Should we, as human beings, think of ourselves as made out of two different substances, like Decartes argued? Or are you persuaded by the arguments of physicalism that we are purely physical beings?
If you agree with Descartes, how would you explain the fact that our mental life seems to be very closely connected to a physical organ, namely the brain. If you agree with physicalism, how do you explain the fact that our mental life seems to be like nothing else in the physical world (think of how unique something like consciousness is, for example).
I have thought about this topic many times, even before I took this Philosophy course. I often flip back and forth, depending on what I have learned about the mind, or what movie I have just seen that's related to these questions.That being said, I most often agree with Descartes stance that we are made from 2 different substances: the mind and the physical body.
Yes, science has come along way to show that our thought processes can be seen as physical events that are taking place in our brain. However, people who are in comas have brain activity, yet they are not conscious. I personally know someone who was in a coma and was on life support and was clinically dead for a few minutes, yet he recalls having visions, or dreams, during this "state".
To touch upon the Gage example, I equate the mind like software on a computer and the brain the hard drive. The software is not something you can feel or touch, you simply use it. When everything is perfect, your computer runs smoothly. However, you can physically damage the hard drive but not render it inoperable. It may run slower, and there may be glitches, but that is because the physical components of the hard drive have been damaged similar to Gage's brain. I believe his mind was still in tact, but because the pole was driven through his face, the "components" re-routed the connections and thus changed his personality.
On the contrary, Artificial Intelligence is getting so advanced that scientists predict that it's only a matter of time before a program will become self-aware and make decisions on its own.
So, I think I contradicted myself here. Sorry about that. I guess I believe in both theories. I do believe that we are made up of physical components but at the same time, I believe the mind, or soul, is our essence, and that is not something physical like software on a computer.
Going back to someone in a coma: their brain is alive and has activity, but the personality is gone and so is the person's essence.
2 comments:
Richard,
I totally understand what you mean about thinking you know what side (dualism or physicalism) you are on and being confused by it. As I read the section about Descartes and dualism, I understood it, and didn't think that physicalism would resonate with me at all, especially because I took the test on page 206-7 and scored an eight on the dualism side which is pretty strong. But philosophy fooled me again and I really understood where physicalists are coming from. The mind can be explained according to brain function, and as much as we'd like to think that it's not predictable, it is. Our neurons fire at certain times according to certain events and our activities and responses can be scientifically explained.
Anyway, I'm in the same boat, I really thought I was a dualist. Now I'm not so sure. That's philosophy for you!
Jonna
It's really interesting that you mention the software analogy. We will look at this in depth next week when we do functionalism. In many ways, I think, this approach does offer a much more persuasive view of the relation between the physical and the mental than either of these two candidates.
Post a Comment