1. How Does Carruthers Define The Mind-Brain Identity Thesis?
How does Carruthers define the identity thesis?
1. The identity theory says that mental states are identical to brain states. The identity theory of mind holds that states and processes of the mind are identical to states and processes of the brain.
2. Carruther explores that some mental states are the causes of some physical events. However, the law of Science states that things which cause physical events can be none other than physical events.
3. For example, if a hand movement is an outcome of a chosen “mental event”, then, since only a physical event is a cause of physical event, choosing to move hand can obviously be branded as a physical event.
4. However, carruthers also counter argues that if mental states and physical states have …show more content…
Explain it in your own words and give your evaluation of the argument.
1. Carruthers supports the mind/brain identity-thesis which states that when one talks about a mental state (e.g., pain) one is referring to a physical state of a brain.
2. He also argues that physical events are outcome of mental events. He gives an example saying that if he had not been conscious about the pain in his foot (mental event); he had not gone to a doctor (physical event), which means that some conscious states and events are causally necessary for the occurrence of some physical events.
3. Both the arguments are immensely valid according to me. Besides they also seem to be very simple, natural and obvious arguments.
Explain the argument from spatial position (Section III-B) in your own words (just the gist of the argument). Explain what Carruthers say is wrong about this argument.
1. One of the Arguments against identity thesis is spatial position; if all mental (conscious) states, like thoughts are physical states, then they must have a spatial position.
2. The argument falls short in the sense that unlike all physical objects and states, most conscious states (mental states) appear to have no spatial …show more content…
Carruthers also suggests that identity-theorists should not escape by redefining "thought" or "conscious state".
4. Also, the question of the spatial location of any particular thought also seems nonsensical.
Now in your own words: What is identity theory? How do you evaluate this thesis? Does it cohere with your understanding of the RELATIONSHIP between our mind and our brain? Explain your view.
1. Identity-thesis, according to me, states that mental events are identical to physical events and when one refers to mental events or brain events, one is talking about one and the same thing.
2. After critically examining all the arguments, I do not stand in support of the identity theory because I believe though inter-related mental events and physical events differ.
3. There is undoubtedly strong nexus between the two; maybe a give and take or action and reaction relationship, but my prudence does not find both as identical things.
4. Hence, the theory does not cohere with my understanding of the mind and the brain and I believe that the mind is not the brain.
5. All the counter arguments being precisely put forth in the case, my conclusion of both the events being distinct and specific outcomes of whatever the causes, are apparently and validly different
1. The identity theory says that mental states are identical to brain states. The identity theory of mind holds that states and processes of the mind are identical to states and processes of the brain.
2. Carruther explores that some mental states are the causes of some physical events. However, the law of Science states that things which cause physical events can be none other than physical events.
3. For example, if a hand movement is an outcome of a chosen “mental event”, then, since only a physical event is a cause of physical event, choosing to move hand can obviously be branded as a physical event.
4. However, carruthers also counter argues that if mental states and physical states have …show more content…
Explain it in your own words and give your evaluation of the argument.
1. Carruthers supports the mind/brain identity-thesis which states that when one talks about a mental state (e.g., pain) one is referring to a physical state of a brain.
2. He also argues that physical events are outcome of mental events. He gives an example saying that if he had not been conscious about the pain in his foot (mental event); he had not gone to a doctor (physical event), which means that some conscious states and events are causally necessary for the occurrence of some physical events.
3. Both the arguments are immensely valid according to me. Besides they also seem to be very simple, natural and obvious arguments.
Explain the argument from spatial position (Section III-B) in your own words (just the gist of the argument). Explain what Carruthers say is wrong about this argument.
1. One of the Arguments against identity thesis is spatial position; if all mental (conscious) states, like thoughts are physical states, then they must have a spatial position.
2. The argument falls short in the sense that unlike all physical objects and states, most conscious states (mental states) appear to have no spatial …show more content…
Carruthers also suggests that identity-theorists should not escape by redefining "thought" or "conscious state".
4. Also, the question of the spatial location of any particular thought also seems nonsensical.
Now in your own words: What is identity theory? How do you evaluate this thesis? Does it cohere with your understanding of the RELATIONSHIP between our mind and our brain? Explain your view.
1. Identity-thesis, according to me, states that mental events are identical to physical events and when one refers to mental events or brain events, one is talking about one and the same thing.
2. After critically examining all the arguments, I do not stand in support of the identity theory because I believe though inter-related mental events and physical events differ.
3. There is undoubtedly strong nexus between the two; maybe a give and take or action and reaction relationship, but my prudence does not find both as identical things.
4. Hence, the theory does not cohere with my understanding of the mind and the brain and I believe that the mind is not the brain.
5. All the counter arguments being precisely put forth in the case, my conclusion of both the events being distinct and specific outcomes of whatever the causes, are apparently and validly different