To begin, we don’t really know what qualia “are”, because qualia are an excrescence; they do nothing and they explain nothing. So if they don’t help explain anything, then how can we explain still that physicalism is false? The answer lies in epiphenomenalism. According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, epiphenomenalism is defined as, “the view that mental events are caused by physical events in the brain, but have no effects upon any physical events”. So what does this mean?
So to my wonder, would there be philosophical thinking without free will? Some philosophers, to my surprise, do believe free will is an illusion. Galen Strawson’s Basic Argument, argues that nothing can be causa sui or that nothing can be the cause of itself (On Galen Strawson’s Basic Argument, Pg. 1). Causa sui states that “we can never be ultimately morally responsible for our actions” (Your Move: The Maze of Free Will, Pg.1).
Therefore, the concept of change does not make sense. So the main idea of this argument is that: if something comes to be then it is clearly a being and clearly is. Then what does this being come to be from? For this Parmenides offers us two solutions, either what is or what is not. However if the original thing is what is, and the resulting being is also what is, then nothing has actually come into being and so therefor no change has occurred.
Bundle Theory is reinforced and proven by the split-brain case, however it can lead to the argument that there is no self. Bundle Theory is the theory that the self is an illusionary concept, everything that exists is a bundle of perception. Ego Theory is that there is a soul. The Ego Theory has some flaws such the soul is separate from the body and is a immaterialist object within us. Bundle Theory is reinforced and proven by the split-brain case, however it can lead to the argument that there is no self.
He says that the body can be divided into pieces but the mind/soul are indivisible. Elizabeth of Bohemia argues against Cartesian dualism by saying that humans have physical and nonphysical elements and we’re not a cogito. She says that physical things cause physical things to move, and if the mind doesn’t have a physical component then there's
McCloskey claimed that the cosmological argument “does not entitle us to postulate an all-powerful, all-perfect, uncaused cause.” At first glance of this statement I am understanding the statement as that something doesn’t allow us to come up with a belief or solution, which is silly. In the same thinking one could say that based on his arguments he is not allowed to assume there is no God. Nevertheless, based on the existence of a contingent being it points toward the existence of a necessary being because they require an ultimate cause. Beyond this, the cosmological argument may be limited. Upon a person believing this they will surely be thirsting for more information of who God is.
Further, when speaking about substance, we are talking as a substance that can exist independently of all other. "Ta substance is something which properties ‘inhere '; that is, it is what has, or instantiates, properties." (pg33) Since there tend to be two entirely different substance by use of time and space, we come down to Descartes’s view of dualism, and we the two not identical to one another. On the other hand, Descartes goes on the say the person is unable to access another perspective, and no one can 't access your mind or perspective, which mean that the mind is subjectivity. This is where many dualist retrieve their view and with the help of Scriptural text of the
No matter how hard you try to generalize happiness it can never be generalized. Thematic clarity: The theme is pretty much clear i.e. happiness. Author has tried to make the readers understand that happiness cannot be generalized and cannot ne compared to that of other’s. Happiness of a person cannot be judged by others.
Knowledge Argument against Physicalism Physicalism is a branch of philosophy which states that everything in this world is physical. There is nothing like non-physical. Physical facts are the truth in this world. Physicalism is also called ‘materialistic monism’. Monism is a singular existence theory like only one substance exists in the world.
If we could do the same with the mind and the body, there would be no problem in regards to which mind is paired with which body. However, in Cartesian Dualism, the mind is an immaterial thing: there is no visible, physical path to trace! We cannot physically see the mind interacting with the body. This raises not only the question of which mind is paired with which body, but also if there is even a causal interaction at all, like Descartes claims there is. Indeed, how can I know that the mind interacts with the body if there is no evidence that I can see that tells me
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.
On the contrary to Descartes’ reflections, from the point of Dennett as physicalist, the only kind of substance is physical. In his paradigm, everything which exists is either physical or supervenes from the physical, which is a materialist view. However, this view presents even more complicated approach to defining the self, since it is not underlining the importance of soul, but instead allows only the material explanations to exist. From this point, as it was mentioned referring to body transplantation, neither the body alone nor the brain do not reflect the “self” of a human, since it generates paradoxes of responsibility and identity. However, the brain has stronger position, since it has more opportunities without body than body without brain: i.e., it can hear the music through direct influence at appropriate nerves.
Determinism is the tenet that all occasions, including human activity, are at last dictated by makes outer the will. A few scholars have taken determinism to suggest that individual people have no unrestrained choice and can 't be considered ethically in charge of their activities. It is also the position in which for each occasion, including human cooperation that exist conditions that could bring about no other occasion. There are numerous determinisms, contingent upon what pre-conditions are thought to be determinative of an occasion or activity. One philosopher who believe in determinism and his name is BF