The main purpose of this paper is to discuss what the psychological approach, the split brain case, and the multiple occupancy reply is and how they relate to Egan’s Learning To Be Me story. This essay will be first discussing what the psychological approach is and what the objection to it. It will also discuss what the split brain case is, what the multiple occupancy reply is, as well as how all of this ties into Egan’s text.
The psychological approach is the psychological continuity that is necessary for an identity to continue overtime. This approach to psychology believes that “some psycho-logical relation is necessary or sufficient (or both) for one to exist (Olson 2010). It is the belief that you are a human of the future that is currently
…show more content…
These cases take a brain, named John (for simplicity’s sake). John is made up of two hemispheres – the left hemisphere, Lefty and the right hemisphere, Righty. Lefty and Righty together are numerically identical. However, when you compare Lefty and Righty to each other – they cannot be numerically identical. This is because they can contradict one another – for example, one can be tired while the other can be energetic. As a result, it is not possible for them to be numerically identical.
This case counter attacks the psychological approach because it disproves the idea that psychological continuity will allow identity to persist. The splitting of the brain means that when the two hemispheres are together they can make up the same mind. However when divided, they only have half of the capacity as the original whole- they identities of the two pairs are different, and so the identity of the original brain cannot
…show more content…
This becomes evident when the teacher – the controller of the Jewel within the narrator’s brain – fails to have all of the neural impulses aligned. This results in the narrator experiencing an out of body experience where the Jewel is controlling his movements, even when his organic brain doesn’t want to do those things. This results in the narrator experiencing an out-of-body experience where the Jewel is controlling his movements even when his organic brain does not want to do those actions. Eventually- as the organic brain is gradually removed, the Jewel becomes the primary controller of the body and mind doing as it was trained to do by the
Split-brain syndrome, also referred as callosal disconnection syndrome will be a condition that is distinguish by a bunch of neurological abnormalities that emerge from either a partial or a complete lesioning or severing the corpus callosum, which is basically the cluster of nerves that connect the left and right hemispheres of the brain.
In a series of relatively simple though complexly-worded (out of necessity) thought experiments regarding body-swapping and changes to memory and the mind, Bernard Williams attempts to demonstrate that identity should be identified with the body rather than with the mind when identity is extended into the future (and by extension during the present). That is, though it is typical for identity to be associated with the mind at any given moment, Williams argues that the logic that supports this intuitive association does not hold up over longer periods of time, and that anticipation of the future leads to an association of identity with the body rather than with the mind. Whether or not Williams is successful in this attempt is a matter of much debate, with this author finding some fundamental flaws in the very premise of the comparisons and thus the conclusions, however the argument is fairly elegant and persuasive and certainly worth of closer inspection. A careful reading of the argument might lead one to a conclusion opposite to that which was intended, but is no less rewarding for this unusual quirk.
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.
As the tool of scientific investigation increase, the relationship between the mind and the brain has never been more intimate. Chemical changes in our brain could lead to heightened euphoria or it can lead to the most profound depression. Damages to the brain can lead to changes that can eliminate the some abilities of the brain, such as smell, vision, or even the ability to recognized faces. Therefore, this is at that vary lease a powerful correlation between the state of the mind and state of the brain. But this is not enough for the Identity theories, so they go above and beyond this to explain this profound view.
(AC1) Two perspectives in psychology are the behaviourist approach and the biological (also known as physiological) approach. These perspectives consist of different theories, research methods and treatments in relation to mental illness.
Churchland breaks it down to this: if mental states are identical all to brain states then when you observe you mental states you are also observing the brain state which is identical. Churchland states, “ I may not describe my mental state as a brain state but whether I do depends on what information I have about the brain, not upon whether the mental state really is identical to some brain state . The identity can be a fact about the world independently of my knowledge that is a fact about the world” (Churchland, 2).She gives the following example “ Jones swallows an aspirin, he thereby swallows acetylsalicylic acid, whether or not he thought” in other words “identities may obtain even when we have not discovered that they do”(Churchland, 2).
The Identity theory maintains a monistic belief by considering states of mind as being indistinguishable to brain states. Mental experiences including feeling pain, and possessing mental images are not correlated with, but in fact are brain processes (Smart, 2007). When dealing with the question of whether the mind and brain are identical, identity theorists differentiate between two forms, Type Identity and Token Identity (Schneider). Token Identity theory considers that mental
The id, the ego and the superego are another prominent theory that acts off of the conscious and un-conscious mind. Freudian psychology initiates with a earth full of objects. Among them is a exceptional object, the organism. An extremely meaningful portion of the organism is the nervous system. At birth, the nervous system is a little many than of else animals, an “it”
These amazing findings get us to the conclusion that we possess two different brains with different abilities and behaviors. Gazzaniga emphasizes the possibility of doubling the brain’s performance by separating both halves. In other words, to put each brain half to
In this approach we see the theories of psychology that see the human mind function based upon the interaction of forces and drives within the mind, normally this means unconscious thoughts, but it also includes looking at the different structures of the personality.
According to many different philosophers such as Descartes and Locke there has to be more to the mind than just the materialistic view. There are many different parts to the brain which make it a whole according to science, so thinking about the brain from a philosophical standpoint, there must be different parts to make up the minds identity. According to John Perry, the memories and personality traits as well as beliefs and intellectual skills make up a personal identity and the body is just a vessel that holds this identity (TP, 197). Certain people might believe that if one were to get a brain transplant they would wake up the same person they were before they went in for the surgery. I, on the other hand concur with Perry and the idea
In the world of philosophy, there has been an ever growing skepticism of the relationship between the human body and its mental state. The physical state of a person is tangible, meaning that they can be seen by anyone and touched. While the mental state of a person is embedded in their consciencousness, meaning that it can’t be observed by others unless willing expressed by said person. I will be using Leibniz’s law of identity to show that the metal states of an individual are distinct from a physical state. Using the notion of sameness, I can prove a valid argument that the physical and mental states are distinct. While this theory in part can be debated, some identity theorists can provide a rebuttal this claim. I will provide a response to an identity theorist rebuttal.
In a general sense, I am a “self interpreting animal” (“Human Agency and Language”) in that it is in my nature to constantly strive for clarity, amidst the countless indeterminacies present in my life. In Charles Taylor’s sense, this is the crucial characteristic that makes me human—it sets me apart from animals or in a dark sense, the un-human. By giving myself to confusion, I embrace it and put my identity on the line in the hope of resurfacing with piece of mind and better understanding of myself.
This is the doctrine which the mind-brain identity theory denies and seeks to refute. Its counter-claim is that mind and brain are one and the same entity, in short, that mental states are brain states. Why, then, from this perspective, has the dualist been mistaken? He may have been confused into believing that one thing is two things by the fact that it has two names. For example, while the Morning Star and the Evening Star appear by their different names to denote different things, in fact, astronomical studies reveal them to be the same (in fact, the planet Venus). Water is a different name from H20 but there is no difference at all in the physical substance which both names label. Scientific research has revealed previously hidden identities: that the temperature of a gas is the mean kinetic energy of its molecules; that light is electromagnetic radiation. In a similar way research in neuroscience is expected to show that the sound of a vacuum cleaner, a pang of hunger, the taste of mustard are nothing more or less than the firing of certain neurons.
discuss how each side of the brain can have negative or positive impacts of solutions, and will