The Dualists Essay

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.

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.

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.

The social constructionist theory. Not too long ago did we study this and grace our minds with the reading by Fausto Sterling entitled Dueling Dualism. As a recap can anyone tell me what the four features of a social constructionist approach are? Ah yes so as they said, The four features of a social constructionist perspective are as follows; sex is not given by nature, but is produced, culture, cultural meanings and history play a part in constructing the differences in sex, operations of power, such as big business and medicine, are central to the social construction of sex, and lastly if sex is constructed, then it can be reconstructed. These four constructs apply not only to sex, but to gender and sexuality as well and are the reason that the socially constructed identities or

According to Durkheim’s work The Dualism of Human Nature and Its Social Conditions (DHN), a man has a dual nature which is made up of the body (individual) and the soul (social). He sheds light on this by citing post-Durkheim theories which he does not agree with and which do not solve the problem of this dual nature. Durkheim also uses The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life (EFRL) to discuss the religious aspect of the body and soul. Upon reading, it is discovered that as society evolves, so does this “dual nature.”

Armstrong begins his paper with a question for the reader of what it means to have a mind. It is well understood that man has the ability to perceive, to think, to feel, and so on, but what does it mean to perceive, to think, and to feel? The answer, he believes, lies in science. Seeing that science is constantly and rapidly gaining ground, he asserts that “...we can give a complete account of man in purely physico-chemical terms” (295?) Pointing out the fact that this view has been accepted by various scientists throughout time, he explains it is the most reliable way to approach the mind-body problem.

In this essay, I will discuss and formally analyze the opinions in approval of substance dualism and conclude that substance dualism is without a doubt an accurate way of thinking. Firstly, it is important to describe what exactly what I mean by substance dualism. Basically, it asks a very menial question such as: what kind of thing is our mind? According to substance dualists aka Descartes, "the mind and the body are composed of different substances and that the mind is a thinking thing that lacks the usual attributes of physical objects such as size, shape, location etc." [Descartes] Substance dualism is then tested by different opinions which in return vouch for its soundness.

Thesis: The mind-body problem arises because of the lack of evidence when looking for a specific explanation of the interaction of mental and physical states, and the origin and even existence of them.

Substance dualism is a never ending argument in the Philosophy world as it’s been going on for decades. It is the view that the universe contains two important types of entity which is mental and material. The structure of this paper is that four main argument leads to one conclusion. Firstly, I’ll argue about Descartes’s ‘separability argument’ which stands as the definition of Substance Dualism. Secondly, I’ll argue that mental and physical have different and perhaps irreconcilable properties. An argument is not complete without a counter argument which in this case the “pairing” problem that exists in Descartes theory is highlighted and where is the interaction of material and immaterial takes

At the beginning of this semester, I had several things to look forward to and several things to fear: I was, and am, working at Chick-fil-A, and my Autumn job at the Maryland Renaissance Festival would last nine weeks. This, sided with the upcoming school schedule greatly worried me, as I feared I would have no time to myself for an uncomfortable amount of time. It was during this semester that my sense of dualism truly seemed to blossom, as it was in this season that I began to observe the actions and lives of those around me, as well as observing my own actions.

The Cartesian System is a theory about consciousness deeply rooted in the belief of a god.

A person relates to the world through different mental and corporeal experiences. The former is associated with one having a (non-physical) mind, which contains beliefs, desires, feelings and so on, while the latter involves having a (physical) brain. The Mind/Body problem questions whether the mind and brain are the same or different objects. For a long time, the interpretation of these experiences has been much debated by philosophers and scientists. One influential interpretation is Descartes’s Dualism of substances, which became one of the most lasting legacies in his philosophy. However, a scientifically stronger interpretation was advanced through the Mind/Brain Identity theory. Prior to discussing how Elliott Sober’s presentation of the Identity Theory is philosophically stronger than Dualism, I will begin by evaluating the philosophical perspective of Dualism; I will examine the distinction between mental and physical substance and assess the strengths of dualism. I will also attempt to show the subsequent problems that rise from such distinction and some of the prominent reasons for why Dualism do not hold weight against the Identity Theory.

In this paper I will refute the view that the mind is an immaterial soul by highlighting how substance dualism lacks explanatory power. To successfully dismantle the contentions offered by substance dualism, I will present two arguments illustrating how ineffectual this theory is at explaining everyday phenomena. My intention in doing so is to stress how theories that lack explanatory power in comparison to other, more robust, theories can be generally regarded as weaker. Once my arguments have been presented, I will first describe how a substance-dualists might respond to my arguments, and then proceed to show why these responses are insufficient. In responding to these objections in particular, and to the case in general, I will maintain that the mind is not an immaterial soul.

Throughout human history, humans had a binary or dualism concepts of the world. Humans believed that their perception of the world was composed by two unconnected aspects, it was one idea or the other. The two concepts were based on Descartes binaries ideas, empiricism which was associated with John Locke and rationalism with Immanuel Kant. They never stop to contemplate that maybe these aspects are bound together and you have to acquire knowledge of one to understand and interpret the other idea. Living organism are not capable of directly being in contact with the outside world. Our five senses enable us to have knowledge of the outside world by interpreting the information that it receives, then we become aware of the outside world. Neuro-networks

The relation of consciousness to the material world is puzzle, which has its origin in dualism, a philosophy of mind which posits their fundamental separation. Dualism, in turn, has its roots in folk wisdom. The belief that humans are more than bodies and that there is something in human nature that survives bodily death has its origins in prehistory; it becomes explicit in the mythology of Ancient Egypt and Assyria and was formulated into a philosophical position in the Platonic thought of Ancient Greece. But the contemporary view that the interaction of consciousness with matter poses a problem which may be beyond scientific understanding can be traced to a clearer formulation of