Does Identity Theory provide a plausible solution to the mind-body problem?
The mind body problem asks many questions but the question that will be focused on in this essay is what is the relationship between the body and the mind, in other words the relationship between the physical and the non-physical. This question arose from Cartesian Dualism: the theory that the mind and the body must be separate because they consist of two totally different substances. Substances being “are those things which, according to that system, are the foundational or fundamental entities of reality” Descartes distinguished between the mind substance and the body substance by showing that the essence and properties of these two substances are fundamentally …show more content…
However Foster believes “mental and neural events to be events of quite different kinds” This view contradicts Lewis’s view that brain states and mental states are identical by showing that they are in fact not identical at all and thus cannot be the same. Another problem the identity theory must overcome is Qualia – which Daniel Dennet said “was the ways things can seem to us” Here he is talking about the subjective experience. So while type identity theorist would say that listening to music would result in your brain processing it and you having a thought, all of which would be physical processes. However some people like certain types of music and some people like others, the type identity theory does not take into account subjective experience. However this criticism does not apply to token identity theory as that theory states each individual mind state is identical to a certain individual brain state. So while type identity theory would say that there are certain types of brain states such as pain or joy, a token identity theorist would say that each time someone experiences pain it is on its own so experiences can be …show more content…
“Epiphenomenalism in the philosophy of mind holds that our actions have purely physical causes (neurophysiological changes in the brain, say), while our intention, desire or volition to act does not cause our actions but is itself caused by the physical causes of our actions.” So they believe that the physical can cause a mental state, but the mental state cannot cause a physical state. Huxley used the example of a steam whistle: “as the steam whistle which accompanies the work of a locomotive engine is without influence upon its machinery.” In the analogy the locomotive engine represents the physical and the steam whistle represents that mental, so the engine has a causal effect on the whistle which is making it whistle, but the whistle cannot causally interact with the locomotive. In other words “physical events are causes, while mental events cannot cause anything ;” However “Epiphenomenalism is typically considered to be a ‘crazy’ theory of last resort to which one is driven only in an act of desperation because all alternatives are even less satisfying” . The main criticism against epiphenomenalism is its denial of the mental’s ability to causally influence the physical . The denial of mental causation would have a massive effect on moral and legal responsibility I do not believe this to be a convincing argument, a philosophical positions repercussions and effects not necessarily make it false, however
The mind body problem asks many questions but the question that will be focused on in this essay is what is the relationship between the body and the mind, in other words the relationship between the physical and the non-physical. This question arose from Cartesian Dualism: the theory that the mind and the body must be separate because they consist of two totally different substances. Substances being “are those things which, according to that system, are the foundational or fundamental entities of reality” Descartes distinguished between the mind substance and the body substance by showing that the essence and properties of these two substances are fundamentally …show more content…
However Foster believes “mental and neural events to be events of quite different kinds” This view contradicts Lewis’s view that brain states and mental states are identical by showing that they are in fact not identical at all and thus cannot be the same. Another problem the identity theory must overcome is Qualia – which Daniel Dennet said “was the ways things can seem to us” Here he is talking about the subjective experience. So while type identity theorist would say that listening to music would result in your brain processing it and you having a thought, all of which would be physical processes. However some people like certain types of music and some people like others, the type identity theory does not take into account subjective experience. However this criticism does not apply to token identity theory as that theory states each individual mind state is identical to a certain individual brain state. So while type identity theory would say that there are certain types of brain states such as pain or joy, a token identity theorist would say that each time someone experiences pain it is on its own so experiences can be …show more content…
“Epiphenomenalism in the philosophy of mind holds that our actions have purely physical causes (neurophysiological changes in the brain, say), while our intention, desire or volition to act does not cause our actions but is itself caused by the physical causes of our actions.” So they believe that the physical can cause a mental state, but the mental state cannot cause a physical state. Huxley used the example of a steam whistle: “as the steam whistle which accompanies the work of a locomotive engine is without influence upon its machinery.” In the analogy the locomotive engine represents the physical and the steam whistle represents that mental, so the engine has a causal effect on the whistle which is making it whistle, but the whistle cannot causally interact with the locomotive. In other words “physical events are causes, while mental events cannot cause anything ;” However “Epiphenomenalism is typically considered to be a ‘crazy’ theory of last resort to which one is driven only in an act of desperation because all alternatives are even less satisfying” . The main criticism against epiphenomenalism is its denial of the mental’s ability to causally influence the physical . The denial of mental causation would have a massive effect on moral and legal responsibility I do not believe this to be a convincing argument, a philosophical positions repercussions and effects not necessarily make it false, however