Analysis Of Paul Churchland's Arguments Supporting The Identity Theory

In a series of relatively simple though complexly-worded (out of necessity) thought experiments regarding body-swapping and changes to memory and the mind, Bernard Williams attempts to demonstrate that identity should be identified with the body rather than with the mind when identity is extended into the future (and by extension during the present). That is, though it is typical for identity to be associated with the mind at any given moment, Williams argues that the logic that supports this intuitive association does not hold up over longer periods of time, and that anticipation of the future leads to an association of identity with the body rather than with the mind. Whether or not Williams is successful in this attempt is a matter of much debate, with this author finding some fundamental flaws in the very premise of the comparisons and thus the conclusions, however the argument is fairly elegant and persuasive and certainly worth of closer inspection. A careful reading of the argument might lead one to a conclusion opposite to that which was intended, but is no less rewarding for this unusual quirk.

According to Georgetown University Medical Center, the study of neuroscience is what the nervous system does, how it develops and the structure. The focus is mainly on the impact of the brain on cognitive and behavior functions (Nordqvist, 2017). Neuroscience looks at how the nervous system reacts to people who have neurological, neurodevelopmental, psychiatric disorders (Nordqvist, 2017). Researchers Combs-Orme, Egan, and Neely-Barnes mention that neuroscience can enrich what we understand of the brains role within human development and behavior. New perceptions into “biology’s contributions to our multilayered biopsychosocial model” can be provided by neuroscience (Comb-Orme et al., 2011). The support

The mind-brain identity theory is an ontological perspective which centers around the idea that the mind can be closely associated with the brain to be considered the same. In other words, a person’s mind processes are coherent with their brain processes. It is a significant topic included in the philosophy of mind. According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, the identity theory of mind is “to the effect that these experiences just are brain processes, not merely correlated with brain processes”. In this

In this essay, I am going to write a response to the objection raised by the functionalists towards identity theory. Identity theory is a form of physicalism; it states that a particular mental state is identical to a particular physical state of body and brain, for instance mental sensation such as pain is simply just the firing of C-fibres (Smart, 1959). This is a reductionist view as it reduces our psychological state to a materialistic and physical form. A prominent objection against identity theory is Functionalism, in which the main advocate Hilary Putnam stated that identity theory is too narrow as it ignores multiple realisability. In the next paragraph, I will write a little more about functionalism, and in the end, I will ultimately conclude that functionalism is a better theory than identity theory.

For centuries philosophers have engaged themselves into conversations and arguments trying to figure out the nature of a human person; this has lead to various theories and speculation about the nature of the human mind and body. The question they are tying to answer is whether a human being is made of only the physical, body and brain, or both the physical or the mental, mind. In this paper I will focus on the mind-body Identity Theory to illustrate that it provides a suitable explanation for the mind and body interaction.

Many researchers have sought out an explanation for the mysteries hidden within our brain and how it operates. Recent studies have shown that the brain functions more as a muscle allowing it to continue to grow or contract. If these studies prove to be true, this could forever change how people interact or associate with their brains.

* M1 Discuss the principal psychological perspectives applied to the understanding of the development of individuals

Churchland breaks it down to this: if mental states are identical all to brain states then when you observe you mental states you are also observing the brain state which is identical. Churchland states, “ I may not describe my mental state as a brain state but whether I do depends on what information I have about the brain, not upon whether the mental state really is identical to some brain state . The identity can be a fact about the world independently of my knowledge that is a fact about the world” (Churchland, 2).She gives the following example “ Jones swallows an aspirin, he thereby swallows acetylsalicylic acid, whether or not he thought” in other words “identities may obtain even when we have not discovered that they do”(Churchland, 2).

The concept of neuroplasticity has long been questioned. The term of “neuroplasticity” did not even come about until the mid-late 20th century. When the term “plastic” was used to describe the brain by a select few neuroscientists, they were laughed at and the term was never thought of as a description for the human brain. The human brain was seen as a closed circuit and one that once you had it, you definitely had it. Scientists thought the brain would not develop anymore past a certain point in your life. Norman Doidge brings the concept of neuroplasticity into reality in his book “The Brain that Changes Itself,” a book about the triumphs in the frontier of brain science.

In, “A Dialogue on Personal Identity and Immortality,” the author, John Perry, proposes three totally different ways of thinking about personal identity. The first theory is presented by a character named Gretchen Weirob, she believes that a person is their body. By this she means that a person’s identity is intertwined with the DNA and molecules of their body. Their personality as well as their personal identity can’t be separated from their body, and they cannot exist without it. The second theory was presented by a character named Sam Miller, he believes that a person is their immaterial soul. So in general, Sam thinks that the soul is this invisible, immaterial substance that is able to exist from the body. The third and final theory was presented by a character named Dave Cohen. Cohen believes that a person has continuity of memory, and/or psychology. So in general Cohen’s theory is that personal identity is a set of correlating experiences and/or memories enclosed in the brain. All three of the personal identity theories state some very valid points, but they also have some inconsistencies, some more than others. But there is one theory that seems to be the most credible, and creates a very compelling argument while also having a little science to back up some of its points.

In the 1960’s, Hilary Putnam introduced the world of philosophy to the multiple realizability argument against identity theory. Her main point in her argument was that, if identity theory holds to be true, than all living creatures who experience pain, such as humans, mammals, reptiles, etc., must have a commonly shared physical-chemical brain state which directly relates to a certain mental

In the world of philosophy, there has been an ever growing skepticism of the relationship between the human body and its mental state. The physical state of a person is tangible, meaning that they can be seen by anyone and touched. While the mental state of a person is embedded in their consciencousness, meaning that it can’t be observed by others unless willing expressed by said person. I will be using Leibniz’s law of identity to show that the metal states of an individual are distinct from a physical state. Using the notion of sameness, I can prove a valid argument that the physical and mental states are distinct. While this theory in part can be debated, some identity theorists can provide a rebuttal this claim. I will provide a response to an identity theorist rebuttal.

This, I led me too a love of psychology. How wonderful was it that there was a whole science devoted just to that one mystical organ? Studying the brain, we can unlock the doors to human

the same way, the Identity Theory dives into the future of the sciences to explain the

I do not believe that the Identity theory solves the mind/body problem as well, because the identity theorists they fail to construe what consciousness is from both the internalists and externalists perspectives. Since something as complex as consciousness cannot be simplified to physical properties as the identity theorists would like to think so, then they are left with the question of how someone is able to understand if they really, in fact, aware of their consciousness.