Question

In ‘An Argument for the Identity Theory’, Lewis offers two different arguments for psychophysical identity (though only one is the “official” argument of the paper). Explain the differences between them and critically discuss the “official” argument of the paper essay in approximately 400-600 words in length. In your critical discussion, be careful to consider both whether the conclusion follows from the premises, and also whether the premises need to be formulated as Lewis does in order for the basic structure of the argument to work as he claims it does.

Answer 1

Psychophysical theory is the hypothesis that every experience is identical with some physical state, specifically with some neurochemical state. While explaining his viewpoint in this regard, he claims, “The definitive characteristic of any (sort of) experience as such is its causal role, its syndrome of most typical causes and effects. But we materialists believe causal roles which belong by analytic necessity to experiences belong in fact to certain physical states. Since those physical states possess the definitive characteristics of experience, they must be the experiences.” The identity theory of mind is to the effect that these experiences just are brain processes, not merely correlated with brain processes. It iterates the fact that we use the term mind and brain interchangeably often, however, we never say that a person possesses a mind which weighs so 50 ounces. It is always brain. Some philosophers hold that though experiences are brain processes they nevertheless have fundamentally non-physical, psychical, properties, sometimes called ‘qualia’. This means that experiences cannot always be evaluated through the lens of materialism as suggested by pure materialists. It can sometimes take the shape of non-material, abstract concepts themes and experiences.