Arguments Against Physical Machines Jenna Beran
In A Contemporary Defense of Dualism, J. P. Moreland challenges the problem of mind and body. He uses the terms intentionality and subjectivity to argue that humans are not physical machines. Subjectivity is the opinions and feelings from experience that is unique to the individual. Intentionality describes how thought can be directed on a particular object. This is consciousness. These terms are what make human beings distinct from physical machines. Moreland argues that human beings are different from a physical machine because humans have a mind that uses intentionality and subjectivity.
Moreland compares the intentionality and subjectivity of physical things to the mind. Humans are able to think about desires and beliefs with the use of intentionality. We are not just a bundle of nerves that take in sensory information and give feedback because of the intentionality of the mind. Instead, human beings are able to process the sensory information, and give feedback through unique opinions. The combination of consciousness and experience are what makes every human unique in the world. When looking at a physical object like a computer, it doesn’t have the characteristics of subjectivity and intentionality. The computer does not have subjectivity because it cannot feel emotions. The computer also doesn’t have intentionality because it cannot express its beliefs. Humans can envision objects that do not really exist such as a
In this paper, I will examine the principal merits and challenges of René Descartes’ concept of dualism and then defend my preferred alternative among the options Paul M. Churchland discusses. After briefly defining Cartesian Dualism, I will show that its principal merits are that it is consistent with common sense and that it is able to explain phenomena that appear mental in nature. Next, I will show that its principal challenges are its failure to adequately explain how the mind and the body can causally interact, and its failure to respond to the observation that brain damage impairs the mind. Finally, I will explain why Functionalism is the best alternative to Cartesian Dualism.
According to J.P. Moreland in his argument for dualism, he states that humans are composed of both an immaterial substance and a physical substance. Moreland notes that there are contrasting differences between the minds and the brains and that they are ultimately separate entities. By defending dualism, Moreland seeks to make nonbelievers believe in immaterial souls, while discrediting materialism. We can look at the arguments in which Moreland uses to support the argument of dualism and belief that the mind and brain are separate entities.
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.
In David M. Armstrong’s “The Nature of Mind”, Armstrong praises the field of science and seeks to put the concept of mind into terms that agree with science’s definition of minds. His interest is in the physico-chemical, materialist view of man. Armstrong considers science to be the authority over other disciplines because of its reliability and result in consensus over disputed questions.
Summary: The problem of the soul continues as Descartes suggested that the human is composed of two completely different substances; a physical body which Descartes compares with a machine, and a non-physical mind, related to the soul, that allows humans to think and feel even if it has no “measurable dimensions” (67). But Elizabeth put in doubt his ideologies when she realized that a non-physical thing doesn’t have the strength to push and move the body. This led to several questions unanswered and also let space for other materialist theories such as behaviorism, mind-brain identity, and functionalism, which also fail in offering an explicit solution.
As we have discussed, Aristotle separated the souls into four categories (nutritive, movement, perception, and understanding). Aristotle believed that it is the understanding soul separated humans from their animal counterparts who possessed the three other souls. He thought that because humans possessed the ability to understand their perceptions as well as their own self, they should be granted a higher distinction. Although Midgley does not talk about her ideas on the soul or the self, this example still shows another instance where intelligence was used as the basis for comparison and distinction. However, Charles Taylor had viewpoints that mirror Midgley’s ideas. Taylor used the consciousness as representation as one of his technique to separate persons, agents and mere things. In this instance, consciousness was the defining factor between persons and agents. It could easily be argued that animals have a conscious, thus putting them in the persons category. Taylor’s ideas are the first steps to new ideas on how to classify and categorize persons, agents, and mere things.
Within this nature of thinking Picard skillfully argues the mind is not separate from the body though it cannot be physically seen, it still allows functions like emotions and decisions which resembles the work of a self-operating computer, the human
We being humans consider ourselves to have a mind, yet we treat things that may not have a mind differently. The way we distinguish whether something has a mind or not is often termed the marks of the mental. There are two properties that almost all philosophers can agree on that are marks of a mental state. The first property would be, only mental states have intentionally. Intentionality helps support the anti-physicalism view of the mind body problem because of psychological attitudes. These are often, beliefs,
As the body is a form of communication, a medium in of itself, it is worth questioning if all bodies are created equal. For one, theories regarding the “hardware” and “software” of human beings help to explain this idea,
In Mark Twain's article, the old man is certain that human beings are noting more than machines, while the young man opposites this belief. The old man suggests that people are impersonal machines, which means that we do not have own opinions. He provides some examples to support this viewpoint.
We live in an age when many of us are always using technology. There are many devices that people use, such as smart phones, iPad, computers, game counsels, and many more. We use these devises for entertainment, communication, and work my mom uses technology for her work she is an assistant principle so she has to use a computer. My dad is a firefighter he needs technology for the people that call him when there is a fire. That is why adults need technology it is important for some jobs.
Speculative materialism arose in response to the post-Kantian philosophy of correlationism. Scholars have since debated the relationship of the perceived (object) and the perceiver (subject). Kant’s transcendental materialist philosophy supports what Quentin Meillassoux terms weak correlationism in that it allows for the thinking of the unknowable. However, strong correlationist (i.e. Heidegger and Hegel) refute that humans can escape their own thoughts, therefore making it impossible to know or even imagine that anything outside of the correlationist circle (objects in and of themselves) exists. Both Catherine Malabou and Levi Bryant can be seen as emphasizing speculative materialism in that they attempt to move beyond this subject-object correlate. While Malabou describes neuronal plasticity in What Should We Do With Our Brain, Bryant focuses on “machines” and their ontology in Onto-Cartography: An Ontology of Machines and Media. Malabou’s ultimate description of the resistance and contradiction between the brain and mind fails to be accounted for by Bryant’s ontology and conception of “machines”. Bryant’s object oriented ontology does little to explain the origin of freedom in his “machines” (whereby we can begin to take charge of society); however, Bryant does suggest the use of thermopolitics to attack institutions. Together, Malabou and Bryant’s philosophies provide new ways of thinking about
Matt Lawrence mentions mind-body dualism as a possible answer to some of the many philosophical questions brought up in the Matrix trilogy of films, but what is mind-body dualism? In this paper I will attempt to answer that question by delving into and defining the concept, examining one of the minds that formulated it and how he did just that, while also briefly touching upon a few counterpoints and ideas that may negate the theory altogether.
Merleau-Ponty advocates that people get the essence through our bodies. The “body” means “an expressive mode of belonging the world through our perception, gesture, sexuality, and speech.” (Kearney, 1986; pp. 73). In other words, people cannot separate themselves from their perception of the world because it is the essential background of the experience. Different from Husserl’s reduction method to eliminate the embodied relationship to the world; Merleau-Ponty emphasizes the key idea of “ embodied consciousness” when we get the essence.
As Descartes says, the mind and the body are one cohesive “object” that produce the behaviors and actions of a human being, Mind Body Dualism. However, is this concept truly intended to prove that, metaphorically speaking, the mind and body are one and that it is, physiologically speaking, connected through the pineal gland? Or, does it show that Descartes is connecting a material and immaterial substance, that both contain two different ideas in the proper function of a human being? The intention of Descartes philosophy is to show that there is an association that exists between the mind, a “thinking thing,” and the body, a physical human structure. However, Ryle believes that Mind Body Dualism adheres to the concept of behaviorism. Taking into consideration Descartes’ argument and Ryle’s objection, I will explain throughout the essay how Ryle’s idea of behaviorism is more reasonable and suitable for explaining the philosophy of Mind Body Dualism.