Argument Of Panpsychism

In life, there’s much that seems confusing. We always want simple explanations for everything, but there are some theories that simply don’t possess an “easy way of putting it.” Many of these theories are used in literature; examples include nihilism, existentialism, and monism. However, there’s one theory that’s particularly interesting: solipsism. Solipsism is the belief that nothing exists, or can be proven to exist, except one’s own mind and the creations of it (Glossary). Solipsism is a very old, and often misunderstood, theory. Although it’s used in literature, in books such as Grendel by John Gardner, solipsism also occurs in everyday life. However, it’s not always easy to find. If we wish to do so, we must to take time to ponder.

Many philosophers have considered the mystery of consciousness to be a “hard problem.” In “The Hornswoggle Problem,” Patricia Churchland rejects the characterization of consciousness as a uniquely hard problem, and asserts her belief that arguing the unknown nature of consciousness, absent any scientific evidence is an argument from ignorance. A proponent of the “hard problem” would instead argue that consciousness possesses a subjective aspect that makes it uniquely different from all other problems. In this paper, it is my contention that Churchland is correct to reject the ‘hard’ problem argument; and without any objective inquiry or research, this “hard problem” argument lacks needed intellectual vigor, and tends to further

Very little is known about the nature of the human mind. The mental and social life of humans is based on the mind, yet not much is known about it and the extent to which it can go. In all cultures there is a belief about the mind, the heart, and the soul, with a variety of notions about these parts of the human being. Psyche in its ancient sense is extended to limits that go beyond the human body in many of the existing cultures. Surveys that have been done in most countries of the West, Britain, and the U.S have consistently shown that a significant portion of the populations in these regions believe in the occurrence of psychic phenomenon and more than fifty percent believe that they have at one point or another personally experienced it (Sheldrake 102). Considering these beliefs and experiences, it is senseless to claim that the mind is only restricted to the brain. This makes the advocates of mechanistic orthodoxy make an assertion that since paranormal phenomena lacks a scientific explanation, it is non-existent. According to scientific education, this is regarded as superstition but there still calls for need of more study and research into this widespread phenomenon.

Jonathan Vogel wrote Skepticism and Inference to the Best Explanation as a solution to accept the real world hypothesis over any skeptical hypothesis. Vogel presents a compelling argument for a definitive reason to accept that the world we are experiencing is in fact the real world. I believe that Vogel’s argument falls short of proving a reason for accepting the real world hypothesis over a skeptical one. In this paper I will clearly explain Vogels argument, explain some important concepts to understand, and attempt to refute the argument.

Daniel Bor, a psychological researcher, and author, wrote an article titled “When Do We Become Truly Conscious” published on September 4, 2012 and in this article he discusses the idea of consciousness. Through use of deductive reasoning Bor refers to early opinions viewing consciousness as magic and discusses the science behind demystifying consciousness. Bor also discusses the ethical arguments behind learning for about consciousness. Bor also lists some of the emotional arguments centered on human awareness. Bor’s use of rhetorical strategies is designed to state his opinion in a simple and easily read way.

Humans are naturally curious creatures. One’s inquisitive mindset might lead to all sorts of discoveries or answers to cosmic questions. However, the world and the life one lives inside the world are not always as they seem to be at first glance. What one does know about the world is based solely on their perception of reality and one person’s perspective will differ from the next. How does one know when they look at the blue sky or the green grass that the other people around them are witnessing the same scene they are experiencing? Should the stranger on the street fear another stranger simply because they are unable to know for absolute certainty that other is not a deranged, cannibalistic murderer?

Growing up, I had this weird belief that perhaps I was the only conscious person, and that everyone around me was placed there to keep me from realizing I was the only one. I began to question why I would do things for others if this were the case. When I got older I threw aside this suspicion, because why would two-dimensional people be all so full and different? Filled to the dripping-point with experiences, thoughts, fears. As I socialized and grew I realized that I could never truly comprehend the infinity of stories that walked around me, wrapped in skin and supported with bone. I also learned that some people never try to.

In the psychiatric hospital there is a control effect, similar to that of the panoptican which is a cylinder shaped building, that symbolizes power and control. this power and control in the panoptican, has also been presented in One Flew Over The Cuckoos Nest; the head nurse from the psychiatric hospital shows is very controlling and dominant. These behavioral actions are what creates a panoptican. The patients know that the head nurse is in the hospital but they do not always know where she is but at anytime they don’t know whether they are being watched or not. This shows that the nurse is visible and verifiable. If the patients are caught misbehaving, they could be sent to the shock shop or to the lobotomy room to correct their behavior.

​Each individual of humankind was born with a natural curiousness about oneself and one’s surroundings. Seeking the truth and explanation of those things is human instinct. In the past, the ancestors believed that any natural phenomena were created by supernatural powers of God. After hundreds or thousands of years, these phenomena have been logically explained by scientific methods and theories. However, in 20th century, when these two different explanations interpreted with each other, it became a controversial issue questioning which one was right and which one was wrong. The Scopes Monkey

Affecting about 1% of the population, schizophrenia causes more anxiety in the media, in the public, and even in doctors' offices more than any other mental illness. It is the most stigmatized and most misunderstood psychological disorder of them all, even among psychologists. Among the many fallacies that surround the disorder is the name in itself. Schizophrenia literally means, from Greek,“split mind” but contrary to popular belief, the condition has nothing to do with a split in personality or multiple personalities. The term refers instead to a “split from reality”, which is usually what inflicts what we stereotype to be “schizophrenics.” However, multiple Personality Disorder, now known as Dissociative Identity Disorder, is the kind

Pantheism is a doctrine that identifies God with the universe, or regards the universe as a manifestation of God. Indians of believed of a “Great Spirit” a being similar to God. They believe that the Great Spirit resides in everything they see and have. This is similar to pantheism which regards God exists everywhere and in everything.​

My choosing of critiquing this bullet point comes from personal experience. Moreover, my father has schizophrenia and it is very evident that the disease is real. Some days, he will be “normal” and other days he will have an episode or multiple episodes. For example, we can be doing something like bowling and then, all of the sudden, it is like a flip of a switch and he will be making buzzing noises or telling me that the voices won’t stop. It could be as simple as riding in the car and he will begin to speak to his dog that didn’t come along with us. Some days, I cannot even handle being around him, because I know I cannot “fix” his schizophrenia and he cannot help that he was born with the disease.

This paper will address the problem of skepticism. My focus will be exclusively on Global Skepticism as it is more controversial than Local Skepticism. The stance I am seeking to persuade you to take is one regarding the question of whether or not Global Skepticism is justified. In this paper I will discuss and analyze what other philosophers have said about the topic, my argument, how my opponents might object to my arguments, and how I respond to those objections. My hope is the conclusion to my argument will convince you that Global Skepticism is not justified and we can, in fact, come to ‘know’ things about our reality and obtain knowledge.

By viewing reality in this bifurcated way, it is still philosophically useful to an extent as it provides different perspectives to worldly problems. It forces humans to critically evaluate their knowledge, along with ethical and practical considerations and practices When adopting this view, it should be done so with caution as there are still some flaws within this way of thinking.

Many are disconcerted by the idea that humans and Minds can be described as systems which operate based on interpretations of symbols, much like machines, computers, and robots: things that we have created yet do not think of as being “thinking,” themselves. We, as human beings, are comforted in the notion that we are born into this world with a fully capable Mind, a soul or spirit, and are, thereafter, free to choose our fate as we will. Although it seems plausible that we are born with Mind, I cannot subscribe to such a simplistic version of thinking about our true capacity for affecting outcome.