arguments into one, and takes the good aspects of the identity theory and solves the problems of it too. Even though there are a lot to question about whether one should accept functionalism as their view of the mind-body, it seems to make the most sense to me because if form meets the function, what is there to question. Science has taught people that function comes first then structure especially in biology, when it is said that a bat’s wing is the same as a bird’s wing because the wing provides the animal with the movement of flight even if the structures are genetically different.
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 psychology encompassing properties realized for humans and alien psychology encompassing those mental states realized in the alien way etc. I will demonstrate that even if one supports and allows the principles behind Kim’s argument they do not result in his final conclusion of psychology failing to be a science. By attacking his principle of Casual Individuation of Kinds I will show that Kim has failed to find the correct conclusion. Furthermore, I will consider a possible objection that Kim might have to my stance and give a short rebuttle. I will conclude by explicating Jerry Fodor’s account of what is Kim’s essential problem is. By showing that Kim’s conclusion fails it will entail that Fodor’s conclusion is more viable in reality.
The Absent Qualia Argument’s counterexample suggests functionalism is susceptible to similar problems behaviorism faces. The additional requirement functionalism holds, namely functionally equivalent internal states, mental states possibly differ. Block argues it is plausible to not only have type identical behavior states, but also functionally equivalent mental states. However, functionally equivalent functional states cannot ensure equivalent mental states. So, functionalist theories of mental states are insufficient theories of the nature of mental
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
During my essay I will provide counter argument to some phenomenological and logical objections raised against Smart’s theory, and importantly to discuss the nature of the strict identity between sensation and brain process stated by this theory, and dispute any objections made against the identity theory on these grounds.
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...
...e to claim that objects that were created by humans, including robots, wire and metal structures and series of computer networks could and do possess qualia. Once people have reached the highest nirvana in the limits of consciousness and can create a consciousness device to measure its depths among classes of humans and non-humans, then functionalism can be shelved and rejected if it is the case that a robot does not contain qualia. Until then, however, functionalism needs to be carefully considered and not disregarded for its merits in the problem of mental states. Though for many, psychofunctionalism may be the more favorable choice because it is easier for people to consider themselves as the most intelligent beings and rulers of the universe rather than every collection of objects that satisfy the functional role to have consciousness on the same level as them.
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.
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.
It recognizes that there are “higher level” properties that cannot be explained in physical terms, but they are caused by a physical event. Within dualism and physicalism lie sub-theories that make specific the philosophies behind these fundamental beliefs. Spielberg’s film expresses the ideas of emergent physicalism through David, his journey to becoming a “real” boy, and his remaining eternally hopeful that he will receive the love of the one whom not only created his ability to love, but also the one whom he loves the most. Mechas are a new class of robots designed during the 22nd century in response to detrimental environmental occurrences.... ... middle of paper ...