“Consciousness can be fully understood by material interaction” –
How far do you agree?
Consciousness as explained by material interactions are considered to be an aspect of the
soul/mind but not one that is physical, this is because the materialist view of the soul, mind and
body is that there is only one kind of substance that exists in the world, this is physical
substance that we are aware of and are able to see around us, the materialist view is shown
most clearly by Dawkins but also in many aspects by Aristotle. In this essay I will use Dawkins
and Aristotle's materialist views which attempt to explain consciousness through material
interactions and contrast them to views of other philosophers such as Plato or Descartes
substance dualistic views and other philosophers' critiques like that of Chalmers to explain why
the materialist explanation of consciousness is not the best one available but is successful in
some regards.
The materialist view of consciousness is an empirical view taken by Dawkins and Aristotle, it
uses a posteriori logic (logic based on experience) to explain how our consciousness function
solely based on material interactions. The core idea of materialism is that there is only one kind
of substance that exists in the world, this is physical substance, which is what all objects are
entirely composed of, because of this it means that materialist philosophers do not believe in
the concept of a soul in the way that other philosophers like Plato or Descartes do, this being
the idea of a separated mind and body, therefore allowing the consciousness to be explained as
a separate existence from the body. But this is not the case, the material view of consciousness
is that just like every other aspect of a person it comes from our physical substance. However,
Aristotle explains that it is not the same as our body in that our consciousness or thinking is not
a physical substance as it does not exist as its own thing, he describes the consciousness as
being a process of thinking, allowing it to exist not as a substantial part of the mind but in its
own way as a non-thing. Dawkins expands on this through his scientific empirical thinking,
saying that the consciousness is a mental process just like how any other mental process that
we experience is. Dawkins considers the ideal of two souls, the first soul, is one that is a
physical separate soul much like the dualist idea of a soul, however, he rejects this because
there is no empirical evidence for this existence of such a soul, the second soul is a
metaphorical soul, he accepts this kind of soul as being something that we have as it is not a
real thing, an example of this soul would be when somebody refers to a person as "soulless" if
they were to act in a way that was cruel. They are not physically saying you have less soul than
any other person, just that our idea of the soul is metaphorical. He links this to the
consciousness as his idea of consciousness is similar to the soul in that it is not a physical
thing, but instead a process of thinking or an action, his view is backed up in part by modern
neuroscience which provides evidence of our material brain interacting in order to cause us to
partake in actions, or how we can analyse emotions through brain waves and different sections
of our brain are responsible for different thoughts and feelings.
However, Dawkins' view of the conscious is critiqued by Chalmers who provides an argument
against the idea of a material consciousness which he refers to as the "easy problem of
consciousness and hard problem of consciousness", the easy problem of consciousness is
How far do you agree?
Consciousness as explained by material interactions are considered to be an aspect of the
soul/mind but not one that is physical, this is because the materialist view of the soul, mind and
body is that there is only one kind of substance that exists in the world, this is physical
substance that we are aware of and are able to see around us, the materialist view is shown
most clearly by Dawkins but also in many aspects by Aristotle. In this essay I will use Dawkins
and Aristotle's materialist views which attempt to explain consciousness through material
interactions and contrast them to views of other philosophers such as Plato or Descartes
substance dualistic views and other philosophers' critiques like that of Chalmers to explain why
the materialist explanation of consciousness is not the best one available but is successful in
some regards.
The materialist view of consciousness is an empirical view taken by Dawkins and Aristotle, it
uses a posteriori logic (logic based on experience) to explain how our consciousness function
solely based on material interactions. The core idea of materialism is that there is only one kind
of substance that exists in the world, this is physical substance, which is what all objects are
entirely composed of, because of this it means that materialist philosophers do not believe in
the concept of a soul in the way that other philosophers like Plato or Descartes do, this being
the idea of a separated mind and body, therefore allowing the consciousness to be explained as
a separate existence from the body. But this is not the case, the material view of consciousness
is that just like every other aspect of a person it comes from our physical substance. However,
Aristotle explains that it is not the same as our body in that our consciousness or thinking is not
a physical substance as it does not exist as its own thing, he describes the consciousness as
being a process of thinking, allowing it to exist not as a substantial part of the mind but in its
own way as a non-thing. Dawkins expands on this through his scientific empirical thinking,
saying that the consciousness is a mental process just like how any other mental process that
we experience is. Dawkins considers the ideal of two souls, the first soul, is one that is a
physical separate soul much like the dualist idea of a soul, however, he rejects this because
there is no empirical evidence for this existence of such a soul, the second soul is a
metaphorical soul, he accepts this kind of soul as being something that we have as it is not a
real thing, an example of this soul would be when somebody refers to a person as "soulless" if
they were to act in a way that was cruel. They are not physically saying you have less soul than
any other person, just that our idea of the soul is metaphorical. He links this to the
consciousness as his idea of consciousness is similar to the soul in that it is not a physical
thing, but instead a process of thinking or an action, his view is backed up in part by modern
neuroscience which provides evidence of our material brain interacting in order to cause us to
partake in actions, or how we can analyse emotions through brain waves and different sections
of our brain are responsible for different thoughts and feelings.
However, Dawkins' view of the conscious is critiqued by Chalmers who provides an argument
against the idea of a material consciousness which he refers to as the "easy problem of
consciousness and hard problem of consciousness", the easy problem of consciousness is
