The Ability Of Our Brains

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.

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.

One of the most talked about concepts of philosophy is that of the mind-body problem. In short, the mind-body problem is the relationship between the mind and the body. Specifically, it’s the connection between our mental realm of thoughts, including beliefs, ideas, sensations, emotions, and our physical realm, the actual matter of which we are made up of the atoms, neurons. The problem comes when we put the emphasis on mind and body. Are the mind and body one physical thing, or two separate entities. Two arguments have stood amongst the rest, Interactionism and physicalism. Interactionism claims that mind and matter are two separate categories with a casual integration between the two. By contrast, physicalism draws from the idea that all aspects of the human body are under one physical being, there are no nonphysical connections that come into play. While both state a clear and arguable statement regarding mind-body problem, Interactionism gives a more plausible answer to the mind-body problem because although it may seem like we are tied as one, our minds have a subconscious that influence our thoughts, actions, ideas, and beliefs, which is completely independent from the realm of our physical matter.

Perhaps the most important thing about being a human being is our ability to reason. Human have certain advantages over other creations, such as our ability to think, apply and communicate our intellectual capabilities. For most people this is the core religious belief and for the most part what dictates their behavioral eminence. Religion is the most important part of how we deal with things as we face them. For some people it’s a sincere believe, while for others the motivation is to please someone other themselves in the name of whatever religion the happened to follow. Some people truly believe what they do will be for the greater good while others do moral acts in order to get rewards either from God or the satisfaction obtained from fellow human being thru appraisal. There is no doubt religion is the greatest source of moral guidance, however, about how we see and arrive at realization also greatly affects the outcome. There are three fundamental principle that dictates our moral behaviors; first ability to control our emotions, secondly, being conscious, and lastly having faith in God. God did give us scriptures as guidance; however He also gave the ability to think, analyze and apply our knowledge for good. It is not reasonable to blindly follow what’s in the book, as it will not be spoon fed to people, God gave guidance and also gave people the power to think and do what’s right.

In my mind, dualism is a more attractive view to take when considering the mind-brain issue. The idea that the mind is a separate entity and that it is independent of the physical body is the central point of dualism. One reason it appeals to me is because of my religion, my Catholic upbringing. Introspection is another good reason why dualism is a little more logical to me than materialism.. It logically explains why the mind and brain are separate. Also, the divisibility argument raises good points to allow dualism to appear to be the more attractive idea in my eyes.

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

There are several arguments to argue that the mind and body are not separate substances. And also, this is especially true in the face of its many different views, one of which does not attack substance dualism directly, but does so indirectly by attacking the very idea of dualism itself. The argument begins by looking at the question of how dualism became so popular. It claims that, firstly, it had to do with the fact that the great majority of Western philosophers around the time when the dualism was at its peak were religious, and most of them are specifically of the Christian faith. Thus, one feature of their religious beliefs was to believe in immortality, and in order to settle their belief with their philosophy, they had to support dualism; the reason being that it was very difficult to believe in immorality without believing in dualism.

     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).

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

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,

something else there, the mind, that interacts with our bodies and makes us feel, think,

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.

Opposed to Mind-Body Materialism is Mind-Body Dualism, a view which supports that mind and body are not identical, but, in some sense, radically different kinds of thing. It denies that the mind is the same of the brain, or a product of the brain, by arguing that the thoughts and the material things are composed of different substances, and the mind is a thinking thing that lacks the usual attributes of physical objects: size, shape, location, solidity, motion, etc. According to the Dualism, the soul is comprised of a non-physical substance, while the body is constituted of matter. This view also establishes that mind and body are capable of causally affecting each other, even if they are necessarily not the same thing. When applying this notion the human body, the meaning becomes clearest: the intellect is responsible for all our acts, but it does not imply that the intellect is the brain. For example, before eating a meal, which is a physical action, you probably felt hungry,

The second idea that will be viewed is the physical brain and the matter that composes this extraordinary information system. Science has evolved and shown us that there are different parts of the brain that make up the mind. For instance,” the cortex is the outermost layer of brain cells. Thinking and voluntary movements begin in the cortex. Also, the brain is divided into many different lobes such as the frontal, parietal, temporal and occipital. Each of the lobe is responsible for a different function and together they make up the abstract system of the mind. If an individual gets hurt in a brain injury, and cause damage to the frontal lobe this would result in problems in “problem solving, judgement and motor function” (webmb). These are the thought processes and without these you cannot use your mind to make judgement and rational decisions. Thomas Hobbes states that “materialism is the ultimate reality of physical matter, and all that is or ever was arises out of and is ultimately reducible to matter” (death reference). Not only is the brain important but without arms, eyes, legs and the physical aspects of a

In this essay I will be arguing that a balance between guidance and support must be met in order for management to positively and successfully contribute to the management of knowledge and learning of employees. I will be arguing that leadership indeed plays a pivotal role in the formation and influence of knowledge and learning but must not tip the scale and overpower like the traditional bureaucratic role dictates to do so. I will draw upon Josserand et al (2012) and Rossen (1988) to examine how soft domination practices are employed to infuse organisational values through the formation of communities and networks between the different stakeholders. I will further argue that it is only in these communities, employees are encouraged to enthusiastically learn and attain knowledge. I will then highlight the shift in change towards managerial power imputed by the change from bureaucratic to post bureaucratic power. I will then draw upon Josserand’s (2004) case study to illustrate how knowledge and learning can only successfully cultivate in an environment that heightens the sense of empowering employees with as little management intervention as possible. However, I will argue that whilst it is important for management to provide a crucial role in supporting and managing employees, before I reiterate that if minimal management intervention becomes too overpowering, it could encourage the demise of such communities that were initially established through the managers.