‘To what extent is the mind non-physical’
The nature of the human mind has been widely debated by philosophers . There
are 2 main theories of the mind that I will explore in this essay. The first is
substance dualism, which is the idea that the mind and body form two separate
entities (the mind is non-physical, whilst the body is extended), and MBTIT, which
holds that the mind is exactly the same thing as the brain and ontologically
reducible to brain processes. In this essay, I will seek to show that the mind is in
fact physical, and does not differ from the brain by outlining the strengths of
MBTIT, such as the wide birth of neuroscientific evidence, and its ability to
overcome the empirical interaction problem.
The first reason why I believe that the mind is physical is because of the high
amount of neuroscientific evidence that supports this claim. The idea that the
mind is exactly the same as the brain (MBTIT), is highly compatible with our
understanding of the physical brain through science. For example, through the
use of MRI scans and brain mapping, scientists have developed a clear
understanding of the brain, and are able to establish a precise systematic
correspondence between mental thoughts and physical brain processes,
strengthening the idea that the mind and the brain are synonymous. For
example, by observing the effects of anti-depressants, we can see that these
drugs, such as SSRI’s, increase serotonin levels, and thus relieve symptoms of
depression, and thus mental states and physical states are codependent on
eachother. As well as this, the case of Phineas Gage also demonstrates the idea
that the mind is dependent on the brain – Gage lost a third of his brain and
survived, but he also became aggressive and his personality changed
significantly – whilst his physical brain was lost, his characteristics were altered.
This demonstrates the idea that removing parts of the brain has an impact on
the mind. This supports MBTIT, as whilst the physical brain was taken away, the
mental changed, providing backing to the idea that the mind an the brain are
actually identical. The mind being non-physical would not make sense because if
the mind and brain are two separate entities, then the physical brain being
altered would not alter the non-physical mind. However, the wide collection of
neuroscientific research that shows that the mind is infact dependent on the
brain refutes this idea, and therefore strengthens the theory of MBTIT, as it
provides a very strong basis for it.
However, on the other hand it can be argued that this neuroscientific evidence
may not actually be fully accurate in describing how the mind and brain work,
and therefore the mind can still be seen as not physical. We can’t be completely
sure that when something changes in the physical, that this actually causes
something to happen in the mental. Whilst there may possibly be a correlation
between the mind and brain, this does not mean that there is a causation. For
example, MBTIT argues that your c-fibres in the brain activate and as a result,
cause you to feel pain. However, we can’t be sure that this is the case – just
because c-fibres happen to be activated, does not mean that it actually causes
pain to happen. Therefore, the idea that the mind is dependent on the brain may
not actually be the case. As well as this, we can’t be sure that neuroscience is
completely accurate because no matter how much we think we know about the
neurological basis of pain, there is still some aspect of the conscious experience
of suffering pain which must escape scientific explanation. This is because when
The nature of the human mind has been widely debated by philosophers . There
are 2 main theories of the mind that I will explore in this essay. The first is
substance dualism, which is the idea that the mind and body form two separate
entities (the mind is non-physical, whilst the body is extended), and MBTIT, which
holds that the mind is exactly the same thing as the brain and ontologically
reducible to brain processes. In this essay, I will seek to show that the mind is in
fact physical, and does not differ from the brain by outlining the strengths of
MBTIT, such as the wide birth of neuroscientific evidence, and its ability to
overcome the empirical interaction problem.
The first reason why I believe that the mind is physical is because of the high
amount of neuroscientific evidence that supports this claim. The idea that the
mind is exactly the same as the brain (MBTIT), is highly compatible with our
understanding of the physical brain through science. For example, through the
use of MRI scans and brain mapping, scientists have developed a clear
understanding of the brain, and are able to establish a precise systematic
correspondence between mental thoughts and physical brain processes,
strengthening the idea that the mind and the brain are synonymous. For
example, by observing the effects of anti-depressants, we can see that these
drugs, such as SSRI’s, increase serotonin levels, and thus relieve symptoms of
depression, and thus mental states and physical states are codependent on
eachother. As well as this, the case of Phineas Gage also demonstrates the idea
that the mind is dependent on the brain – Gage lost a third of his brain and
survived, but he also became aggressive and his personality changed
significantly – whilst his physical brain was lost, his characteristics were altered.
This demonstrates the idea that removing parts of the brain has an impact on
the mind. This supports MBTIT, as whilst the physical brain was taken away, the
mental changed, providing backing to the idea that the mind an the brain are
actually identical. The mind being non-physical would not make sense because if
the mind and brain are two separate entities, then the physical brain being
altered would not alter the non-physical mind. However, the wide collection of
neuroscientific research that shows that the mind is infact dependent on the
brain refutes this idea, and therefore strengthens the theory of MBTIT, as it
provides a very strong basis for it.
However, on the other hand it can be argued that this neuroscientific evidence
may not actually be fully accurate in describing how the mind and brain work,
and therefore the mind can still be seen as not physical. We can’t be completely
sure that when something changes in the physical, that this actually causes
something to happen in the mental. Whilst there may possibly be a correlation
between the mind and brain, this does not mean that there is a causation. For
example, MBTIT argues that your c-fibres in the brain activate and as a result,
cause you to feel pain. However, we can’t be sure that this is the case – just
because c-fibres happen to be activated, does not mean that it actually causes
pain to happen. Therefore, the idea that the mind is dependent on the brain may
not actually be the case. As well as this, we can’t be sure that neuroscience is
completely accurate because no matter how much we think we know about the
neurological basis of pain, there is still some aspect of the conscious experience
of suffering pain which must escape scientific explanation. This is because when
