Prior to delving in and analyzing the various responses of Huxley, Ryle, and Armstrong, a synopsis highlighting the key points of “An Unfortunate Dualist” is essential. Ultimately, Smullyan paints a picture of a protagonist who is extremely unhappy due to his philosophical inclinations. He reasons he cannot commit suicide for it will not be a rational act given the various associations he believes suicide holds. This dualist, comes across a miraculous drug which will annihilate the soul, yet leaving the physical body- his perfect solution. During the night, a friend who is aware of his sufferings sneaks in and injects the drug. The protagonist wakes up the next morning, still buying the drug and injects himself. Moments later he is utterly
…show more content…
Huxley would deem the drug in question to be impossible because it suggests that eliminating the mind would free the man of the body and extensively of this world. This is where Huxley directly opposes he holds that the mind is non-material yet imposes nothing on the body, it is a meager byproduct. Therefore, the drug cannot be possible in principle because it would have to eliminate the body to eliminate the mind becoming equivalent to suicide (what the dualist wants to avoid). Ryle would hold that the drug is impossible in principle but for different reasons. He would state that mental states are physical states. They are brain processes which are a propensity or disposition to act in a given manner associated with this disposition. If the drugs aim is to separate the entity of mind from the body. This would be impossible because the mind is one in the same with the body. Against leading to suicide, what our dualist wants to avoid. Armstrong looks at this issue from a different light. He yearns to reduce this entire thing in materialistic terms, yet still preserving the humanistic qualities. He does this by stating mental states are identical with physical states. Although they have this relationship mental states are identical inner states and behavior is an outer state. Thus, this means that if one targets the correct area of the brain he can eliminate these mental states leaving being an animal of stimuli. All of these perspectives shed an illuminating light on the issues of physicalism and dualism which is to be debated for years to come. A viable solution is Armstrong 's approach of incorporating the two, but I believe this needs to be freed of the confines of the scientific approach. We must address the issue of consciousness with a paradigm shift on how we look upon the issue itself. It cannot be the same way in which we solidify universal laws in
Huxley would deem the drug in question to be impossible because it suggests that eliminating the mind would free the man of the body and extensively of this world. This is where Huxley directly opposes he holds that the mind is non-material yet imposes nothing on the body, it is a meager byproduct. Therefore, the drug cannot be possible in principle because it would have to eliminate the body to eliminate the mind becoming equivalent to suicide (what the dualist wants to avoid). Ryle would hold that the drug is impossible in principle but for different reasons. He would state that mental states are physical states. They are brain processes which are a propensity or disposition to act in a given manner associated with this disposition. If the drugs aim is to separate the entity of mind from the body. This would be impossible because the mind is one in the same with the body. Against leading to suicide, what our dualist wants to avoid. Armstrong looks at this issue from a different light. He yearns to reduce this entire thing in materialistic terms, yet still preserving the humanistic qualities. He does this by stating mental states are identical with physical states. Although they have this relationship mental states are identical inner states and behavior is an outer state. Thus, this means that if one targets the correct area of the brain he can eliminate these mental states leaving being an animal of stimuli. All of these perspectives shed an illuminating light on the issues of physicalism and dualism which is to be debated for years to come. A viable solution is Armstrong 's approach of incorporating the two, but I believe this needs to be freed of the confines of the scientific approach. We must address the issue of consciousness with a paradigm shift on how we look upon the issue itself. It cannot be the same way in which we solidify universal laws in