Churchland is a materialist who believes all can be explained by physical property of matter. She says we cannot believe in god, heaven, hell, or even the soul because all we are certain of is matter. Churchland entirely denies the existence of the soul and the mind. She says all the “mind” is, is electrical connections functioning in various ways. Our neurons, impulses, etc. make us who we are. The “mind” is really just the brain – a physical thing. In this paper I will talk about Churchland’s arguments against Cartesian dualism, what she thinks the true connections between the brain and body is, and what her opinion is on Descartes’ method of skepticism.
Churchland rejects Cartesian dualism with four arguments. Her first argument is that Cartesian dualism is not supported by evolutionary biology, chemistry, and physics (Churchland, 305). Those three predominant sciences do not prove the existence of the soul. If we were to further question this we’d come across obstacles such as “Is the soul selected by natural selection?” or “Where is the soul come from based on history and …show more content…
The only way we can understand how the brain works is with these three sciences working together. With philosophy, psychology, and neurology constantly criticizing and developing each other, Churchland says we can grow, better understand how the brain works, and prove why the soul does not exist.
Unlike Churchland, Descartes is skeptical of all including his senses and the physical world around him. Descartes believed one should initially look for a basis of all beliefs using abstract knowledge and philosophy. Contrary to Churchland’s beliefs, Descartes says the a priori (truth of logic) should come before a posteriori (truths that must be tested to be accepted as valid). Descartes says one should begin with a strong philosophical foundation. Once that is established, science can secondarily be derived from
Churchland rejects Cartesian dualism with four arguments. Her first argument is that Cartesian dualism is not supported by evolutionary biology, chemistry, and physics (Churchland, 305). Those three predominant sciences do not prove the existence of the soul. If we were to further question this we’d come across obstacles such as “Is the soul selected by natural selection?” or “Where is the soul come from based on history and …show more content…
The only way we can understand how the brain works is with these three sciences working together. With philosophy, psychology, and neurology constantly criticizing and developing each other, Churchland says we can grow, better understand how the brain works, and prove why the soul does not exist.
Unlike Churchland, Descartes is skeptical of all including his senses and the physical world around him. Descartes believed one should initially look for a basis of all beliefs using abstract knowledge and philosophy. Contrary to Churchland’s beliefs, Descartes says the a priori (truth of logic) should come before a posteriori (truths that must be tested to be accepted as valid). Descartes says one should begin with a strong philosophical foundation. Once that is established, science can secondarily be derived from