The 's Theory Of Biological Naturalism

Functionalism is the dogma for creating something a thought; a desire, a belief, pain, or satisfaction by allowing its dependence only on the role it plays in the cognitive system. Another classic example demonstrated through the functionalist theory, is being in a mental state of pain that induces the notion that something is wrong with one’s body, where the individual wishes to be out of its mental state and as a result, possible behavioral outputs may include wincing, moaning, crying, or anxiety. In the functionalist theory, it states that any creature that is capable of a mental state and meets its conditions experiences pain (Levin). Humans have a process of neural activity, for instance C-fiber stimulation, which meets the conditions of functionalism. Therefore, humans can experience pain by C-fiber stimulation. The theory also allows other creatures with different physical makeups that have mental states can also experience pain. Functionalist became aware that creatures with different types of physical states could experience pain.

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.

In this essay, I am going to write a response to the objection raised by the functionalists towards identity theory. Identity theory is a form of physicalism; it states that a particular mental state is identical to a particular physical state of body and brain, for instance mental sensation such as pain is simply just the firing of C-fibres (Smart, 1959). This is a reductionist view as it reduces our psychological state to a materialistic and physical form. A prominent objection against identity theory is Functionalism, in which the main advocate Hilary Putnam stated that identity theory is too narrow as it ignores multiple realisability. In the next paragraph, I will write a little more about functionalism, and in the end, I will ultimately conclude that functionalism is a better theory than identity theory.

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.

The idea that mental states are non-reducible properties of brain states is the central tenant of a theory of mind called property dualism. However, before we can assess the theory we must be aware that the question assumes the existence of mental states and as such we cannot answer this question from some perspectives (e.g. eliminative materialism)

The understanding on the knowledge of other minds has provided a puzzle known as the inverted spectrum. This possibility has emerged as an important challenge to functionalist accounts of qualia. Functionalism is committed to defining mental states in terms of their cause and effects . By identifying sensory events with casual roles, however, functionalism appears to be missing qualitative aspects all together. The topic of spectrum inversion has often been raised as a contradiction to functionalism, as well as other materialist theories about consciousness. These negates to functionalism show that even when all the relevant physical facts are held constant, the facts about qualia can still vary, hence that the phenomenal must be over

In Harman’s paper, “The Intrinsic Quality of Experience,” he defends the concept of functionalism, which is the theory that mental states are identified by what they do as opposed to what they are made of. Harman defends functionalism by stating the three familiar arguments against functionalism and then refutes those arguments. Out of the three oppositions to functionalism, the inverted spectrum argument is the best.

Popularizing the claim that naturalism and evolution are mutual self-defeaters, Alvin Plantinga argues, in Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism (1993), that given unguided evolution, our beliefs have no intrinsic relation to the truth.

Some authors decide to create a utopian universe using the power of words. Other authors write novels which portray an exceedingly tragic civilization. But, a few distinct authors chose to show readers the sickly sweet truth of reality. John Steinbeck was one of those unique authors. He was born in 1902, attended Stanford University for six years, and even won a Nobel Peace Prize in 1962. This great American author died six years after he won the award. Two of the many books he wrote are two novellas: The Pearl and Of Mice and Men. Steinbeck’s naturalistic writing style shines brightly in these two short stories making them naturalistic. and does not go unnoticed.

Through Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck there are three different naturalism themes portrayed: human behavior is determined by forces beyond his or her control, and man’s attempts to exercise “free will” are futile or “an illusion,” and the universe is indifferent. In fact even Naturalist Charles Darwin once said, “She is the child of the universe.’ ‘The universe makes a rather indifferent parent, I am afraid.”

Naturalism is defined by the Oxford Dictionary of Literary Terms (1990) as ‘a more deliberate kind of realism in novels, stories, and plays, usually involving a view of human beings as passive victims of natural forces and social environment’ (Baldick, p.221). The dictionary states that naturalistic drama in particular ‘usually has a broader application, denoting a very detailed illusion of real life on the stage, especially in speech, costume, and sets’ (Baldick, p.221). On the other hand, melodrama is defined as ‘a popular form of sensational drama that flourished in the 19th-century theatre […] the modern sense of melodrama derives: an emotionally exaggerated conflict of pure maidenhood and scheming villainy in a plot full of suspense’ (Baldick, p.201). Melodrama came before naturalistic drama, in the early nineteenth-century, but was taken over in popularity in the late nineteenth/ early twentieth-century by realism and naturalistic drama.

Advocates of functionalism use the theory to explain mental causation, a concept that behaviourism did not address, and multiple realisation, a concept that the identity theory was unable to explain. Mental causation is the notion that the mental state of a being is causing the individual’s behaviour. Multiple realisation is the idea that any person and any species can experience the same sensation, despite differences in physical structure and wiring. Functionalists argue that the

There are many strengths and weaknesses of the biological perspective. The strengths of the biological perspective are that it is seen to be very scientific. This is seen as strength because the experiments which are used are repeated to test for reliability, measureable and also objective. Also, the researcher will have more control over the variables which is evident in Selve’s study of rates which lead him to develop the theory of General Adaptation Syndrome. Also, the biological perspective is deterministic. This is seen as strength because it increases the likelihood of being able to treat people who have behaviour which is unusual and also provides explanations about the causes of behaviour. This understanding

Since functionalism attempts to attack the mind body problem by comparing the two to a computer program and the system that runs the program, it is important to understand why this attempt has been made. First, it seems that a lot of philosophical theories trying to define the mind, seem to attempt to do so through defining pain. As a result of this, I will only refer to the different accounts of the mind through the theories use of pain. Moreover, according to Putnam, the identity theory makes several mistakes in its account of the mind. He argues that it is inconsistent to believe that people are

Functionalism in philosophy defines mental states as internal states, individualized and differentiated in terms of different functional roles. It defines mental states in terms of the