Zhiyuan Li
Philosophy 3000
In his paper Realism and Skepticism: Brains in a Vat Revisited, Graeme Forbes considers Putnam’s brains in a vat (BIV) argument. According to Forbes (1995), Putnam argues that in order for a normally embodied thinker to think about such concepts as brain, in and vat, she “must somehow be informationally linked to” instances of those concepts (206). However, Forbes does not consider (and he does not think he needs to consider) what particular sorts of informational links are sufficient to enable a thinker to think about the concepts, though he seems to suggest that an is-and-always-has-been BIV has no such informational links (206). In other words, a BIV cannot think about the concepts of brain, in and vat and it
…show more content…
For Forbes (1995), a BIV is not a BIV-in-the-image because a BIV is a physical object, whereas a BIV-in-the-image is merely a mental image (206). But as indicated earlier, Brueckner (1986) interprets “the image” as “sense impressions had by the BIV” and therefore he thinks the reason why a BIV is not a BIV-in-the image is that a BIV does not have the sense impressions of being a BIV, but being a human being (150-1). I think Brueckner is misunderstanding Putnam here and Forbes’s account is more accurate. For the sake of argument, let us (temporarily) accept Brueckner’s interpretation (i.e. the image is the sense impressions had by the BIV) and apply it to the tree and tree-in-the-image case. Clearly, a tree is not a tree-in-the-image, but what makes it so? I think Brueckner should be committed to this answer: A tree is not a tree-in-the-image because a BIV does not have the same sense impressions of a tree when faced with a tree-in-the-image. But this is false. As Putnam sets up the scenario, a BIV is able to receive appropriate impulses from the computer so that it is able to have the perfectly normal sensory experiences of a tree when facing a tree-in-the-image (6). By contrast, Forbes does not bring in this potentially troublesome interpretation of “the image.” The idea of a mental image here is pretty self-explanatory and I don’t see why Putnam needs to adopt an additional …show more content…
This conclusion does not rule out the possibility that a BIV’s utterance that “I am a BIV” (in English) could still be true even though this cannot be uttered at all (a BIV can only utter that “I am a BIV-in-the-image” in English, which is clearly false). To put it in another way, Brueckner does not deny that one may be a BIV even if she is unable to have the thought that “I am a BIV” (in English). However, Forbes’s conclusion rejects this possibility.
I think Forbes’s reading of Putnam is more accurate here. Putnam (1981) writes, “In short, if we are brains in a vat, then ‘We are brains in a vat’ is false. So it is (necessarily) false.” (15) If Putnam is right that “We are brains in a vat” is necessarily false, it should be false in every possible world, including the one where a BIV is a BIV though it cannot have the thought that “I am a BIV” (in English), as Brueckner suggests. By contrast, Forbes’s conclusion that I am not a BIV is consistent with the way Putnam phrases his conclusion, and is therefore a more accurate account of his
According to Benedict Carey, taking pills to enhance performance in academia is flourishing. Throughout his argument he talks about how individuals are using pills such as Adderall or Provigil to help boost one’s abilities. In his perspective he sees taking stimulants as a horrendous problem within the academic field. The problem with his argument is he is not staying open minded; he stayed in a complete narrow mindset weakening his argument against pills being taken to improve academic success.
In “The Brain on trial”, David Eagleman (2011) recounts the horrifying events which occurred on August 1, 1966. Charles Whitman entered the University of Texas with a rifle and secured himself in the bell tower. He then proceeded to shoot and kill 13 people and injure 32 more. Whitman was also shot and killed; however, during his autopsy it was discovered that a tumor was pressing against his amygdala. According to Eagleman, “The amygdala is involved in emotional regulation, especially of fear and aggression” (2011). Therefore, Whitman was possibly experiencing a fundamental change in his emotions and personality due to the tumor. Though Whitman did not survive, his case still poses questions as to whether or not he should be held accountable for his actions; moreover, should Whitman have received the maximum punishment for the murder he committed? Charles Whitman may not have had control over the feelings of “rage and irrational thoughts” (2011) he was experiencing; however, the precision of the attack indicates he was well aware of the actions he was committing.
The general point behind the homunculi-head introduces consideration to the possibility of brain functions being done by parts which could not together be conscious. Functionalism requires only similar machine instructions which serve out a set of outputs given a set of inputs. Block’s counter arguments shows such an account of
In the essay “Thought” by Louis H. Sullivan, he states that people don’t always need words just to communicate. There are several ways that individuals are able to communicate without words, they can express themselves by gestures and facial features, like explaining themselves to others. Sullivan believes that both thinking and creative thinking are better without words and that the minds is always working; therefore, it does not have time to place words together. In order to think clearly they must use other means of pondering; although, the mind works quickly it will take a long time to write what they are thinking because the mind continues without stopping. When individuals are reading they are not think their own thought exactly but what
ABSTRACT: Many philosophers have lost their enthusiasm for the concept of supervenience in the philosophy of mind. This is largely due to the fact that, as Jaegwon Kim has shown, familiar versions of supervenience describe relations of mere property covariation without capturing the idea of dependence. Since the dependence of the mental on the physical is a necessary requirement for even the weakest version of physicalism, it would seem that existing forms of supervenience cannot achieve that for which they were designed. My aim is to revive the concept of supervenience. I argue that if we construe supervenience along Davidsonian lines — as a relation connecting predicates rather than properties — then it avoids the shortcomings of the more familiar varieties.
... Theory is instrumental in explaining how the mind can be considered an entity that is separate from the body. We can come to this conclusion by first understanding that we are real, and we cannot logically doubt our own presence, because the act of doubting is thinking, which makes you a thinker. Next, we realize that the mind, and all of its experiences and thoughts, will remain the same no matter what changes or destruction that’s endured by the body. Then we can grasp that we are our minds and not our physical bodies. We can use a number of examples to illustrate that these concepts, including the movie The Matrix. Finally, we can disapprove John Locke’s objections to the Dualist Theory by identifying that the mind is capable of conscious and unconscious thought; therefore, it cannot be divisible like the body. Hence the mind is a separate entity from the body.
One of the most convincing arguments of the QBT is its explanation of how reality is conceived by the brain. Classically, reality should always be changing, even by the slightest notion, and the brain should be aware of these changes as they occur. According to quantum mechanics, this would be impossible; there is no time during which something is changing. Therefore, the brain cannot be in a state of change, it must be in one state or another, there is no in between. The QBT states that our brain takes in reality one moment at a time, it is never in a state where it is observing something change. It observes reality before the change and then after the change and then fuses these two images together in order to make sense of them.
Hilary Putnam. The thesis states that different physical properties may implement the same mental property. This argument has evolved since Putnam’s original goal of rejecting type-identity theory and many philosophers have redefined the implications of multiple realizability. There are two philosophers in philosophy of mind that are famous for their work in exploring multiple realizability and the implications this thesis has on science, or more specifically psychology. Jaegwon Kim and Jerry Fodor both take a stab at multiple realizability, but neither will come to the same conclusion.
I have been a firm believer of the anti-Cartesian argument that in order to join together one mind with one body Cartesians and anti-Cartesians are consider vital principles by Strawson, so one must think the mind as something dependent on someone, and not a separate entity altogether, as Descartes would argue.
...taphorical Beer-goggles. We believe what we want to believe. We accept what is comfortable as is, and anything else we disregard as false and or imaginary. Borges' stories are masterfully written to capture this particular aspect of the human character. whether it be a simple defense mechanism, a genius cerebral accomplishment passed down through evolution, or our greatest weakness, a self-induced, self-created mental heroin, or an odd combination of the three, it reflects our dreams, and gives us a sense of reality acceptable to us. And, thus, we can move in this world each day, we get out of bed, dress ourselves, carry on what is now a pathetic excuse for existence, because we have those dreams, that will come true, that will bring satisfaction and a sense of accomplishment. What privilege we have, to, at any time, be able to substitute our Hell for our Heaven...
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.
The American Heritage College Dictionary defines the term image as “An optically or electronically formed representative reproduction of an object, esp. an optical reproduction formed by a lens or a mirror.” This is what is more commonly referred to as a picture. The definition of a word is “a sound or combination of sounds, or its representation in writing or printing that symbolizes and communicates a meaning and may consist of a single morpheme or a combination of morphemes.” In fact, there is a constant debate about the importance and significance of both forms of communication. Because either one can be interpreted and considered differently, depending on who the viewer or reader is, this debate has been ongoing for quite some time now. The power that images have over words is stated simply by Neil Postman’s “The Great Symbol Drain” as “one picture, we are told, is worth a thousand words” (515). So, one can take a stand in saying that images are more powerful than words, because they can be understood and interpreted differently by different people.
After denying the concept of innate ideas, Locke comes to the obvious question of, “How comes it to be furnished?” (Stumpf and Fieser, 195). Answering simply and concisely, Locke offers two explanations. Firstly, ideas come about through sensations, which refer to conditions that are caused by actions of external...
In a world of science, religion, ignorance and opinion common perception on whether or not the mind is separate from the brain has switched more times than one can track. A dualistic view on the body/mind relationship continues to be scrutinized day in and day out. As I will explain throughout the argument dualism is facing increasingly more constraints as time goes on. An evaluation of the mind/body argument from a Humean perspective proves dualism to be flawed in key aspects, where in contrast a materialistic approach is not affected.
soliloquies. He does say himself ‘I am not what I am’ so does this not