What Tye 's Representational Theory Of Consciousness Essay

The issue of the origins of consciousness has been a problem that has philosophers and scientists alike, puzzled for years. Is it a matter of science? Can it be explained through neurobiological processes or is it just something that simply cannot be reduced to words? Rene Descartes had struggled to explain this problem through his idea of substance dualism. This idea states that the mind and body are of two separate worlds, the physical world and the mental world. He then goes on by describing himself as a “thinking thing” and questions the existence with the mind and body thus bringing the questions of the material and the immaterial. From this sprouts the mind-body problem, the connection between mental phenomena and the physical world on which the mind depends. In this philosophical essay, I will question whether the mind and body coexist or if they are two separate entities that make us who we are.

As our scientific paradigm has shifted towards a materialist account of the world, many thinkers believe that appeals to the supernatural cannot provide truth. Consequently, beliefs that had once been considered adequate must now be reworked if not torn down entirely to fit this new world view. Daniel Dennett’s book Consciousness Explained attempts to provide an account of our internal experience (i.e. Consciousness) that is rooted in the materialist world view. Though he is not the first to undertake this project, he takes issue with what he perceives to be the popular materialist account of consciousness, and seeks promote his own theory. With this essay I aim to offer an informative summary of the book followed by an evaluative dialogue of its central claims.

The phenomenal consciousness consists distinctive characteristics that are challenging to explain in the higher orders theories. The subjective components include properties are challenging since the subjective aspects involve feelings and personal process to undergo through their mind. According to the higher order theory of consciousness, the mental feeling, thoughts, and perception people have in life consciously occur but not always since people sometimes sense things subliminally hence independent in people consciousness.

When pondering consciousness, people commonly distinguish between the physical characteristics of neurons firing signals throughout the body and the mental aspects of how being alive actually feels. Furthermore when studying consciousness, the imposing battle between physicalists, people who believe the physical and mental aspects are the same, and dualists, people who believe the physical and mental are two distinct aspects, brings about controversy. In What Is It Like to Be a Bat? Thomas Nagel claims, “it would be a mistake to conclude that physicalism must be false” but then goes on to add, “physicalism is a position we cannot understand because we do not at present have any conception of how it might be true.” Even though the claims appear mutually exclusive and Nagel states that physicalism is incomprehensible, Nagel’s claims are able to be simultaneously true and his conditions for understanding physicalism are improper.

There are four major points outlined by the author. The first one is the central role of consciousness in the traditional mind-body problem. The relationships between mind and body cannot be explained without the proper comprehending of consciousness and its role. The second one is the incorrect approaches utilized by the modern reductionists. Their examples and analogies are inapplicable to the mind-body problem. The third one is that experience of any specie or organism has a highly subjective character. Therefore, people cannot even image what it means to be a bat. The fourth one is the need for determining the optimal balance between comprehending the objective physical processes and beings’

Rosenthal’s definition of what is consciousness revolves around two distinctions – creature consciousness and state consciousness. Creature consciousness is a state where an organism is simply awake and aware of surroundings, but that is all that needs to happen for an organism to be creature conscious. On the other hand, state consciousness involves mental and intentional states. In other words, there is an existence of beliefs and desires. Therefore, it is argued that state consciousness is transitive, meaning there is intentionality behind an action. In terms of phenomenal

To fully understand the complexity of consciousness, it must be defined. However there is no universal accepted definition due to the concept is looked at from many different positions and in different terms. In this essay which will explore altered states affecting consciousness, the definition which will be used is ‘One is aware of surroundings, and is able to make decisions and the ability to apply different experiences to different situations’.

Thus the process of detangling or separating these theories, would forever remain an ongoing project. Thus for the purpose of this paper, I will only discuss one philosopher’s (William James’) view on the existence of consciousness.

In order to understand the critical nature of consciousness as it relates to the physical,

The topic of near-death experience has brought forth a debate on how the brain is connected to the consciousness. Two hypotheses, the materialist view and the dualist view, have been suggested. One claims that the brain creates the consciousness and the other that the brain interprets the consciousness. In the following paragraphs, I plan to address the hypothesis put forth by authors Greyson and Calvi-Parsetti, the hypothesis I feel best follows both the SEARCH criteria and the criteria of adequacy, and why I feel the opposing hypothesis lacks a solid foundation.

So far in this class we’ve look at many theorist who have presented on the idea of consciousness. These theorists (W.E.B. Du Bois, George Herbert Mead, and Dorothy Smith) have provided there theorization of the idea of consciousness. They’ve presented their views along with evidence that helps to support their claims. In this essay I will be discussing each theorist’s characterization of consciousness along with analyzing their similarities, differences and limitations on the subject. The initially question at hand is based on these theorist and there characterization of this of this idea of consciousness how has it contributed to the awareness and “solution” of the problem.

Common mistake that is often made is presuming the works of something or someone else’s consciousness. In fact, it is impossible to understand someone or something else’s consciousness without being them. In What Is It Like to Be a Bat, Thomas Nagel draws his argument through his representation of the consciousness of a bat, and how any one or anything else is to interpret it. After considering other rodents such as a bird or a rat, he decided that the bat was his primary choice of example because it was the closest mammal to humans while possessing “sensory apparatus” so distinct from humans (Nagel, 220). Nagel established this example to determine the impossibility of knowing what the bat undergoes as a bat because anything that is not a bat simply cannot understand what the bat does, or why it does what it does. Nagel did not drive his answer to be the explanation of understanding the conscious of a human, animal or artificial intelligence, as he finds it impossible. He did however determine the bearing of consciousness among these subjects, but came to the conclusion that it is impossible to know everything about something or someone else that feels and experiences things (Nagel, 220).

Nowadays, we are able to scan the brain with devices such as FMRI and it gives us opportunity to observe brain activity, beyond that, we can even study neural connections and expound them. Even though scientific improvements extend further and further along each and every moment (especially in our century) neither neuroscientists, philosophers nor brain surgeons could have been able to find a solution to question of ``How cognitive process cause conscious state? `` (``The Hard Problem``). Peter Clark & David Chalmers were originated an approach based on minds interaction with outside world and they stated vast theories and examples concerning how ``external features`` affect ``internal features`` such as beliefs and behavior. Their approach clearly did not explain all of the aspects of conscious state but it provides us a way to think on construction process of ``beliefs`` and ``individual behavior` `. Along this paper, I will try to clarify their thesis as much as I can, subsequently, I will try to

Before defining “Metaphysical issues of consciousness”, we need to define terms 'metaphysics' and 'consciousness' separately. Also we need to define physical and non-physical object, relation of brain with consciousness etc. We need a deep knowledge and all the features of consciousness to relate the terms metaphysics and consciousness.

In this essay, I will talk about Jean-Paul Sartre’s work about the Nature of Consciousness. Firstly, I will discuss his theories of Consciousness and secondly, I will talk about how they developed in response to the work of other philosophers. Lastly, I will state why his work is still interesting today.