Comparing Physicalists with Dualists

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.

I would like to begin this paper by addressing what question I hope to answer through the entirety of this paper: is the mind physical? As simple as this question may seem to be, there still, to this day, is not a definite answer. There are, mostly, two approaches to answering this problem, through dualism or physicalism. The dualist, for the purposes of this paper, simply believes that the mind and the body are not equal and therefore, they are not one in the same. The physicalist, however, would come back to say that there are no such things as non-physical objects and therefore, they would conclude that the body and the mind are both physical. After weighing on both sides of this argument, I am going to defend the physicalist ideas and

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.

An issue with the Dualism is that it believes an immaterial object is able to control a material object. Dualism believes the soul to be immaterial, yet able to control the actions and movements of an unrelated material object. This simply is not possible, and has been disproved by research-backed science. If it were possible, the soul would be able to control the movements of other miscellaneous objects and people, which it obviously is not able to do. This proves that the soul is directly connected to the body, and that body and soul are both needed in the creation, existence, and function of human beings.

     For centuries philosophers have debated on monism and dualism, two different philosophical views of the human person. Philosophers have been trying to decipher whether the person is made up of the mind, the body, or both. Monists hold the belief that existence is purely based upon one ultimate “category of being” this means that either the person is made up of only the body or only the mind (Morris p155). Dualists hold the belief that existence is based upon the body as well as the mind and its mental properties (Morris p155).

In this philosophy paper, I will be considering arguments against dualism and how dualism fails in spite of what Eccles says in his ‘Unitary Hypothesis of Mind-Brain Interaction in the Cerebral Cortex’ paper. I will begin by assessing arguments for the existence of the mind and soul and explain why they are no good. I will then offer counter-examples to support my thesis that materialism is the most persuasive argument, and will then analyse Eccles’s paper with reference to my counter examples.

Are the mind and the brain one unit? Well, depending on who you ask, you will get a different answer. Monists believe the brain and mind are one entity and dualists believe they are separate. I think the mind and the brain are two very different parts of what make us who we are, making me a dualist. The brain, specifically the brain stem, is what keeps us alive. The mind, you could argue, is not as important to keeping us alive, but it is what gives us each a personality and identity. Our minds are ever changing, learning from our mistakes and forming our ethics and morals. The mind and the brain function together harmoniously, but are not one in the same.

Functionalism, one of the most influential and widespread theories of mind of our day, proposes a model of human behaviour based on the way certain inputs are processed when the mind is in a given state, to yield certain outputs. This theory concerns itself only what mental states do, rather than the substance with which they are made, or whether they exist at all; this is called ‘multiple realizability’. In other words, the theory is ontologically modest, or flexible, and this enables functionalism to stay compatible with Cartesian dualism or monisms like materialism, an advantage when other theories lose followers due to their ontological preconceptions. The other notable strength functionalism claims is that it avoids some of the pitfalls of its counterpart theory, behaviourism. However each of these apparent strengths has flaws, both in and of themselves and in comparison to other theories of mind. These strengths and their flaws will be assessed in this essay, but allow me first to outline what the functionalist theory of mind proposes.

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.

“The mind-body dualism, in philosophy, is the fact that any theory that the mind and body are distinct kinds of substances or natures. This position implies that mind and body not only differ in meaning, but refer to different kinds of entities (Britannica).” The most basic form of dualism is substance dualism. Substance dualism is the idea that he mind and body are composed of two ontologically distinct substances. According to one who believes and studies dualism, the mind is comprised of a non-physical substance, while the body is constituted of the physical substance, also known as matter. Dualism is closely related to the philosophy of Rene Descartes. Descartes identified the mind with consciousness and self-awareness and distinguished this from the brain. He believed that the brain was the seat of all intelligence. This lead to a great debate over the mind and body. So, ultimately, what is the nature of the mind and consciousness and its relationship to the body?

Dualism is a broad term that can encompass many areas within philosophy itself. In aspect to metaphysics, it classifies the types of entities in the world into two subcategories, physical and non physical substance. While this may appear to be a very wide and ambiguous opinion, it becomes very specific in regards to our own existence. Paul Churchland puts it very explicitly in his book Matter and Consciousness, and defines dualism as the idea that, “the essential nature of conscious intelligence resides in something nonphysical” (Churchland 1). Though dualism is a highly regarded and popular view on the state of existence, its core arguments present an array of problems that detract from the credibility of its

I believe there is a soul, which also is the mind, and a physical body. The argument that supports my belief the best will generate from the concept of a persons thoughts. I reject the belief that everything that is real must be in physical form.

What is a soul? The spiritual or immaterial part of a human being or animal regarded as immortal. Many Philosophers studied the soul in several ways in order to get the point of what is the soul. Although sometimes it is confusing to understand what is meant because it is explained in other ways and used in examples. The Philosopher Aristotle came to the conclusion that the soul is the first grade of actuality of a natural organized body. He uses it in the axe and eye as examples but yes it might be confusing but at the end it will make sense in what he means.