Suppose that an alien life form from outer space came to earth in a technologically sophisticated craft and that tests on the creature revealed that it did not possess anything like a brain. Identity theorists would argue that this creature does not affect the argument on whether or not consciousness exists. A Cartesian dualist would argue that it is possible for the creature to have a consciousness because the mind and the body are completely individual of each other. Identity theorists such as J. J. C. Smart would argue that this creature does not have an impact on the argument for or against consciousness. Smart argues that “a man is a vast arrangement of physical particles, but there are not, over and above this, sensations or states of consciousness.” He …show more content…
Nagel argues that as long as there is something that it is to be like that organism, than that organism can have a consciousness. We can imagine what it is like to not be physical, to not have a body at all; we just float around in no particular space without the ability to do anything other than think. Chalmers Zombie argument proposes the logical possibility of a “zombie.” The type of zombie Chalmers proposes is unlike Hollywood zombies which tend to be behaviorally impaired or physically disfigured, but rather are identical to us molecule for molecule. The only difference between us and our zombies would be the lack of any conscious experience in the zombies. This suggests that it is logically possible to possess a brain but lack a conscious; the brain and the mind are independent of each other, and there is nothing it is to be like a Chalmers
In his writings, “A Contemporary Defense of Dualism,” J.P. Moreland argues the point that the mind and brain are separate from each other. It seems as a quick thought that both are the same. However, the mind deals with ideas, thoughts and hopes. The brain is made up of the neural process. Throughout the entire argument, Moreland tries to prove the theory of physicalism, which is the idea that only things that exist are composed of matter. His explanation is that the soul doesn’t exist and the brain controls everything.
And though a large part of the ego is unconscious, it nevertheless includes what we think of as the conscious mind.
Many arguments in the philosophy of the mind have been made for and against, whether or not the mind and the brain are the same entity. The mind-brain identity theory is the view that the mind is the brain and that mental states are brain states (Mandik 77). Therefore, we can identify sensations and other mental processes with physical brain processes (Blutner 4). I argue, that the mind is not identical to the brain, and the conceivable idea of zombies, as well as the multiple realizability argument, can disprove this theory.
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.
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