You must have Credits on your Balance to download this sample
Provide an argument for the claim that (some) mental states are not identical to any brain state. Explain why the argument is va
Pages 3 (753 words)
Author: Instructor: Course Title: 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).
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. ...
Not exactly what you need?