Philosophy 3500
Final Paper
Seneca Cherry
12.2.14
Abstract
This essay
Introduction
The mind is made up of numerous classes of procedures that can be studied empirically; this paper will limit this field to psychology. There are three different types of the mind: the human, animal, and the mechanic. The human mind is the paradigm of the mind; the mechanical mind exists as a challenge to materialism or mind-brain identity theory. This leads to the anti-materialist argument: intelligence is made up of levels of mental processes in which the mind is the genus and intelligence is a species of this genus. Intelligence is the ability to solve problems, and like the mind, human intelligence is the paradigm of the intelligence. There
…show more content…
It would belong to the domain of metaphysics, and if the mind were a substance it would individual. Despite this, the mind is a collection of numerous classes of processes that can be studied empirically. These processes are known as “mental processes,” this is the way we can suggest the vicious circle statement that the mind is the collection of the different mental processes.
There are ways to avoid the circularity of the previous statement by describing the various classes of these “mental processes.” The information boils down to four concepts that we can use to distinguish the main types of mental processes. 1) Perceptions – the organized reception of information, 2) the memories and storage of information, 3) our beliefs and judgments surrounding the information we received, and finally 4) our plans – arrangements of information and how we plan to act. From here we can give a more complete description of mental processes. Our own bodies have sensations (internal such as pain), and then we have external sensations (from other bodies). We have perceptions which help us construct a more or less definite object. We as humans also retain memories that can come from different sources. We elaborate images with various degrees of creativity. This helps us form beliefs about ourselves and other people (things or ideas). From here we can develop conclusions that allow us to receive new information from previously received data; this
In David Armstrong’s thought-provoking work titled, The Nature of Mind, he explains that the most convincing way to make sense of the mind-body problem is to approach it in a materialistic way. Specifically, Armstrong shows that the science of physico-chemical processes of the brain is the best way to explain the nature of our mind. He goes on to explain traditional and dispositional behaviorism, and states his own materialistic take on behaviorism. His arguments throughout his paper are very logical, and though there have been arguments against his explanations, he effectively justifies the materialistic view of the mind.
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.
To quote Karl Popper, “Every solution to a problem, raises another unsolved problem” (Williams, 2003, p. 2). It has been a topic debated for centuries, still, a definitive solution is yet to be found that universally satisfies the problem of mind brain identity. The most logical answer comes in the form of monism. Therefore in this paper I will argue that the mind and the brain are identical, as the mind exists only as a property of the brain. David Lewis and D.M Armstrong give support for the causal relationship between mind and brain states in the form of the identity theory, and deal with the multiple realisability argument provided by Hillary Putman. Gottlob Frege provides his support for materialism by showing that mental states are determined by the function of the brain, while discounting Thomas Nagel’s argument which proposes the idea of Qualia. Both the functionalist theory and identity theory reach agreement on the materialistic view that the mind and brain are of the same substance.
Per the theory, the mind is about mental processes, thought and consciousness. The body is about the physical aspects of the brain-neurons and how the brain is structured. The mind-body problem is about how these two interact. One of the biggest questions in psychology and philosophy concerns the mind/body problem: If they are distinct, then how do they interact? And which of the two is in charge? Many theories have been put forward to explain the relationship between what we call your mind, so defined as the conscious thinking 'you' which experiences your thoughts or spiritual being and your brain, part of your body. However, the most common explanation concerns the question of whether the mind and body are separate entities or the same thing. While asking and recording my responses for this particular exercise a few came up with the choice number 4 which stated, “Nonphysical things cannot casually interact with physical things “ when comparing it , your mind being able to interact with physical things in general was immediately shut down , that it was not possible, that you cannot casually interact , between the mind and the outside world at a whim, with-out some kind of training to understanding the non-physical things
The mind-body problem tries to explain the states of the minds, occurrence of events, and action of processes. For instance, thinking is related to other processes and events of the mind. The fact that the mind is not physical in nature and the body is physical attests to this explanation. Mind body problem relate to some of the scientific concepts in different kind of ways. The relationship between the mind-body problem and the concepts of neurophysiology, psychophysics and the theory of evolution is discussed below.
Psychology, due to its complexity can be approached in a variety of ways. To help us understand the human mind, behaviourist and psychodynamic approaches have helped us understand the alternative outlooks in the science of mind and behaviour. Both approaches can be examined by the means of theoretical assumptions and methodology.
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.
“One with a well-developed personality is of course a happy person. As the result of social, physical, financial, and spiritual well-being, happiness is assured.”
In denying that the mind and mental properties, like qualia, are nonphysical things, mind-brain theory objects to both substance and property dualism. Therefore it is a physicalist approach to the philosophy of
In 1983 Jerry Fodor opened the introduction to his new research of “Modularity of mind” with the phrase; “Behavior is organized, but the organization of behavior is merely derivative”. This meaning that behaviors are simply imitations, never original nor created. Fodor created a theory of how the mind was structured and how would perform. He studied the architecture of mind in modules; a term that will describe that the mind had different specific structures that had precise purposes. Jesse J. Prinz just like Fodor was a philosopher who was in opposition of the “Modularity of the mind” theory. This essay will have as a purpose to create an argument on the explanation and disagreement that Prinz wrote cluster by cluster against the theory “Modularity of mind” in an article called “Is the mind really modular?”
The mind is perhaps the most fascinating part of the human body due to its complexity and ability to rationalize. In essence, the mind-body problem studies the relation of the mind to the body, and states that each human being seems to embody two unique and somewhat contradictory natures. Each human contains both a nature of matter and physicality, just like any other object that contains atoms in the universe. However, mankind also is constituted of something beyond materialism, which includes its ability to rationalize and be self-aware. This would imply that mankind is not simply another member of the world of matter because some of its most distinctive features cannot be accounted for in this manner. There are obvious differences between physical and mental properties. Physical properties are publically accessible, and have weight, texture, and are made of matter. Mental properties are not publically accessible, and have phenomenological texture and intentionality (Stewart, Blocker, Petrik, 2013). This is challenging to philosophers, because man cannot be categorized as a material or immaterial object, but rather a combination of both mind and body (Stewart, Blocker, Petrik, 2013). Man embodies mind-body dualism, meaning he is a blend of both mind and matter (Stewart, Blocker, Petrick, 2013). The mind-body problem creates conflict among philosophers, especially when analyzing physicalism in its defense. This paper outlines sound
Describe what evolutionary psychologists mean when they employ the term ‘theory of mind’. Use examples and research studies from Book 1, Chapter 2 to show why this theory is important in evolutionary psychology.
from the physical body. In the Identity Theory, the mind is one with the brain and there
There are several models of abnormality in use today (Comer, 2009) lists “The Biological Model…”, “The Psychodynamic Model…”, The Behavioral Model…”, The Cognitive Model…”, The Humanistic-Existential Model…”, The Sociocultural Model…” (p.33). The biggest contrasts would be the Biological model, and the other models. Comparing the biological model, and the cognitive model will highlight those differences.
The Science of Mind philosophy is not an abstract spiritual theory, but rather, a study of Consciousness, and, specifically, our expression of It. Ernest Holmes considered this study of Mind to be a science, in that it correlates principles and practices that can be applied and proven to be effective. Even so, the correlation of principles and practices is not what makes the Science of Mind a practical philosophy to live by. Anyone can deduce principles and devise practices that enhance and advance their favorite theory of everything. Every religiously minded group has done just that. Science of Mind distinguishes itself as a practical philosophy because of its teachings on the nature of Law, and its emphasis on the application of the principles of this Law in our life.