mindstair

Home / Courses / Intro to Philosophy / Unit 4

Intro to Philosophy Unit 4: Mind and Body

The mind-body problem asks how mental life, such as thoughts, feelings and experiences, relates to the physical brain and body. This unit compares dualism, behaviorism, identity theory and functionalism, and the puzzles of consciousness and personal identity.

Covers: Substance dualism and its arguments, The interaction problem, Behaviorism and identity theory, Functionalism and multiple realizability, Artificial intelligence: Turing test and Chinese Room, Consciousness and qualia, Personal identity

Study guide

René Descartes defended substance dualism: the mind is a thinking, unextended substance and the body an extended, unthinking one. He argued that he could clearly conceive his mind existing without his body, so they must be distinct, and that bodies are divisible while minds are not, so by Leibniz's law they differ. Dualism respects the sense that experience is unlike anything physical, but it faces the interaction problem raised by Princess Elisabeth of Bohemia: how can an unextended mind push a body? Responses include property dualism, which keeps one substance with both physical and mental properties, and epiphenomenalism, which says mental events are caused by the brain but cause nothing.

In the twentieth century many philosophers turned to physicalism, the view that everything is physical. Gilbert Ryle mocked dualism as 'the ghost in the machine' and a category mistake, and logical behaviorists analyzed mental states as dispositions to behave. Behaviorism struggles with cases where feelings and behavior come apart, such as an actor faking pain. Identity theorists, including U. T. Place and J. J. C. Smart, held that mental states are brain states, as lightning turned out to be electrical discharge. Hilary Putnam objected with multiple realizability: octopuses, humans and perhaps robots could all feel pain with very different hardware, so pain cannot be one specific brain state.

Functionalism answers that a mental state is defined by its causal role: what causes it, how it interacts with other states and what behavior it produces. Like software running on different machines, the same mental state can be realized in different physical systems. Functionalism inspired artificial intelligence research. Alan Turing proposed that a machine counts as intelligent if its conversation cannot be told apart from a human's. John Searle's Chinese Room replies that a person could follow rules to produce perfect Chinese answers without understanding a word, so symbol manipulation (syntax) is not understanding (semantics). Ned Block's China Brain asks whether a nation simulating neurons would feel anything.

The deepest challenge is consciousness. Thomas Nagel argued that there is something it is like to be a bat that objective science seems unable to capture. Frank Jackson's Mary knows all physical facts about color but learns something when she first sees red, suggesting physical facts leave out qualia. David Chalmers calls explaining why physical processes are accompanied by experience the hard problem, and imagines zombies physically like us without experience. Physicalists reply in various ways, such as the ability hypothesis or Dennett's denial that there is a separate hard problem. A related question is personal identity: Locke held that you are the same person as someone in the past if you remember their experiences, while Thomas Reid objected that memory connections are not transitive.

Key ideas

Formulas and rules

Main views: substance dualism, property dualism, epiphenomenalism, behaviorism, identity theory, functionalism, eliminativism.
Leibniz's law: if A is identical to B, A and B share every property; a differing property shows non-identity.
Functionalist pattern: input (tissue damage) → mental state (pain) → output (wincing, avoiding) plus links to other states.
Knowledge argument: Mary knows all physical facts; she learns a new fact on seeing red; so not all facts are physical.
Chinese Room: syntax alone is not sufficient for semantics; programs are purely syntactic; so programs alone do not understand.
View and its classic problem: dualism (interaction), behaviorism (actors, super-spartans), identity (multiple realizability), functionalism (absent qualia, Chinese Room).

Common mistakes

Before the test, make sure you can

Words to know

Substance dualism
The view that mind and body are two distinct substances, defended by Descartes.
Interaction problem
The problem of how a nonphysical mind could cause changes in a physical body, and vice versa.
Property dualism
The view that there is one kind of substance with both physical and irreducibly mental properties.
Epiphenomenalism
The view that mental events are caused by physical events but have no causal effects.
Category mistake
Ryle's term for treating something as belonging to the wrong logical type, as in 'the ghost in the machine.'
Logical behaviorism
The view that statements about the mind are statements about behavior or dispositions to behave.
Identity theory
The view that mental state types are identical to brain state types.
Multiple realizability
The idea that the same mental state can be realized by different physical systems.
Functionalism
The view that mental states are defined by their causal roles.
Eliminative materialism
The view that folk-psychological concepts like belief may be false and replaced by neuroscience.
Turing test
A test in which a machine counts as intelligent if its conversation is indistinguishable from a human's.
Chinese Room
Searle's thought experiment arguing that symbol manipulation alone does not produce understanding.
Qualia
The subjective, felt qualities of experience.
Knowledge argument
Jackson's Mary's Room argument that physical knowledge does not include all facts about experience.
Hard problem of consciousness
Chalmers' term for explaining why physical processes are accompanied by subjective experience.
Philosophical zombie
A hypothetical being physically identical to a human but with no conscious experience.
Memory theory of personal identity
Locke's view that a person is the same over time as far as memory and consciousness reach.

Sample practice questions

30 more questions like these, from level 1 to 5, are in the practice set.

Question 1 (level 1)

What does substance dualism, as defended by Descartes, claim?

  1. Mental states are just dispositions to behave in certain ways
  2. The mind is nothing more than the brain's activity
  3. Mind and body are two distinct kinds of substance
  4. Only minds exist, and bodies are collections of ideas
Show the answer and steps

Answer: C) Mind and body are two distinct kinds of substance

  1. Descartes held that the mind is a thinking, unextended substance and the body an extended, non-thinking one.
  2. The other options describe identity theory, idealism and behaviorism.
Question 2 (level 1)

Which theory says mental states are identical to brain states, such as pain being C-fiber firing?

  1. Mind-brain identity theory
  2. Cartesian substance dualism
  3. Functionalism about mental states
  4. Logical behaviorism about the mind
Show the answer and steps

Answer: A) Mind-brain identity theory

  1. Identity theorists such as U. T. Place and J. J. C. Smart (1950s) held that each type of mental state is a type of brain state.
  2. 'Pain is C-fiber firing' was their standard example.
Question 3 (level 3)

Descartes' 'conceivability argument' goes: I can clearly conceive my mind existing without my body; what I can clearly conceive is possible; so mind and body are distinct. What is the most common objection?

  1. Conceiving something does not show that it is truly possible
  2. It assumes physicalism in its first premise
  3. It is an inductive argument from a weak sample
  4. It proves too little, since minds clearly need working brains to think
Show the answer and steps

Answer: A) Conceiving something does not show that it is truly possible

  1. Critics note we might conceive of water without H₂O, yet water is H₂O, so our conceptions can mislead us about what is possible.
  2. If conceivability is a poor guide to possibility, the argument fails at its second premise.