The Mind-Brain Identity Theory

Подписаться 468 тыс.

Просмотров 84 тыс.

50% 1

I am writing a book! If you want to know when it is ready (and maybe win a free copy), submit your email on my website: www.jeffreykaplan.org/
I won’t spam you or share your email address with anyone.
Here is some background material.
Dualism & Physicalism: • What Philosophers Mean...
Princess Elisabeth's attack on Dualism: • Princess Elisabeth's a...
Behaviorism: • The Behaviorist Theory...
Putnam's attack on Behaviorism: • Hilary Putnam's Super-...
This is a video lecture about a the 1956 paper "Is Consciousness a Brain Process?" by U.T. Place. This lecture distinguishes the "is"s of identity, prediction, definition, and composition. And I explain how Place uses these distinctions to defend the identity theory from a common line of attack. The central idea is that the mind-brain identity theory is a scientific hypothesis, which cannot be rejected or disproven on logical grounds alone. This is part of an introductory philosophy course.

Опубликовано:

20 авг 2020

Ссылка:

Скачать:

Готовим ссылку...

Добавить в:

Мой плейлист

Посмотреть позже

Комментарии : 250

@SkiRedMtn Год назад

“I have to talk for 3-4 minutes about the word ‘is.’” Your reaction to this statement is going to govern whether you love, hate, or just endure Philosophy.

@Reienroute Год назад

The unique issue with assigning a physical sensation to a singular neurological cause is that a sensation can never be singular by the very nature of the fact that it is both "a thing that is experienced" and is dependent upon "experience" which has that thing as its subject. For example, you can give a person enough opiates to completely shut down their brain's mechanism of generating the sensation of pain, but that does nothing to the backdrop of awareness which is necessary for that sensation to be given an audience so to speak(the "I" in this case). Lumping a sensation into a singular cause is just attempting to answer the easy problem of consciousness while ignoring the hard problem.

@no_sht_sherlock4663

Solopsists are wondering if they created this video themselves

@amandagalloway1213 3 года назад

Oh my goodness, this was so helpful for my Phil of Mind class. You explained it in such a coherent manner. I can’t wait to check out the rest of your channel, thank you!

@calorion Год назад

This makes me so angry. I have a frickin'

@johnnygate3399 3 года назад

This is all very well but I do not see how there can be an analogue of visiting the apartment to "scientifically determine" whether the table is in fact an old packing case. You can see a table and an old packing case. You can weigh them both. You can see whether the packing case was being used as a table. What is the analogue with pain? What sort of experiment could you devise to ascertain whether the experience of pain is Brain Process B?

@abdullahiissack9302 Год назад

The mind is not physical the brain is.

@sowmyac9394 2 года назад

You save us.. Thank you...very good class..Tomorrow is interanal xam😂😂

@justinmorales2442 2 года назад

I am so stoned

@PaulLupascu Год назад

Hey Jeffrey, I love your videos and I mostly listen to them on headphones. Unfortunately, the sound is always louder in one channel than the other (stereo, right is louder than left). Also the volume could be a lot higher. This is pretty annoying when you're listening on headphones, and I'd love it if it was fixed. Thanks!

@Senju1k13 Год назад

Omgggggg professors in romance language classes always would talk about how "to have" and "to be" can be extremely connected (like how age is expressed in "'having years", or "being hungry" is "having hunger"), but there was never a solid explanation about it other than it being the way the language expresses these ideas. I think this discussion of two "is"'s finally helps make the relation between the words and ideas make sense for me. Thank you!

@iotheyare

You are an awesome teacher. The video got me thinking. The fact that you can describe your mental imagery and sensations without knowing anything about your brain processes aligns with the meditation principles of the five aggregates of the first noble truth in Buddhism. Namely, form, feeling, perception, fabrication, and consciousness. It fits with pain as a definition and a contingent. The secession of pain is abandoning the clinging to the five aggregates. Entrapment in putting out the fire is what keeps the fire of pain burning. Impermanence and physicality of the brain make the mind hurt, but it is just a scientific contingent that predicates suffering.

@jacobsee4196

I can see both dualism and physicalism.

@TheJosephCapone 3 года назад

thank you for this, i was so confused in my philosophy of the mind class

@skepticsagar694 Год назад

Thanks for such beautiful thought-provoking lectures

@chrisw4562

Great lecture! I can't believe poor Mr. Place had to put in all this effort to explain the scientific process to his peers. I think a lot of philosphers generate elaborate articles with extremely complicate language to cover up that they really don't know much and do a lot of deduction from their ivory tower.

@smarandabivol8457 2 года назад

Amazing explanation, thank you!

@BrianHartman

Brings me back to the 90s...

@MusingsFromTheJohn00 Год назад

I think this hypothesis is correct, but with an important additional distinction. The mind is a dynamic pattern of information that arises from and is 100% dependent upon the physical system which gives rise to it, which in this case would be the human mind of a human and the brain of that same human, where the two are not separable at this time.