Behaviorism, almost the exact polar opposite of dualism, is a weak theory for a couple of reasons. Behaviorist believe that there is no reason to place any real significant time on figuring out the mental state and capacity of a person because all that really matters is the fact that the behavior of this person will tell that story. The biggest problem with this is the fact that there is no room for the interpretation of feelings and sensation. These things that are experience due to various stimuli cannot be denied as having some sort of existence. I present the idea of a rainy day. Someone may have the desire to stay dry in the rain and therefore uses an umbrella. This proves the behaviorist’s theory. But let’s say that this person carries the umbrella but did not have the desire to stay dry. They could be carrying it for a whole other reason. The umbrella could be the last memory of a loved one and their desire to carry it is simply to remember the person and has nothing to do with getting wet. The behaviorist would say that she had a desire to carry the umbrella and the reason that she carries it does not matter. She is exhibiting a particular behavior because of a desire that she has. My rebuttal to this would be that it absolutely matters why she carries the umbrella because the why will affect the behavior. For example, if she were planning to use the umbrella as a weapon as opposed to a sheltering device, her behavior would change. The mere fact that she has the ability to have different behavior outcomes using the same object allows us to draw the conclusion that something must be commanding her behavior and that something must have an innate higher order. If something has an innate higher order, it cannot be overlooked as the behaviorist does. If a king were to send his soldiers into war, would it matter that the king sent them as opposed to them sending themselves? The behaviorist would say no but I would say absolutely. The king cannot be omitted because the king is the cause for the behavior. Without the king there would be no behavior for the behaviorist to analyze!
Eliminative Materialism is the idea that our ideas of sensation and feeling don’t really exist because our ability to experience them are skewed much like those who believed in witches, etcetera. It becomes evident to me that E.M. is more about disproving the other frames of thought than proving itself which lends itself to insecurity within the development of the theory. E.M. wants to completely discard the idea of folk psychology because folk psychology, according to E.M., is primitive and cannot be used to develop a better understanding for the experiences we have. Though this may be true, actively throwing away a theory is just as counter productive as using it. The followers of E.M. lists multiple times in history when new ideas were discovered and old ones replaced but E.M. fails to realize that the old ideas must give rise to the new ones. You can never have a middle or an end before a beginning and so it seems presumptuous for E.M. to assume that the old stuff is wrong so much so that it will be discarded. Since this is the cornerstone premise for E.M. we can disregard any possible potency that this theory may have.
After Critiquing Paul M. Churchland's The Ontological Problem (the Mind-Body Problem), I decided to figure out which theory he proposes is one that I whole-heartily agree with. Those of you who haven't read Churchland I strongly recommend this piece. There will be many parts to this exploration. Here is Part 2.
DUALISM
Dualism, though it is composed of different theories under its wide umbrella, each theory holds fast to the idea that the mind is made of something other than the physical nature of the substance the body is made of, particularly the brain. According to the dualist, the mind is not something that can neither be measured nor observed through the physical tools and instruments such as the laws of physics, the disciplines of brain function such as neuroscience and neurophysiology, and computer science. The two theories that will be discussed within the scope of dualism are substance dualism and property dualism.
SUBSTANCE DUALISM
According to the substance dualist, there are two types of “stuffs” in the world. The first kind of “stuff” can be considered the physical stuff that Descartes calls “ordinary matter.” Ordinary matter is anything in our universe that takes up space in length, width, and height. It can be measured as such and can be touched and felt and observed with the naked eye. This can be measured with physical tools and is not so mysterious that it requires any more thought than simple observation, touching/holding, etcetera. The other type of “stuff” in the universe is the stuff that makes up the mind. Descartes would have explained this other type of stuff as “the conscious reason of Man.” This conscious reason of Man cannot be accounted for with measurements as mentioned before. Descartes when so far as to state that the real you is not the physical stuff that we see but rather this immaterial non-spatial substance that makes up your thought power. Before we explore the weaknesses of this argument we will briefly discuss the other type of dualism.
PROPERTY DUALISM
According to the property dualist, there is no difference between the physical make up of the body as what we see being measurable and observable and the mind which according to the substance dualist is described as almost a spiritual body. The property dualist feels that there is a physical brain and this physical brain, which can be measured with physical tools, has two distinct properties, the property of physical function and activity which in turn cause a non physical experience such as desire. The main support that is foreseeable to this particular portion of dualism is the fact that it is quite possible to map the brain and observe exact portions of the brain that are responsible for certain functions. Nonetheless the scientist himself knows for a fact that he has experienced things in this world and has yearned for or desired other things as well. Therefore the scientist must yield that although the brain can be mapped, and it is possible to explain the mind through the physical function of the brain, the ability to feel or experience can be attributed to the possibility that the mind resides on a higher plain that neuroscience cannot explain. Property dualist will go as far as to say that in order to truly observe or measure the mind a new science must be developed.
PRO-DUALISM ARGUMENTS
These theories must have been a favorite amongst early Christians as well as many other world religions that believe in a god that is supreme and is in essence made of something besides matter. This supports the idea of man having a soul. God can not be seen and it would make sense therefore that the mind/soul must also reside on this higher plain which cannot be seen or measure according to the physicality’s of the universe. Other occurrences, if they are indeed true, can be further proof to the theory. These occurrences would include events of telepathy, precognition, and telekinesis all of which have yet to be proven with hard science. Of course the argument that would come from the Dualist is the fact that we cannot measure these substances according to our physical hard science. The strongest argument for the dualist would possibly be the fact that the sensations we experience cannot be described with physical explanation. This leads to the fact that there must be some other nature that exists that can therefore explain our introspective experience and explanation.
ARGUMENTS AGAINST DUALISM
The main argument that materialist present against dualism is the fact that in rational thought the simplest idea always takes precedent over the long convoluted idea. It makes total sense then that we are more inclined to believe that there is only one type of material within the world and that is the physical material. Why should there be any other “stuff” in the universe. It would be a sound argument as any in science either hard or soft to accept a complex ideology if that more complex ideology could either be proven or would lend itself to better understanding of the thing that this ideology attempted to explain. In this case neither is achieved with the dualist’s ideas and so the theory is more incomplete by having extra pieces. As a materialist the best argument against dualism is that of evolutionary history. This completely demolishes the dualist’s idea of “spiritual beings” or even “spiritual properties” because the theory of evolution has much evidence to back it up. It is quite easy to state that all creatures within the genus of homo has a common ancestor with chimps and other apes. The theory of evolution is almost rock solid and so in order to further disprove the dualist’s notion of “spiritual substance/property” where is the proof of spiritual evolution. It’s quite easy for the dualist to revert to the argument that spirituality of the mind cannot be measured, but it makes perfect sense that if we can agree that mind activity of humans is different from other apes, then I would pose the question to the dualist “why is it different?” It’s quite easy to see why humans are physically different to apes (according to evolutionary findings) proving the fact that material stuff is quite potent and could nonetheless account for all thought process within the human brain. If the dualist were to mention that it isn’t so different then I would revert to the idea of human beings having a soul that inevitably is made of the same stuff as the mind. Never has any religion allowed for the thought of animals having a soul. Most religions would say that a soul (similarly a mind) is only given to humans. This argument of evolutionary history is therefore steadfast in disproving any nonphysical substances that may exist.
Now that it is quite clear that dualism can be dismantled with the arguments previously posed, it is time to explore the theories of mind with respect to materialism. In order to be as brief as possible, the well known arguments for and against each will not be discussed in detail but rather the holes in each theory will be defined giving birth to a new theory of mind. All this to come in Part 3!
After Critiquing Paul M. Churchland's The Ontological Problem (the Mind-Body Problem), I decided to figure out which theory he proposes is one that I whole-heartily agree with. Those of you who haven't read Churchland I strongly recommend this piece. There will be many parts to this exploration. Here is Part 1.
The human being, arguable the most complicated organism on the face of this earth, is complex due to its ability to not only survive based on instinct, but also based on its ability to think. In fact the one thing that may make all the difference between human beings and other complex organisms is this ability to form thoughts. Therefore, the conclusion that there is some distinct appendage or accessory that human beings possess which give them this priceless ability to think is quite reasonable. Of course it can be argued that organisms besides human beings have thought processes, but for our purposes we will make the distinction that human thought is distinguishable. Therefore, this appendage or additional equipment that the human being possesses can be referred to as the MIND.
Philosophers have tried to explain how the mind works with varying “Theories of Mind.” These theories of mind have been argued for and argued against for years yet these theories have fallen short of truly identifying the power of the mind and how it works. In order to propose the real substance of mind and its true function we must first explore each theory of mind. When discussing theories of mind, one must acknowledge the two main classes in which the major theories belong. These two main classes are known as Dualism and Materialism and each contains its own theories.
I decided to begin this blog because I fell in love with philosophy and wanted to continue critiquing the work of both the ancient Greeks as well as the more recent works of John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, etc. These pieces were the papers that our founding fathers used to draft our constitution. Their interpretation of the works of Locke created the fundamental right of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (Locke originally used the right of life, liberty, and property as his ideal).
I will also be using this blog for critiquing various pieces of literature, and papers published by more contemporary thinkers such as someone whose work is quite intriguing to me, Ezra Pound.
I hope fellow lovers of philosophy, and literature will find this page refreshing in a world filled with members of society who for so long have refused to think. Thanks in advance for reading!
