The Inconceivability Argument

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.

Berkeley's attempt to popularize his pro-mind conception of the external world, Three Dialogues between Hylas and Philonous, serves to undermine Locke's distinctions between primary and secondary qualities of the external world. In his publication, Berkeley uses dialogue between Hylas and Philnous, which consists of a series of arguments, to determine the most sound theory. Ground rules of the debate consists of: whoever of the two's position avoids skepticism about knowledge of physical objects wins and that if one position can be shown to entail that we cannot know anything about physical objects, consequently that position should be dismissed as absurd (Kelly, 2013). Throughout the arguments, Berkeley weakens Locke's theory of Limited Representationalism by counteracting Locke's with the possibility that instead of “matter” that comprises physical objects in the external world, these objects are simply ideas. Drawing back on Berkeley's catchy motto, “to be is to be perceived”, he proposes three arguments that support his idealist view that the motto encapsulates. The three pieces of support also importantly shed skepticism upon Lockes primary and secondary distinctions involving “matter”. The three statements of support include: The argument that physical

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 order to fully understand Berkeley’s argument for the dismissal of material objects, one must understand his preceding argument on abstract ideas. According to Berkeley, the existence of abstract ideas is actually a myth. Humans tend to generalize concepts, such as the general idea of a table, a car, or a triangle, for example. However, Berkeley claims in his argument that there is no explainable way to have a general idea of anything. So if someone tells another to think of a table, that person will have a very specific picture of a very specific table –maybe a brown dining table with large, carved wooden legs, or a plastic folding table. There is not one table that has all of the characteristics of a table and none of them at the

George Berkeley believed that nothing is real but minds and their ideas. Ideas do not exist without the mind. Through a complicated line of reasoning he concluded that “to be is to be perceived.” Something exists only if someone has the idea of it. George Berkeley stated that if a tree fell in the forest and there was no one there to hear it, not only would it not make a sound, but there would be no tree. According to George Berkeley, that the mind of God always perceives everything.

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

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.

Within Philonous and Hylas representational conversation on Berkeley's Idealism on how existence is entirely dependent on perceiving, underlies the possibility of knowledge. Through the power of persuasion, Philonous questions the first definition of skepticism of “believing nothing at all” versus “believing the most extravagant” to which Hylas is admittedly a skeptic in the sense to deny an immaterial world and the understanding of knowledge. In layman’s terms if I parked my car and left it, I do not expect my car to cease to exist since during my time away from it I was not currently perceiving it. Berkeley's Idealism relies on before the car was put into production and therefore was perceived into existence piece by piece. Existence by which

The first premise is uncontroversial, as it follows from the concept of numerical identity that if two things are numerically identical then anything that is true of one is true of the other, as both things are actually only one thing being referred to in two different ways. We can therefore accept it as true. Moving to the second premise, it should be noted that physical bodies may not, in fact, be infinitely divisible, but as they are still divisible to some extent, this does not invalidate the argument and is only a tangential concern. At any rate, that material bodies are divisible seems almost self evident. The third premise is really the crux of the argument and the point of uncertainty. Is the mind really indivisible? Upon initial reflection it would certainly seem so; Descartes’ claim that one cannot conceive of “half of a mind” seems intuitively true on the face of it.

Thomas Hobbes solution on the mind-body problem is one of a combination. Hobbes posits that rather than mind and body being two separate things they actually are both the same thing, matter. He confronts Descartes by saying that the thing that is thinking and the action of thinking are not the same things. If this is true then according to his logic we must conclude that "a thinking thing is something corporeal. This is because it seems that the subjects of all actions are comprehensible only if they are conceived as corporeal or material." Essentially stating that the material body is the only substance there is. To boot thoughts are

This axiom shows why George Berkeley argues against Rene Descartes’ Cartesian dualism of mind and body. Berkeley asserts that there is the mind and that matter does not exist. This philosophy is wrong because the mind exists and so does matter as Immanuel Kant discusses in his theory of knowledge. Kant uses the pure concepts of understanding and breaks them down into groups. Kant's ideas can be noted as the same as Descartes's innate ideas. For example, everything has a cause or that God exists. Descartes says that innate ideas correspond to the structures of independent reality and that they are imprinted in people by God so that they can know the true nature of reality, but Kant does not claim that categories or pure concepts of understanding correspond with independent reality. Kant synthesizes rationalism and empiricism and answers the questions between both to make them make sense.

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.

Berkeley offers both an epistemological and metaphysical argument against the idea of mind independent matter as an object of knowledge. Berkeley talks about the attributes of matter which are primary, quantitative, and geometric. Casual powers that change position and cause secondary qualities that apply to the senses and is what you see in your mind. He thinks the idea of matter is either contradictory or empty. When you subtract out the things that you get from your mind you are left with nothing. Sensation he says, is a thing in your head so it doesn’t belong to the object. If what we know about the world we know through perception and perception is in our minds then we must know nothing about the outside world. Our ideas of the attributes of matter are derived by abstraction from secondary qualities. If we have an idea of matter it comes from sense or by reason. Senses are ideas in our mind they don’t resemble what we perceive so it can’t be senses.

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,

According to Berkeley, the world does not exist on its own, perceptions solely do. However, the world does not exist independently of the mind. Berkeley 's argument relies on the existence of a God, who keeps things in place when a person is absent or not around. Hume believes that things including people are nothing but what he perceives as “bundles of perceptions”. He claims that people infer the objective world based on perceived unity and continuity in our observations. Meanwhile, Locke compares the mind to a blank piece of paper. He states, “white paper, void of all characters, without any