Dualism Vs. Functionalism: The Mind-Body Problem

Words: 1059
Pages: 5

The Mind-Body Problem
The mind–body problem is the problem of explaining how nonphysical mental states (like beliefs, feelings, and thinking) are related to the physical states of the human body. Substance dualism and functionalism are just two out of the many theories that exist in hopes of answering this question. In this essay, I will discuss the details of both substance dualism and functionalism, and their arguments as answers for the mind-body problem. I will also look at arguments against each one and determine if they are good arguments or not. Then, I will conclude with why I believe substance dualism is a better answer for the mind-body problem than functionalism.
Is the mind part of the body, or the body part of the mind? If they
…show more content…
If physicalism, the belief that the world is made up of purely matter were true, then God could not exist. Since substance dualism is the belief that we have a nonphysical soul, though, so this coincides with a belief in God. After our physical bodies died, our souls could ascend to an afterlife. While I do not personally believe in a God, substance dualism allows for people to continue their belief, unlike functionalism. Substance dualism also holds the belief that our mental states are private, and are only available to us. But, is it safe to say we sometimes understand the thoughts of others? For example, I go out jogging. When I return home, I turn to my roommate and gesture towards a water bottle while panting from my run. My roommate then tosses me a water bottle, understanding that I am thirsty. In this case, my roommate read my mind. I did not explicitly say out loud that I was thirsty, and for them to toss me a water bottle. If our mental states are truly private, then how was my roommate able to understand my need for a water bottle? This argument seems fairly weak. I gave clues to the fact I was thirsty through my panting and my gesture towards the water bottle. My roommate was not able to understand this desire until they saw my gestures and panting. If I had entered the room breathing regularly and not gesturing for water, they would not have known I was thirsty, even if I was thinking that I …show more content…
We are all made up of molecules, atoms, and cells. These are all purely physical attributes, but would they not affect our internal operations and our interactions with the outside world? One of the best examples would be pain. Pain is usually caused by some sort of body injury. In our mind, we understand that something is wrong with the body and we desire to be out of that state. It then produces feelings like anxiety, and physical signs like wincing. Other mammals, reptiles, and mollusks can experience pain, even though they do not have brains like ours. It seems that there is not a one-to-one relation between sensations and brain processes, but rather a one-to-many relation. Mental states, then, are not uniquely realized, but are instead multiply realized. While fundamentalism seems pretty straightforward, there’s a few challenges. Say there was a life-like android being created. This android was a “twin” or “doppelgänger” to a human - they looked exactly alike, talked alike, and answered questions alike. Since functionalism proves that “being is doing”, then the AI should in every way be identical to the human it is replicating. If the AI could even replicate the way its human counterpart thought, would it truly be alive? According to functionalism, the AI would indeed be alive. The AI is able to replicate feelings, desires, and even pain, but it cannot think. This makes a compelling argument, but I