Emergentism, Interactionism, And Pluralism

The brain is a physical organ located in the head of humans. This organ is composed of soft tissue that controls the nervous system and drives mental processes. As the body receives stimulation from internal or external sources, the sensations are relayed to and interpreted by the brain. These interpretations are translated into the thoughts or experiences often referred to as consciousness. The mind arises from the activity of the brain that produces consciousness. This consciousness, or the mind, gives humans the ability to reason, make judgements, and contemplate experiences. Upon its realization, the mind can be further developed to bring an individual to a higher level of thinking or consciousness. The mind cannot be located at …show more content…
This combination could be called emergent interactive pluralism. In their description of emergentism, King, Viney, & Woody (2013) propose that the mind emerges from the brain as product of neural activity, but the two are entirely separate (p. 31). Just as salt emerges from combining sodium and chloride, the mind comes from brain processes (King, Viney, & Woody, 2013, p. 31). The interactions of the brain, mind, and soul described above are reminiscent of interactionism. Interactionism maintains that each order of reality- the brain and the mind- is real and reciprocally stimulates the other (King, Viney, & Woody, 2013, p. 30). Finally, the solution suggests the soul as an additional reality separate from the brain and the mind. The soul’s ability to influence the brain and mind is a concept related to pluralism. Pluralism also acknowledges varying levels of conscious awareness (King, Viney, & Woody, 2013, p. 31) similar to those mentioned in the solution …show more content…
Spoken like a true monist, Sam Harris (2012) claims that free will is only an illusion and all mental activity is reducible to physiological processes of the brain and body. Our actions are the result of prior events and innumerable influences and, given the circumstances, no other outcome could be expected (Harris, 2012). In order to have absolute free will, we would have to be able to control everything that influences our thoughts and actions (Harris, 2012). Emergent interactive pluralism cannot meet this demand, but there is still hope for free will. Harris’s definition of absolute free will is that one must control everything in order to be free. This is simply not possible. A more rational definition of free will is having the freedom to choose to act according to one’s motivation within a particular circumstance. Free will exists, just not in terms of Harris’s