Had we been in class together and spent more time on the topics at hand, you would have heard me repeatedly (with examples) indicate to you that the vast majority of scientists (of many diff

psychology test / quiz prep

Had we been in class together and spent more time on the topics at hand, you would have heard me repeatedly (with examples) indicate to you that the vast majority of scientists (of many different stripes, including neuroscientists and biologists and various other names for those who have an interest in and study the brain and/or the mind) do not hold to a distinction between the mental and the physical. Rather, they are of differing opinions as to exactly how to describe or explain mental? phenomenon but they insist on a physical description of a physical phenomenon. The simplest such is the equivalence to brain states and your text and the videos have exposed you to this. The more we learn about the brain, the less simple such an explanation becomes. Nonetheless, it is held that this is really all that is necessary; there is not something extra and/or distinct, mental, that needs to be invoked. You also have more involved explanations that essentially say the sum of the parts physical, electrical and neural functioning in the brain gives rise to what is essentially an illusion we call mental. The illusion is that the whole does or can seem greater than the sum of the parts.
As you know, our speech and linguistic habits do not seem to reflect this reality?. You have been exposed to various forms of reductionism that undertake to explain what we really mean when we say ? Perhaps the most bizarre (recall Searles video) is behaviorism, which has taken, over the years, numerous forms. Give the behaviorist his due, however, because we tend to acknowledge consciousness (versus being unconscious) by behavior we might arouse from a subject. Let us say you are on the floor and not moving. I will likely test to see if you are breathing and try to get some response from you by speaking to you, snapping my fingers in your ear, gently shoving you, etc.. My judgment will depend on your behavior!
Since I have read a sizable sampling of your discussion entries, I would venture that most of you are not buying? any of the various reductionist arguments. However, in general, this has unfortunately taken the form of merely repeating what you claim to be obvious.? I hope you can understand that it is not obvious. We need to stop labelling what makes us comfortable and, rather, begin to question the obvious.? You have been exposed to numerous philosophical arguments, some of which are bolstered by seemingly compelling scientific facts.
Explain, as if you believed it, one of the theories your text has delineated that is not a repeat of the familiar terminology of dualism. Having done so in some compelling fashion, proceed to enumerate objections to this position. Again, you will be playing both sides of an argument and I expect you to try and be persuasive on both counts. Your conclusion should be based on your discussion.
Requirements: 1 page