Tom BlaichProf. Glen Helman21 November 2013Philosophy 109

There does seem to be, so far as science is concerned, nothing in the world but increasingly complex arrangements of physical constituents. All except for one place: in consciousness. That is, for a full description of what is going on in a man you would have to mention not only the physical processes in his tissues, glands, nervous system, and so forth, but also his tastes of consciousness: his visual, auditory, and tactual sensations, his aches and pains. That these should be correlated with brain processes does not help, for to say that they are correlated is to say that they are something “over and above” (Smart 54)

The Mind Body Question (Again)

Unlike much of philosophy writing, this selection is much easier to understand than it might

seem when it is first looked at. What this passage is basically saying is that with the advancement of

science in the world, everything is being broken down into its most basic parts, its “physical

constituents”. You could break down a building into bricks and wood and glass, but each of these down

into their respective bonds of silica, oxygen, carbon, etc. And while this is mostly true for everything, it

is not true of the human body, because it lacks the description of one of the most vital elements for the

composition of a man, the “consciousness”, which could be described by some as the soul.

It is acknowledged that the consciousness is a special thing, not a tissue, gland, or any other

such organ contained within the body, but is actually a combination of many different feelings,

thoughts, and other more effusive things contained within the body. You can trace these feelings back to

neurological impulses and activities within the brain, but that does not mean anything in terms of our

consciousness, as it is more of a correlation than a causation, which is the big difference in breaking

down the whole into its basest parts.

The most obvious objection to this is simple, that this action is causation and not simply

correlation. That these thoughts, feelings, and sensations can all be traced bak to a single action within

the mind, with a neurological impulse, or fired synapse that can be related in a more definite way than

the very vaporous definition of consciousness that we are dealing with. Like many arguments, it comes

down to the debate over the physical and the spiritual in some senses. You could say that the argument

is basically that of the Identity theory school of thought and that of Psychophysical Parallelism school

of thought. Is the consciousness a physical thing that we can observe, is the mind the body? Or are the

mind and body separate entities in which they exist in tandem in separate states and one controls the

other in a very definite way.

If we apply Occam's Razor to this argument, as the author of this passage suggested just a

moment before this passage, it would be easy to criticize this issue. Especially considering he uses it in

an incorrect way. The way he is mentioning it, suggests that it is used to find the simplest solution, and

while that is partly true, that is not how it is actually true. He says that since the explanation for the

consciousness would have to include so many different details of the physical mind, like the chemical

composition, neurological composition, etc. The way it is actually used is to choose whichever

argument uses fewer assumptions in its hypothesis.

Following this method of thought, we should choose the answer based on which of the two

ideas presents fewer assumptions in making its conclusion. And would that be the first argument, that

of the Psychophysical Parallelism, in which we can assume that the mind and body are different, we

can assume that the mind controls the body, and that we can assume that the neurological impulses we

can observe in the brain are not related to our thoughts at all?

Or would that be the other argument, where we assume the mind is physical thing within the

body, that the mind and body are one, and that the neurological impulses we observe in our brain

through sophisticated technology are in fact related to our mind. By following the logic laid down

within Occam's Razor, the second argument would be the one we chose to be correct, as it does make

fewer assumptions, and uses the information we already have to come to a conclusion instead of simply

assuming the information we have is false and coming up with our conclusion based upon these new

thoughts.

This is not a simple question to answer, and simply applying certain logical rules to it will not

help us discover which of these is the correct answer, but it is still viable to criticize the way that their

argument is made, especially when they bring up this method of thinking so quickly before making

their point.

Source

Smart, J.J.C. "Sensation and Brain Processes." Materialism and the Mind-body Problem. By David M.

Rosenthal. Indianapolis: Hackett Pub., 2000. 54. Print.