Got a tricky question? Receive an answer from students like you! Try us!

Provide an argument for the claim that (some) mental states are not identical to any brain state. Explain why the argument is va - Essay Example

Only on StudentShare
Undergraduate
Essay
Philosophy
Pages 3 (753 words)

Summary

Author: Instructor: Date: Some Mental States are not identical to any Brain State Leibniz’s Law is associated with the principle of the Identity of Indiscernibles. It states that anything that is distinct is so different from other things, and that no two objects can have share their properties (Forrest)…

Extract of sample
Provide an argument for the claim that (some) mental states are not identical to any brain state. Explain why the argument is va

It also provides reason why that argument is valid and explains the resources the monist has at her disposal to undermine our confidence in the soundness of this argument. It also evaluates the response of a monist to the dualist argument that has been provided. The argument for the claim that some mental states are not identical to any brain state is supported by various premises. First, phenomenal properties can only reside in mental substances and not physical objects such as the brain. Second, physical bodies like the brain have spatial properties while minds do not have spatial properties. Third, a mind thinks while physical bodies such as the brain do not think. Fourth, a mind is known to exist with certainty while physical bodies like the brain lack that property. Therefore, in conclusion, some mental states are not identical to any brain state, and a mind is distinct from every physical state. This argument is valid because thinking about things involves intentionality, which is a property of nonphysical things (Mandik). For instance, a brain, which is purely physical, cannot think about things that do not exist in time and space. However, a mind can think about things that do not exist in time and space. Secondly, the brain cannot have intentionality because intentionality is very strange. ...
Download paper
Not exactly what you need?

Related Essays

Ontological argument
Objectives: 1. Elaboration of the famous doctrine of Ontological Argument in the light of the philosophies elaborated by the ancient early Christian scholar St. Anselm, eminent philosopher Rene Descartes (1596-1650), and his successor philosopher Nietzsche. 2. Evaluation of Descartes’ hypothesis and its impact on the future philosophic theories 3. To analyze whether Descartes’ doctrine was certainly the revolt against his contemporary religious and philosophical beliefs, or he imitated the footprints of his predecessors while articulating his rationalism 4. Significance of his theoretical…
10 pages (2510 words)
argument
God’s existence, Cosmological reasons Someone ensures the universe is in harmony. The earth revolves around the sun. The sun firmly stays comfortably in its preset place, the center of a nine planet solar system. The solar system shows that each of the nine planets do not collide against each other. The Milky Way is composed of many stars, comets, and other celestial objects. Humans cannot reach out and rearrange how the universe moves. Someone, who is God, is holding all these majestic works of art together (Viney 151). No one can say that the planets magically fell into place. No one can…
3 pages (753 words)
Argument
Descartes argues that the connection between mind and body is a wholly arbitrary without regard to the laws of physics; for instance he demonstrates that a particle striking another will move in a direction that is determined by the angle of the first particle. In contrary, in the human body, there is no connection between the physical sensations and the ensuing mental reaction; he argues that hunger pangs; for instance, have no direct connection to the reaction they provoke (Desire to eat) and can just as well produce a desire to sleep or drink (Descartes 54). In modern day, cognitive…
3 pages (753 words)
Reconstruct/Explain/Criticize an argument
It is a theory that argues against the means; happiness in this case, justifies the end. According to Kant, people should not be judged by the consequences of their action, which is to mean that the results of an action should not apply in determining whether something is right or wrong. Thus, according to Kant, the motives the person had behind their actions ought to be used to measure whether an act is right or wrong. Utilitarianism, on the other hand, is a discipline of thought that argues that the result of an action ought to justify the means through which the end was achieved. This…
4 pages (1004 words)
Reconstruct/Explain/Criticize an argument (PAPER2)
However, this is not in the case of Basic argument I. According to this argument, besides the deterministic being true or false, an individual is not fully morally responsible for their action. It entails various expressions that are: nothing can be caused by itself; for one to be truly morally responsible for his action one should at least convey a certain crucial mental respect, and nothing can be fully morally responsible. Therefore, Galen Strawson tries to explain a person’s action is mostly influenced by his character, his origin, his environment and cultural differences among others.…
4 pages (1004 words)
Provide an argument for the claim that (some) mental states are not identical to any brain state.
Furthermore, it will discuss the relevant concepts in philosophy that will either affirm or negate these suppositions. In order to make this possible, the monist and dualist concepts are also discussed. Some mental states (beliefs) are not identical to any brain state The first argument being focused in this paper is the difference between mental and brain states. As mentioned earlier, these two are different concepts. Many people are confused and often use these two interchangeably. The mental state has a deeper context compared to that of the brain state. This is so because it refers to the…
4 pages (1004 words)