Analysis Of Mcmahan 's The Metaphysics Of Brain Death

The mind is a complex myriad of thoughts and psychological systems that even philosophers today cannot entirely grapple. It is composed of the senses, feelings, perceptions, and a whole series of other components. However, the mind is often believed to be similar or even the same as the brain. This gives rise to the mind-brain identity theory, and whether there exists a clear distinction between the physical world and the non-material mind. In this paper, I will delineate the similarities and differences between mind and brain, describe the relevant ideas such as functionalism and materialism, and provide explanations on how these theories crystallized. Further, I will discuss the differing views of this concept from multiple philosophers’ perspectives and highlight the significance of each. Ultimately, I will defend the view that the mind-brain identity theory is false by analyzing its errors and examining the invalid assumptions it makes about consciousness.

The neocortical brain death definition suggests that death occurs when the cerebrum or upper brain dies, eliminating speech, consciousness and thought; basically, an individual is dead when their personality dies. The trouble here is that an individual who has

Armstrong begins his paper with a question for the reader of what it means to have a mind. It is well understood that man has the ability to perceive, to think, to feel, and so on, but what does it mean to perceive, to think, and to feel? The answer, he believes, lies in science. Seeing that science is constantly and rapidly gaining ground, he asserts that “...we can give a complete account of man in purely physico-chemical terms” (295?) Pointing out the fact that this view has been accepted by various scientists throughout time, he explains it is the most reliable way to approach the mind-body problem.

Thesis: The mind-body problem arises because of the lack of evidence when looking for a specific explanation of the interaction of mental and physical states, and the origin and even existence of them.

This has been part of my own journey of understanding myself while learning to transition from a faith centered community to a scientific community, and dealing with the personal challenges. My opinion on this topic may change and develop over time, but I wanted to chart my own process and check my understanding of the topic.

In this essay it will be argued that the soul is mortal and does not survive the death of the body. As support, the following arguments from Lucretius will be examined: the “proof from the atomic structure of the soul,” the “proof from parallelism of mind and body,” the “proof from the sympatheia of mind and body,” and the “proof from the structural connection between mind and body.” The following arguments from Plato will be used as counterarguments against Lucretius: the “cyclical argument,” the “affinity argument,” the “argument from the form of life,” and the “recollection argument.” It will be shown that Plato’s premises lack validity and that Lucretius’

Lucretius expands on this first truth by observing that while the soul cannot have any effect without a body, the effects of physical blows suffered by the body are shared in by the soul. “You perceive the mind to suffer along with the body, and to share our feeling in the body. If the grim force of a weapon driven deep to the dividing of bones and sinews fails to hit life, yet a languor follows and a blissful fall to the ground... and sometimes a kind of hesitating desire to rise” (161). The direct effects of physical injury felt by the body on the mind, he writes, are proof that “the nature of the mind must be bodily, since it suffers by bodily weapons and blows” (161). In fact, Lucretius’ example of a mind weakened by blood loss is only the beginning of the many forms of havoc physical trauma can wreak upon the mind. Relatively recent examples include the case study of Phineas Gage, whose life survived the destruction of a portion of his brain in an accident, but whose personality assuredly did not. According to reports from the company that had employed him, Gage, once the possessor of “temperate habits” and “considerable energy of character,” was transformed by his injury into an individual described as “‘Fitful,’ ‘irreverent,’ [and] grossly profane” (Macmillan 829). In less extreme cases, cognitive functioning and personality are altered temporarily on a daily basis by the consumption of alcohol and drugs or with psychiatric

The philosophical thought is that the mind and body are two separate things; with one being able to exist without the other has caused much discussion and debate among philosophers and theologians over the years. René Descartes and Plato, two well-known philosophers, argue that people have a mind or soul, which is somehow connected with the body, but the mind or soul can exist independently from our body. Descartes introduces the mind-body argument while Plato presents the soul-body argument. Although the arguments differ in some ways, Descartes and Plato also have similar opinions on the issue. As a person of faith, there is some difficulty in explaining to a non-believer that when a person dies, the soul does not perish with the body. While siding with Descartes and his belief in a perfect God, this essay seeks to review the issues of dualism and meditation, through the eyes of Descartes and Plato.

It can be very difficult to find a universal proposal that offers a solution to the mind body problem. While solutions to this problem differ greatly, all attempt to answer questions such as: What makes a mental state mental? What is the fundamental nature of the mental? Or more specifically speaking, what makes a thought a thought? Or what makes a pain a pain? In an attempt to answer these questions, many philosophers over the centuries have rejected, proposed, or altered preexisting theories in order to keep up with the thinking and science of their times. Entering the 21st century their still exit a plethora of theories, some stronger than others, which include Cartesian dualism, physicalism,

The mind-body problem is an age-old topic in philosophy that questions the relationship between the mental aspect of life, such as the field of beliefs, pains, and emotions, and the physical side of life which deals with matter, atoms, and neurons. There are four concepts that each argue their respective sides. For example, Physicalism is the belief that humans only have a physical brain along with other physical structures, whereas Idealism argues that everything is mind-based. Furthermore, Materialism argues that the whole universe is purely physical. However, the strongest case that answers the commonly asked questions such as “Does the mind exist?” and “Is the mind your brain?” is Dualism.

In all instances when a person dies he/she ceases to exist. Fred Feldman would agree that when a living thing dies it ceases to exist as a living thing; when a psychological person does he/she ceases to exist as psychological person. Feldman reformulated Rosenberg’s thought that when “someone dies you burry the remains but not the person that they were.” Feldman’s interpretation imposed,” When someone who has been a person dies, “We have a corpse on our hands” to only say,” A corpse is not a person.” Rosenberg’s thought was interpreted into two main arguments; the argument of psychologically, and biologically.

One thing that ponders almost all who live is what happens after one dies. There are multiple theories about life after death, or the absence of it, many dependent on one’s religious beliefs. However, this is also a question philosophers have faced and come up with theories for. Bertrand Russell, a well-known philosopher from the twentieth century, has a theory on the matter. His theory on life after death, in standard form, is as follows: There is a strong correlation between brain states and mental states. In particular, the correlation between brain damage and impairment in mental capacity. So, probably all the mental states and capacities that we associate with a particular person are ontologically dependent on the continued functioning of that individual 's brain. So, if one 's brain ceases to function, then one 's mind ceases, as well. If you survive death, then your mind must survive. But, brain functioning ceases with death. Therefore, you will not survive death (Zelinski “On”). The argument is valid but some question whether it is sound. Russell 's argument is sound because the third premise, if one’s brain ceases to function, then one’s mind ceases to function, is true; the fifth premise, brain functioning ceases with death, is also true; that all leads to the conclusion, your mind will not survive death, being true.

The abstract idea of life cannot be explained by such simple ideas as being animated, breathing, or speaking. Ordinary machines in this century can perform all of these basic functions. The quandary with defining death is not as abstract and elusive as that of life. The problem of defining life and death has plagued philosophers and the religious bodies for thousands of years for one reason; each philosophy or religion has tried to define the meaning of life and death from only their certain perspective. The seemingly appropriate approach to this problem would be to understand the ideas presented in various philosophies and religions and through this knowledge create a new definition for each idea of life

Some would choose to declare that every human being is both a body and a mind. Both being gelled together until death, than having the mind go on to exist and the body being lifeless. A person lives throughout two collateral histories, one having to do with what happens to the body and in it, and the other being what happens in and to the mind. What happens to the body is public and what happens to the mind is private. The events which reply to the body consist of the physical world, and the events of the mind consist of the mental world.

The first view discussed if the possibility that humans have immortal souls that contain a unique identity and mental capacity, in which may still exist even if a person is brain dead. Tooley quickly discredits this view with the long existing scientific evidence that all mental capacity lies within the brain, and that strong scientific evidences exists that provide a correlation between behavioral capacities and different neural structures of the brain. Another view that is discussed is distinguishing between active and passive potentialities when discussing the moral nature of destroying the potentiality for personhood. Tooley believes that the destruction of passive potentiality for personhood is moral,