Consciousness and Reductive Thinking

Consciousness and Reductive Thinking

Matt Midtgaard

I. Introduction

My goal in this paper is to determine if it is possible to reductively explain consciousness with regards to the mind/body problem. I will be using a few philosophers to help me determine if consciousness can possibly be explained using science such as, Chalmers and Churchland. I will also be using some of my own views to either back up or help to refute some of the premises on the subject.

I’ll start by summarizing Churchland’s Definition of the dualisms, then describe what materialism is, and why both parties believe what they do. After that I will present some objections against dualism and materialism. Then I will respond to the objections I brought up with the help of various philosophers and my own critical thinking on the subject. Finally I will elaborate on the full scope of the question presented and add a few of my closing thoughts and views on the subject.

II. Summary of the proposed question

To start a summary pertaining to this particular question a person has to know some of the background information involved. Dualism can be classified one of two ways. The first is called substance dualism, substance dualism states that the mind isn’t a physical property of the brain at all. They consider the mind to be a separate entity in itself, unexplainable by science. The second kind of dualism is called property dualism, property dualism states that the brain has two sets of properties. The first set of

2

properties are the normal brain functions, the ones that can be scientifically explained. The second set of properties is the idea that the brain has a special set of properties. These special properties are the ones that allow humans to feel the many different sensations we feel every day. This concept is better understood with the help of Churchland. “Think of our conscious mental states as little sparkles of shimmering light that occur on the wrinkled surface of the brain, sparkles which are caused to occur by physical activity in the brain. But which have no causal effects on the brain in return”

Now that I have finished explaining one side of the argument I need to address the other side, materialism. Materialists view the idea of a mind separate from or having different properties in the mind as being false. Materialists believe that everything in the world can be explained in physical terms. The idea of being able to explain things physically, to a materialist, is a legitimate reason to show a causal link between emotions and physical action.

Materialists differ from the dualists because materialists believe they can explain consciousness by showing all the tiny electrical impulses that occur while the brain is at work are thoughts and feelings, thereby proving that you can show consciousness with a physical description. Where as dualists believe that our thoughts are not causally linked to the electrical impulses that take place while our body is at work. Dualists believe that our thoughts are not, what so ever, causally linked to the actions that take place inside our brains which therefore translate to the actions taken by our bodies. These two views obviously clash, and for one side to win there must be objections and rebuttals to those objections to determine a correct party.

3

III. Objections to both Dualism and Materialism

In philosophy whenever an idea is brought up, an argument against it arises. In this section of the paper I will bring objections to both sides of the argument. Hoping to find a flaw somewhere in one of the arguments to discredit the other. I will begin by bringing arguments against dualism and then move on to materialism.

There are many arguments that can be brought against dualism. I will show a few of the more note worthy ones. The first argument that I am going to bring against dualism is “Ockham’s Razor.” The argument states that there is no need for more then is what is absolutely necessary. Basically this means if something isn’t needed in an argument or situation, throw it out. This argues against the dualists because they see two parts to the mind/body problem. Using “Ockham’s Razor” there is only a need for the brain, in which the mind is contained thus being one single solitary entity.

The next argument I will bring against dualism is “explanatory impotence.” “Explanatory impotence” means that if you can’t explain something then it must not be true. This argument is the main argument used by the materialists. Materialists