Mind Brain Type Identity Theory
Mind Brain Type Identity Theory
Overview of Mind-Brain Type Identity Theory
- Mind-Brain Type Identity Theory (MBTIT) is a reductive materialist theory that posits mental states are fundamentally identical to brain states.
- Developed throughout the 20th Century, with key proponents including J.J.C. Smart and U.T. Place.
- It is sometimes referred to as Central-state Materialism or Type Physicalism.
Key Features of MBTIT
- Emphasises the categoric equivalence of mental states and physical brain states.
- Argues that for each type of mental state, there exists a corresponding and identifiable physical brain state.
- Maintains that mental states are ‘nothing over and above’ their corresponding brain states, emphasizing a one-to-one relationship.
Arguments for MBTIT
- The Argument from Simplicity: Emphasises the elegance and fewer ontological commitments of MBTIT compared to dualist theories.
- The Causal Closure Argument: Asserts that every physical event has a sufficient physical cause, hence mental processes, influencing behaviours, must be physical.
- Empirical evidence linking specific mental phenomena with specific areas of the brain, e.g., through neuroscience and cognitive psychology frameworks.
Criticisms of MBTIT
- Multiple Realisability: Hilary Putnam’s critique that mental states can be realised in multiple physical systems, suggesting a many-to-one relationship, contrary to the type identity’s one-to-one claim.
- Incompleteness and early stage of neuroscience: Critics note that the inability of current neuroscience to elucidate all mental phenomena limits the scope and validity of MBTIT.
- The Qualia Argument: Qualitative subjective experiences cannot be captured purely through physical description of brain states. This is illustrated by thought experiments such as Frank Jackson’s ‘Mary’s Room’.
Conclusion and Evaluation
- Unresolved issues, like those presented by the ‘qualia argument’ and ‘multiple realizability’, continue to challenge MBTIT.
- Nonetheless, it provides a parsimonious and empirically grounded framework to understand the nature of mental phenomena.
- Its scientific aligning and the increasing evidence base from neuroscience make it an ongoing influential theory in the field of philosophy of mind.