Charlotte Philosophy Discussion Group Message Board › Views on why the mind body argument is important
|A former member||
Depending upon definitions of the mind-body problem the mind-body problem either exists or it doesn't.
However, the significance of a consistent definition of the mind body problem
is relevant to the 99.9999 percent of us.
Here are two consistent explanations people have assembled to explain the mind-body problem.
MIND BODY SOLUTION 1:
John Searle: Our shared condition -- consciousness
MIND BODY SOLUTION 2:
FOR EVERYONE THE MIND-BODY PROBLEM (AND FREE WILL VS DETERMINISM) THE MOST IMPORTANT PHILOSOPHICAL PROBLEM
The below two 0.0001 groups which opposes the MIND-BODY problem.
OPPOSING GROUP 1:
Saying that their is no 'body' or material in which to form a mind-body argument.
Noam Chomsky - "The machine, the ghost, and the limits of understa
OPPOSING GROUP 2:
Dennet say's approximately that we do not have minds but rather a series of tricks or thermostatic qualia of consciousness which is the way our minds experiences the environment and senses it own self. Which is just a series of matter or material stacked up on more material that comprise our body and mind but still fundamentally underneath we're just a philosophical zombie obeying the usual physical forces.
Dan Dennett: The illusion of consciousness
Non-Physical Properties of the Mind? Qualia #1: Introduction
Edited by User 144,210,022 on Apr 30, 2014 9:10 PM
|Bill Van F.||
You may notice as you try to understand each of the above, with the exception of MIND BODY SOLUTION 2, that there comes a point at which someone says something that seems just beyond one's understanding, but which one assumes must be right because the individual saying it has studied the whole thing more than oneself and must know what he is talking about. This point often contains the use of a word that is just a little strange, like "qualia," is not really defined, or if defined, is defined with a definition that makes the assumption that there is no mind-body problem.
I believe that the MIND BODY SOLUTION 2 is the one that does not use such trickery.
(Of course, I do not mean that the people proposing the other solutions are trying to trick us. I believe that they have been tricked into believing that they have solved the mind-body problem by certain linguistic ambiguities that exist in our language, and that we go along with being tricked as we say, "Well, he must know what he is talking about.")
But of course the question is whether the author of MIND BODY SOLUTION 2 is similarly a victim of such trickery, and is not able to see that fact for the same reason that the other authors are unable to see that they have been tricked. The only way that can be determined is by other people studying his solution and either finding, or not finding, something that does not make sense (seems incorrect or inherently unclear in its meaning).