Now let us consider a hypothetical situation where the doctor without any physical transplantation swapped your brains data, which consists your personality, memories, experiences, now would you be still you? Yes.  There is an argument among philosophers that a person at a time A is same as at time B because their personal identity is same as they are spatiotemporally continuous (continuous in space and time) and others argue that it is because of psychologically continuous. (mental states of person at time B are derived from mental states at time A).  Lets us consider one more situation that if you donate your half of the brain to other brain less person, after regaining consciousness both of you are psychologically continuous with same mental behaviour and experiences but representing different physical bodies.
“Zombie” is a creature physically identical to a human, functioning in all the right ways, having conversations, playing cricket, but simply lacking all conscious experience. Conceivable means that if something is conceivable then we can confidently picture it, imagine it without any obvious contradiction. 2. In the world we live in zombies are impossible to exist given the laws of nature. It does not seem any obvious contradiction about the idea of zombie’s existence and the things that are conceivable then there is a possibility then that thing can exist.
Monism is a singular existence theory like only one substance exists in the world. Physicalism says all objects in nature satisfy conditions for being physical but there is a divide among philosophers on the conditions themselves. There are questions raised as to what exactly are the conditions for something to be physical. Physicalists say that if something is not visibly physical at the first glance it supervenes on something that is physical. The use of ‘physical’ in physicalism is different from it’s use in general sense.
The model offers causal explanations as well as simply describing personality traits (Costa & McCrae, 1992). Cattell and Eysenck arrived at two very different, but not irreconcilable theories of personality. The two theorists used factor analysis very differently, but actually their conceptualisations are not fundamentally different. Eysenck 's extraversion-introversion supertrait is highly similar to Cattell 's exvia-invia, and neuroticism is very similar to anxiety. Eysenck preferred to work with a broad three dimensional picture, whereas Cattell believed that working with a larger number of traits, a more accurate perception of personality is obtained (Hampson, 1988).
He says that our claims about physical objects were justified in reference to such sensory experience. He also claims that the function of philosophy is to give ‘definitions in use’, showing how the sentences in which a symbol or type of symbol (“table”) occurs can be translated into equivalent sentences which don’t contain it or its synonyms. According to him, all propositions about material objects can be translated without loss into propositions about sense-data and therefore material objects are logical constructions. He doesn’t claim that material objects are constructed, made out, of sense data; but that propositions about material objects are in fact entirely concerned with features and relations of sense-data. I order to say that a material object exists is equivalent to say that certain sorts of sense data have been, are being, and would be experienced under certain conditions.
Lewis describes personhood in a very similar way, he defines it in terms of mental states and the body’s reactions to those states. Unlike Descartes view, Lewis uses this definition to describe how humans interact with the world, and everything in it. While these views are not incorrect in it of themselves, they are not the whole picture. Following this logic, one could conclude that an animal or an alien are also people, as long as their senses and mind function similarly to how they work in humans. In the essay “Persons and Non-Persons”, Mary Midgley defines “legal person” and “natural person”.
Rationalism is beliefs in the external world that give somethings like a power or transcendent being. Empiricism is belief in sensation experience that looks like a science. I think both concepts are conflict in some situation and compatible in some situation. For example, you can’t test or examination about the God’s existence but you can’t say it is true or false or meaningless because may be verified in the future. The paradigm of Positivism seems to be combined of Rationalism and Empiricism.
Maybe philosophers only used the word immaterial to be able to differentiate something with physical attributes to those who does not. Even if they have this difference, they have this one similarity: Both of them EXIST for a reason and they contribute to the totality of
He argues that if we seek to answer the question of what it means to exist, we have to study the unique entity that has an understanding of what it means to be (i.e. Dasein) and how that entity’s existence differs from that of all other entities. In understanding the distinction between Dasein and other entities, we are able to understand the unique phenomena of Dasein’s existence, that is, being-in-the-world. Heidegger rejects the assumption maintained in many philosophical frameworks that all forms of existence are equivalent; instead, he claims that there is an ontological difference between
The human mind is unmaterialistic in contrast to the human brain. We can’t sense the mind, i.e., can’t touch it and see it while we can most certainly touch and see the brain. The general crowd would agree that the senses are used to perceive matter. Matter is the atom of the physical existence claimed to be more or less constant. The general boils down to the specific immaterialist and the idealist, George Berkeley who presented a Metaphysical idealism under the famous claim esse est percipi" ("to be is to be perceived").Berkeley’s claim meant that an idea or an object that is not perceived by the mind does not exist since in order for anything to exist it has to be perceived by the mind and that nothing outside the mind exists.