Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Dualism vs. physicalism
The mind body problem physicalism vs dualism
The mind body problem physicalism vs dualism
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Dualism vs. physicalism
In the field of philosophy, zombies are imaginary creatures that are used to illuminate problems regarding consciousness and its relation to the physical world. As compared to those in witchcraft or films, zombies are exactly like human beings in every physical aspect but without conscious experiences. However, zombies behave like humans and some of them even spend considerable amount of time discussing consciousness. While few people believe in the existence of zombies, many state that they are at least conceivable and some argue that they are possible. Consequently, there are arguments that if zombies are increasingly a bare possibility, then some kind of dualism is true and physicalism is false. This argument is the chief significance of the zombie idea for many philosophers though it also generates interest for pre-suppositions concerning the nature of consciousness as well as the relation between the physical and the phenomenal. In addition, the use of the zombie idea against physicalism generates more general questions regarding the link between conceivability, imaginability, and possibility. Generally, the zombie argument poses a problem of physicalism and attracted response from physicalists who attempt to defuse the problem. History of the Zombie Argument: According to Descartes, non-human animals are automata, which imply that their behavior is completely explicable with regards to physical mechanisms (Kirk, 2011). The philosopher explored the concept of a machine that looked and behaved like a human being. Following his attempts to unmask such a machine, Descartes concluded that no machine could behave like a human being and that characteristically explaining human behavior needed something beyond the phy... ... middle of paper ... ...nstrate that physicalism is false because of the conceivability and possibility of the existence of zombies. This argument has attracted huge considerations in the field of philosophy as physicalists try to examine it because of the problem it poses to physicalism. Actually, the zombie argument attempts to show that physicalism is untrue by focusing on consciousness as an important part of the existence of physical things. The evaluations by physicalists have culminated in the development of various responses such as the anti-zombie argument for physicalism. Nonetheless, this response does not defuse the problem posed by the zombie argument to physicalism but rather contributes to dualism. In essence, dualists should not be zombists since both zombie and anti-zombie arguments are flawed for the same reason and are mutually exclusive and annihilate each other.
This essay will examine the philosophical questions raised in the movie The Matrix. It will step through how the questions from the movie directly relate to both skepticism and the mind-body problem, and further how similarly those problems look to concepts raised by both Descartes’ and Plato’s philosophies. It will attempt to show that many of the questions raised in the movie are metaphor for concepts from each philosopher’s works, and why those concepts are important in relation to how they are presented in the film. In this analysis, we will examine the questions of skepticism and the mind-body problem separately. Part one will examine how the film broached the subject of skepticism, and in doing so how it ties in to Descartes and Plato. Part two will analyze the mind-body problems as raised by the movie and how those problems hold true or not to Descartes’ and Plato’s ideas.
The philosophical theory of dualism holds that mind and body are two separate entities. While dualism presupposes that the two ‘substances’ may interact, it contrasts physicalism by refusing to denote correlation between body and mind as proof of identity. Comparing the two theories, dualism’s invulnerable proof of the existence of qualia manages to evade arguments from physicalism. While a common argument against qualia—non-physical properties defined in Jackson’s Knowledge Argument—targets the unsound nature of epiphenomenalism, this claim is not fatal to the theory of dualism as it contains claims of causation and fails to stand resolute to the conceivability of philosophical zombies. This essay argues that epiphenomenalism, while often designated as a weakness when present in an argument, can remain in valid arguments from qualia.
Another one of Descartes arguments supporting the separation of humans and animals is that if machines were created to resemble and act like animals, there is no way we would be able to tell them from the real thing. Unlike the animals though, a machine created to resemble a human could never pass off as real. According to Descartes, it would be impossible to get the machine to react to other humans in an appropriate way. Human conversations are too complicated for machines to understand and interact properly without flaw. This is what separates humans from animals. Even the dumbest ma...
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 'mind-body' problem has troubled philosophers for centuries. This is because no human being has been able to sufficiently explain how the mind actually works and how this mind relates to the body - most importantly to the brain. If this were not true then there would not be such heated debates on the subject. No one objects to the notion that the Earth revolves around the sun because it is empirical fact. However, there is no current explanation on the mind that can be accepted as fact. In 'What is it like to be a bat?', Thomas Nagel does not attempt to solve this 'problem'. Instead, he attempts to reject the reductionist views with his argument on subjectivity. He examines the difficulties of the mind-body problem by investigating the conscious experience of an organism, which is usually ignored by the reductionists. Unfortunately, his arguments contain some flaws but they do shed some light as to why the physicalist view may never be able to solve the mind-body problem.
This paper aims to endorse physicalism over dualism by means of Smart’s concept of identity theory. Smart’s article Sensations and the Brain provides a strong argument for identity theory and accounts for many of it primary objections. Here I plan to first discuss the main arguments for physicalism over dualism, then more specific arguments for identity theory, and finish with further criticisms of identity theory.
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.
The differences of mind and soul have intrigued mankind since the dawn of time, Rene Descartes, Thomas Nagel, and Plato have addressed the differences between mind and matter. Does the soul remain despite the demise of its material extension? Is the soul immaterial? Are bodies, but a mere extension of forms in the physical world? Descartes, Nagel, and Plato agree that the immaterial soul and the physical body are distinct entities.
Descartian dualism is one of the most long lasting legacies of Rene Descartes’ philosophy. He argues that the mind and body operate as separate entities able to exist without one another. That is, the mind is a thinking, non-extended entity and the body is non-thinking and extended. His belief elicited a debate over the nature of the mind and body that has spanned centuries, a debate that is still vociferously argued today. In this essay, I will try and tackle Descartes claim and come to some conclusion as to whether Descartes is correct to say that the mind and body are distinct.
Animalism bases its conclusion on personal identity that the bodies must have the same material body. It fails to address the mind of the bodies at both time t and t*. Also, though the body stays qualitatively identical (same properties); it’s not numerical identical (same substance). Nevertheless, psychological continuity focuses on the mind of the person but not its body. It suggest that
If a machine passes the test, then it is clear that for many ordinary people it would be a sufficient reason to say that that is a thinking machine. And, in fact, since it is able to conversate with a human and to actually fool him and convince him that the machine is human, this would seem t...
In his Meditations on First Philosophy, René Descartes seeks to prove that corporeal objects exist. This argument is put forth based on the principles and supposed facts he has built up throughout the Meditations. In order to fully understand his argument for the existence of corporeal things, one must trace his earlier arguments for effects and their causes, the existence of God, the nature of God, and his ability to never make mistakes.
Philosophers focus primary on the nature of reality and question what exists or any other concept regarding the first principle of things. This is known as Metaphysics. Metaphysics has a variety of problems that each describes our existence, for example what reality really is and others separating the mind and body relation to each other or are they opposites. In this article the main focus will be on an interesting problem in Metaphysics called the mental and the physical and the simplicity of describing and understanding of this problem with guidance of popular philosophers like Desecrates and my understanding of the problem. What connections if there are any between the mind and the body and if they are the same?
The discussion begins regarding animals as non-human machines, all of whose actions can be fully explained without the inference of a mind. Descartes declared, most human behavior, like that of animals, is susceptible to simple mechanistic explanation. Uniquely designed bodily regulations can be imitated by carefully designed machines (19). Thus, Descartes argued, it is only the general ability to adapt to widely varying circumstances—and, in particular, the capacity to respond creatively in the use of language—that provides a sure test for the presence of an immaterial soul associated with the normal human
An automaton is a mechanical robot that can be defined as a machine that moves itself. Descartes believed that humans and animals moved and acted in the same fashion of the automatons. A hydraulic system is how Descartes explained movements in humans: the brain pushed fluid from the brain through the nerves to our body causing humans to move (Bolles 25-30). After his death, scientist did an experiment and came to the conclusion that the hydraulic idea was incorrect. What might seem as a complete failure of an idea actually became one of the beginning ideas of a reflexive theory (Schultz 26).