As described in the Paper #1, people who contend that mind or thought or sense or conscious all these nonphysical substances can only be explained fully by an appeal to something distinct from the physical are dualists, their theory is called Dualism. It believes that things can be divided into two parts—physical substance and nonphysical substance. The former are spatial and publicly, they take up space and they are visible and can be felt; But the latter have no shapes or sizes. And dualists also believe only nonphysical substance can think or be conscious. Things on the earth are either mental, or physical.
Next, I will explain Lewis’s reply about why Knowledge Argument can’t refute physicalism. Finally, I will express my own opinion and show my reasons. Frank Jackson puts knowledge Argument forward. Although he thinks that physical knowledge provides us with some information relate to the world, and help people to understand the world in an objective way. However, in the process of experience, human cannot feel the “feeling” using the concepts of that “feeling”, which is named Qualia.
He argued that they were part of the structure of the mind and that we would have no experience without them. He says that sight, smell, touch etc. are all meaningless to us unless they are brought under these innate concepts. Kant believes in a world beyond our conceptual scheme called the noumenal world which he says we can know nothing about and it is impossible to discuss. People have criticized this view by say that how can Kant know that the Noumenal world exists if there is no evidence of it.
[these require focused attention?] This led to the development of two-process theories; which suggest that automatic and controlled processes operate simultaneously, so that tasks are “automatically” carried [could be considered more of a continuum?] Kahneman (1973, as cited in Edgar, 2007) suggested that there is a central processor within the brain which is of limited capacity and that some information cannot be processed. [there is too much input from our senses to be able to cope with] Kahneman explained how the brain acts as a physical filter and defined attention as mental effort; limited resources being allocated
The explanation for the mind is different to the explanation for the brain, although it can be said that they are the same thing, and nothing more. If this is true, then we as individuals bear no soul. Proof from this comes from the concept of monism. However, many people would not agree and these would be dualists among others, where it is believed the brain can just be a synonym for the mind, or just refer to the physical organ that is within our skull. From this, it could be concluded that the brain is the physical substance, where as the mind is more of a philosophical concept.
It was, therefore, my sense that Talvitie’s work served as something of a bridge between the two paradigms that drew me to it. As is the case with all mental phenomena, the questions as to just how and where the unconscious might be, is associated with the mind-body problem that distinguishes monists and dualists. For monists, mind emerges from brain activity. Dualists hold that mind and brain are separate and cannot be reduced to each other. Dualism has largely fallen out of favour with most neuroscientists and Talvitie (2009) himself is clearly a monist.
This weaker version seems to make more sense to me. The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is in effect two propositions, which in a very basic form could perhaps be summed up as firstly Linguistic Determinism (language determines thought), and secondly Linguistic relativity (difference in language equals difference in thought). This topic of determinism and relativity can be applied to many areas – the study of to what extent technology influences our lives is termed the technological determinism debate. In psychology, discussion of this nature regarding the effect of environment and genetic makeup on our lives is called the nature/nurture debate. In a ‘purer’ form, there are philosophical questions of free will and determinism.
The principle of individuation, or principium individuationis describes the manner in which a thing is identified as distinguished from other things. [citation needed] The term is used to describe two different (though related) concepts. The first, the philosophical, is the general idea of how a single thing is identified as being an individual thing, able to be identified as not being something else. This includes how the individual person is thought distinct from the elements of the world, and also how one individual is thought to be distinct from other individuals. The second concept, coming out of C.G.
Determinism is deeply connected with our understanding of the physical sciences and their explanatory ambitions as well as free will. I can most certainly say that I am my own individual person. I make my own actions, my own choices, and my own decisions; however, if I wanted to perform some sort of action differently, then I most certainly could have. I mean in all seriousness, I don’t have the ability to physically change the laws of nature, nor do I have the ability to change the past or the future. With this thought in mind, how could I possibly acclaim the idea of freedom of choice to myself?
They can be physical parts or concepts (similar to Plato’s idea of the forms). Two main issues come up during discussions of cosmology; how the universe was created and out of what the universe was created. In the Theogony, Hesiod has the world created out of gods that are human by nature and to create this universe the gods reproduced. Hesiod’s theories of the universe can clearly be classified as myth, since there is no scientific background for it. The philosophers to follow Hesiod moved slightly away from this.