Mind Body Problem Psychology Essay Example

The stimulus reads, "What a piece of work is a man!.. In action how like an angel.. What is this quintessence of dust? What is it that humans are, are we just physical being or something more? The extract from Hamlet raises philosophical questions about the nature of man.  Through the course of time, the mind and body problem has been one of philosophies most debated topics, with some philosophers believing the mind and body are separate entities with some philosophers going as far to say that consciousness is an illusion, but what is the right answer? This essay I will argue that the mind being conceived as a different form of substance or matter is an interesting philosophical standpoint as it gives the mind non-physical properties thus normal science not being able the explain the mind. To accomplish this, I will look at arguments for substance dualism, eliminative materialism and functionalism while considering all counter arguments for each philosophical standpoint. 

As Shakespeare wonders what a man is and explores the complexity of what we are, could separating our mind and body be the answer? This theory that the mind and body are separate entities originates from Rene Descartes. Descartes' theory of substance dualism suggests that the human mind and body are completely different substances and entities in their entirety. The dualist argues that psychological substances, states, processes, and the like, are nonphysical or mental things, and are ontologically different from physical material substances. Descartes’ in simpler terms is explaining that the body is spatially divisible meanwhile the mind isn’t. Substance Dualism is something I can attend for as for example if I fall over, I feel pain, contrastingly if I feel hungry, I will eat. Descartes' substance dualism however runs into issues, one of them being the problem of interaction. The problem of interaction occurs on the premise that since the body is a spatially located object mean while the mind is immaterial, how do these substances interact? If a man wants to walk how does this immaterial substance the mind, tell his body made of full physical properties to move. This problem of interaction is the biggest counter argument to Descartes' substance dualism. If that is the case could the mind and body be one substance? Or is the mind just an illusion? 

As Descartes' substance dualism is countered by the problem of interaction, could suggesting that the mind and body are made up of physical properties be the answer? Eliminative Materialism is the proposal that consciousness is simply a trick our brain is playing on us, and that consciousness is simply and illusion. Eliminative Materialism is built on the premise that our consciousness can be deducted into simply physical properties thus concluding that consciousness is false. Eliminative materialism suggests that as with everything else like fire, water and oxygen, science will soon explain consciousness. Although the philosophical standpoint solves the problem of interaction it raises its own problems and there are a handful of counter arguments against eliminative materialism. A major argument against eliminative materialism is best explained by Philosopher David Chalmers, Chalmers counters eliminative materialism on the premise that if physical properties can be explained, but no physical accounts can explain consciousness than, eliminative materialism is false. Chalmers has also taken his counter arguments against eliminative materialism further as he developed a thought experiment. The thought experiment involves a colour-blind neuroscientist Mary, Mary knows all the physical facts about colours and how our brains interpret the colour. She has studied all the physical facts about colour in a black and white room on a black and white monitor. With all the physical facts in her mind, what will happen as Mary leaves the black and white room, will she learn anything? If she does Chalmers argues that all her knowledge about the physical facts of colour was incomplete furthermore saying physical facts do not exhaust all the facts. Can the physical facts explain everything? 

 If Eliminative Materialism runs into the problem of not being able to explain consciousness physically, then could another physicalist theory explain consciousness. Functionalism is the claim that consciousness can be explained by saying all our mental states stand in causal relation and all have intrinsic properties. Simon Blackburn, a functionalist adheres that the word mind becoming a noun was a mistake as he claims the mind is not something but rather a state all biological creatures are capable of preforming. Functionalism takes a rather physical approach as it suggests after explaining the brain states there is nothing more to explain. Functionalism can also satisfy the claim that if artificial intelligence can perform all the functions that humans can, AI could be conscious. Simon Blackburn continues his argument for Functionalism as he thinks that we are confined to only knowing our current mental states, this suggest that subjective experience is eliminated as what our brain states were 5 days ago is irrelevant to our current experience. I disagree with this standpoint as humans being purely physical systems does not seem correct to me. Does believing humans are physical systems preforming functions explain us? Does that mean humans and robots are no different to each other?

Functionalism runs into many counter arguments and problems when talking about physical properties, although AI can be used to help argue functionalism, it is also one of the biggest counters against it. The strongest argument against functionalism is John Searle's Chinese room experiment. Searles experiment challenges one of the key arguments for functionalism, that being able to complete tasks or being able to complete a set of functions can explain consciousness. Searle argues that being able to perform functions cannot explain the mind as we have an ‘intentionality’ or ‘aboutness’ when we preform functions. An example is when asking Siri about dogs, Siri can tell you all the physical facts about dogs but have no aboutness, meanwhile asking another human about dogs will lead to them thinking about dogs and their own experiences. Searle demonstrates this in the Chinese room experiment as he locks a non Chinese speaker in a room full of Chinese characters which is an analogy a database, now imagine two people standing on each side of the room sending each other messages. The only function that the man in the room would be able to perform is matching the symbols sent to him with the corresponding message in the book. The man in the room has no aboutness when sending these signals or messages. Searle’s experiment suggests that saying the mind operates syntactically cannot be the case as when humans see symbols or signals, we interpret them based on our experiences thus being different from computers who operate in 1’s and 0’s with no aboutness.  

Concluding the mind and body problem is challenging as all standpoints have their own limitations, I lean towards substance dualism as the problem of interaction seems less like a counter argument when seeing the problems of materialist standpoints like eliminative materialism and functionalism. Although the problem of interaction is a key argument against my view, that does not mean its incorrect as all other views have their own limitations as well. As the extract from Hamlet wonders about the mind and body we can continue searching for answers.