Physical Brain example essay topic

The debate between dualists and physicalists is one of especially interesting qualities. A dualist is a philosopher that believes that the human mind consists of two very distinct, individual and intertwined pieces. One piece is the physical brain. Chemical reactions and electrical impulses course through the brain in order to produce sensations through the body.

Combined with these physical characters is a soul, or an organism that interprets these impulses in the brain. According to the dualist, it is the soul that creates the individual and unique sensations inside your brain. On the other hand, a physicalists would argue that the experiences occurring in the brain, are nothing more than that, physical impulses. You taste the chocolate, the brain interprets the different impulses, the taste is created, and that is that. Nothing further, no soul involved, nothing more elaborate than the brain. Physicalists argue that explanations for tastes and brain functions will be explained through scientific research, such as atomic structures and chemical makeups have been researched and proven through science, in essence saying that physicalists have no theory for their beliefs, rather they choose to wait for science to verify their beliefs.

On the other hand, a dualist replies to such an argument that those processes of science would not provide a necessary answer to the dilemma. A dualist points out that the two processes are completely different. On the one hand, when a scientist breaks down the chemical makeup of a substance, he does only that, understands what makes up that particular material. There is no explanation as to the cause of a particular taste, feel, or view of the object. Why does it look the way it does to me [the dualist]? Why does it affect my [the dualist] taste buds in this way?

Both arguments make very valid points, however I tend to lean towards Nagel's approach that perhaps there is no soul, but that the brain has something more than just a physical process inside of it, that it operates on a mental plane (pg. 34). This would explain the learned approach to certain situations. When you experience something that causes pain, your brain creates a reaction that tells your body it's hurt. However, how is it that we learn to avoid the action that brought us pain? Leaning towards Nagel's non-soul / mental observation, perhaps the brain does operate on a level other than strictly physical. This would explain how schools of fish, or dolphins learn to defend themselves against sharks, while humans combine to form powerful nations in order to provide themselves with security and whatnot.

The brain is a very complex organism, and it's true operations are still a mystery to man. Both physicalists and dualists provide valid arguments as to their though processes, however, neither sit completely well with me, and I tend to lean towards a physical organism that operates on more than one plane; on a physical plane as well as a mental one. Skepticism, from what I'm gathering, is the equivalent to that immature little brother we all know and have to love. The arguments of a skeptic are virtually the same as those of a child.

"Nuh uh."How do you know?"Why is that?"So what?"And?" It is a mass of mindless arguments that there seems to be no answer to. According to Nagel, a skeptic is someone who believes that "You can't know on the basis of what's in your mind that there's no world outside it."There may or may not be an external world, and if there is it may or may not be completely different from how it seems to you - there's no way for you to tell". When approached with the argument that there must be some form of external causes to explain our experiences, they counter by saying that these "experiences" are unclear to a person because they have never been experienced directly. All experiences are taken in through observation by the mind. Therefore the argument stands that the mind might still be creating the world you believe you are in. This leaves you without any concept for comparison.

As Nagel put it "Impressions and appearances that do not correspond to reality must be contrasted with others that do correspond to reality, or else the contrast between appearance and reality is meaningless". He then goes on to say "He is kidding himself, because it couldn't be true that the physical world doesn't really exist, unless somebody could observe that it doesn't exist". Skepticism therefore seems to fall to the views of verificationism. Verificationism allows the establishment of ideas through comparisons of what we are familiar with. Skeptics believe that the mind is something prone to miscommunication of what it observes; thereby allowing reality to be completely different from what it takes in. This view is somewhat far fetched, because at the same time that it says the brain mistakes what it sees, it attempts to claim that the brain creates all you see.

So you are faced with an absent minded professor. Brilliant in his ideas, with no idea what he is saying. This sort of contradiction tends to make skepticism a harder view to listen to as well as accept.