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.
Phil307 Siyabonga Madlala 211523172 In the philosophy of mind, physicalism is offered as a view advocating for that everything is wholly physical. Like many other views physicalism has arguments against it. This essay seeks to explain the epistemic argument against physicalism, and using the knowledge argument to better support the epistemic argument against physicalism. It will also in light of the epistemic argument against physicalism give responses that support physicalism, in doing so the essay will be using the type B physicalism as the most correct view. Physicalism is the view that all things are wholly physical, as stated by physicalists who are the people or philosophers that support physicalism.
To further complicate Johnson's perception, Sacks states "Yet the brain remains capable of making radical shifts in response to sensory deprivation"(Sacks,331). Making radical shifts gives us an indication that the brain could be termed as a pacemaker within us, as it controls what we do. Furthermore, genes and the brain have quite similar functions to carry out, which is giving out instructions to us, so in that regard both could be termed as pacemakers. The term pacemaker is indeed a very complex term and not as simple as it
If Judas knew of the plot, did others not also? Why would “they” scold the woman? Was there significance to her being in a room with men, or their judgment of a better way to ‘spend’ value of nard? Each of these questions is part of exegesis but will go beyond the scope of this assignment. They are a result of the project and worthy of being included in this write-up.
When it comes to the subject of philosophy, there are a few different “branches” people think of: ethics, political or logic, for example. It is not often the case that when people hear the word philosophy that they immediately think of metaphysics; most people do not even know what metaphysics is. Metaphysics is not a type of science like physics is, but rather the study of what is beyond the physical or beyond nature. It deals with topics surrounding change, the universe and what is common to all beings. It is a difficult subject to grasp, which is the most probable reason of why there are many different theories when it comes to these topics.
Mechanistic explanations adhere to the idea that a phenomenon occurs solely due to perfectly (though randomly) timed interactions between various objects. These types of explanations also describe the sequence of physical and geometrical changes that the object undergoes during a phenomenon. An atomistic explanation is a type of mechanistic explanation that describes a phenomenon in terms of the movement of the object’s
Yes, the body may be appear to be exactly the same but it has not undergone the events from the past, it simply has the ability to recall memories. So the question is bit complicated, yes “you” still exist but no it is not the same “you” who currently inhabits your body. This also implies that after your body is destroyed so are you, your mind that is. In the context of an object such as the ship of Theseus it seems to “have its diachronic identity secured by its being treated as one and the same object over time, more specifically by its having the same function.” The body continuity theory raises the question that if multiple parts are replaced is it still the same ship. If some original pieces remain the same then yes, it
The Bundle Theory explains how there is no self underlining through, that the self is an illusion. In this Theory the self is an idea as it is continuous through time, unchanging. The self is perfectly identical from one time to the next, strictly numerically. The self is perfectly simple as the soul has no parts thus a person cannot lose part of self. Heraclitus once stated, "upon those who step into the same rivers flow different and again different waters."
Arguments for dualism The most frequently used argument in favour of dualism appeals to the common-sense intuition that conscious experience is distinct from inanimate matter. If asked what the mind is, the average person would usually respond by identifying it with their self, their personality, their soul, or some other such entity. They would almost certainly deny that the mind simply is the brain, or vice versa, finding the idea that there is just one ontological entity at play to be too mechanistic, or simply unintelligible. Many modern philosophers of mind think that these intuitions are misleading and that we should use our critical faculties, along with empirical evidence from the sciences, to examine these assumptions to determine whether there is any real basis to them. Another important argument in favor of dualism is that the mental and the physical seem to have quite different, and perhaps irreconcilable, properties.
Those theories alone causes me to question freedom because freedom is the power to act, speak, or think without being restricted. Yet, everything that is run by authorities has functionalism. Some may argue against functionalism because they may feel that it cannot be explained by the mechanism functions either material or logical. Just to say consciousness is expected when it comes to functionalism in order for it to process to the brain or mind. And if that is true, is it safe to say that the claims that I stated previously regarding society have control over our mind through everyday systems processing in our brain?
I’m not sure if we have free will. There are many arguments that suggest that we do not have free will and those arguments are called Hard Determinists. The opposite of those arguments are under the sub heading Soft Determinists, and a couple of them are called Traditional Compatibilism and Hierarchical Compatibilism. Before I discuss what each argument entails, there is a statement called Causal Determination. Causal Determination simply states that “all of our behaviors are caused”.
Supporting a non-reductive physicalism: Anomalous monism According to Davidson “Anomalous monism resembles materialism in its claim that all events are physical, but rejects the thesis, usually considered essential to materialism, that mental phenomena can be given purely physical explanations” (Davidson, 1970/2002, p. 119) In other words, only the physical may be described by causal laws, but if a physical event is described as a mental event there is no causal law, and there are no psychophysical laws that connect the mental with the physical . Davidson, may defend a view of identity theory, but it is clear that it is not possible to reduce the mental states to a physical explanation. In Davidson’s words: Suppose m, a mental event, caused p, a physical event; then, under some description m and p instantiate a strict law. This law can only be physical... But if m falls under a physical law, it has a physical description; which is to say it is a physical event.