Materialist View of the Mind-body Problem Analysis

Materialist View of the Mind-body Problem AnalysisDiscuss the strengths and failinges of the materialist view of the take heed-body problem.The principal-body problem within the study of ken is exactly as it sounds the difficulty with connecting the mind with the body. The mind is well-nigh mental processes, sensibleness and thoughts, and the body is about the somatogenetic typeface of the superstar (McLeod, 2007). This problem is known as the explanatory gap and thither are many theories which attempt to understand the extent of this gap. One hypothesis which is very popular amongst current researchers is physicalism. This approach is the idea that awareness buttocks be completely explained by physical matter and leaves no get on for the non-physical mind (Blackmore, 2010). Materialists believe that it is only our adept functions that are important and non our indwelling experiences, otherwise described as matter over mind. The opposing approach to materialism is du alism, which is the idea that our mind is more than expert our understanding, a.k.a. mind over matter (Dualism, 2014). Howalways, there are very a couple of(prenominal) dualists today. Most philosophers nowadays are materialists, although it undersurface non be denied that materialism is also not without its flaws (Blackmore, 2010).There are two main versions of materialism. One is eliminative materialism which proposes that congenital experiences do not exist and that by knowing enough about biology and the nervous system, we burn also understand consciousness and and so, it can be completely explained by neuroscience (Blackmore, 2010). The other version is reductive materialism which suggests that our mental states are identical to our physical states of the mindset, core that subjective experiences do exist but they are not distinguishable from physical processes in the brain (Churchland, 1988). Materialism denies that it is our conscious decisions that cause us to act t he flair we do and instead believes that it is physical causes (Blackmore, 2010).There are strengths and weaknesses of materialism. Searle (2000) believes it is very overage and does not explain what consciousness is, but neither does dualism and by rejecting one, it does not mean adopting the other. One strength of materialism is that it avoids the problem of dualism which is that consciousness and physical matter are thought of as two separate substances, kernel that the interaction between them cannot be explained. Materialists argue that if our minds are the same(p) as our brains and not two separate substances, then there is no get to explain how one causes the other. For dualism to be correct, the interaction between the two substances would rent to work both ways, meaning that any change in consciousness must be accompanied by a change in the brain, and any change in the brain must also be accompanied by a change in consciousness. However, the latter is not true which su ggests that dualism does not work (Blackmore, 2010).Materialists believe that consciousness is identical to brain states. However, according to Leibnizs law, if two entities are to be identical, they must capture the same properties (Blackman, 2008). For materialism to be correct, all properties of the brain would also countenance to be properties of consciousness, which is not true as mental states consent properties that brain states do not, such as subjective experiences.Materialism believes that our subjective experiences cannot be studied in an objective way as they are not a physical entity and non-entities cannot be studied by science (Blackman, 2008). However, Searle (2000) argues that they can. He believes that by intercommunicate people about their subjective experiences, for example, how it feels to experience pain, that we can study this objectively. One weakness of materialism is that it ignores the aspect of how it feels to be conscious by denying that subjective e xperiences exist or that they are not typical from functions in the brain (Blackmore, 2010). Patterns of brain activation cannot explain how it feels to be conscious and aware of experiences.Miller et al. (2009) demonstrated how we cannot tell what someone is experiencing by expression at images of their brain activation. This was shown by strong item-by-item differences in patterns of brain activation amongst participants while they were all doing the same memory task. Materialists believe that by doing the same memory task, all participants are experiencing the same thing and therefore the patterns of their brain activation should all be the same. However, as this is not the case, it provides narrate that eliminative materialism does not work and that subjective experiences do exist as participants must consent had different experiences from one another even though they were doing the same task. This also suggests that reductive materialism cannot work as the variance within participants shows that our subjective experiences must not be identical to our brain states.Nagel (1974) explains how subjective experiences are such a crucial aspect of organism conscious by comparing humans to bats. We could never know what it would real be equivalent to be a bat because we could never trade the same subjective experiences as them. Even if we were magically transformed into a bat, we would still have our own memories and intelligence, meaning we would not have the same experience that normal bats do (Blackmore, 2010). He makes the load that in order to even begin to form an idea of what it is akin to be a bat (or even another person) we must adopt their point of view. The same applies to Searles argument about pain it seems impossible that anyone would ever be able to have the same experience of someone elses mental state as their perceptions of the same experience could be simply different (Churchland, 1988). This stresses how important subjective experi ences are as we all have our own different viewpoints meaning that we experience things differently and therefore these experiences cannot be understood from looking at a brain scan. This also suggests wherefore materialism is not the answer to the mind-body problem. However, it also argues against Searles theory that subjective experiences can be studied objectively as, even after asking about them, we still do not know exactly what it is like to experience it ourselves.Materialisms main strength is that it proposes that consciousness is not different from the brain, meaning that how one causes the other does not have to be explained and therefore, eliminates the problem of the explanatory gap. However, this can also be viewed as a major weakness of the theory the two cannot be identical as our mental states have properties that our brain states do not share. Materialism does not sufficiently line for the role of our subjective experiences in consciousness. It either completely eliminates their role or it claims that they are simply the same as our physical brain states.Referencesall(a) About Philosophy. (2014). Dualism. Retrieved from http//www.allaboutphilosophy.org/dualism.htmBlackman, R. (2008). Churchland, Matter and Consciousness. Retrieved from http//reidblackman.com/pdf/reidBlackman.churchland.pdfBlackmore, S. (2010). Consciousness An introduction. 2nd edition. Routledge.Churchland, P, M. (1988). Matter and Consciousness. Revised edition. mama Institute of Technology.McLeod, S. A. (2007). Mind Body Debate. Retrieved from http//www.simplypsychology.org/mindbodydebate.htmlMiller, M.B., Donovan, C. L., Sokol-Hessner, P., German, E., Van Horn, J.D., Wolford, G.L. (2009). Unique and persistent individual patterns of brain activity across different memory retrieval tasks. NeuroImage, 48, 625-635.Nagel, T. (1974). What is it like to be a bat? The Philosophical Review, 83(4), 435-450.Searle, J. (2000). Consciousness. Annual Reviews of Neuroscience, 23, 55 7 578.