Young Writers Society

Ok... so this is a Dialogue for a class (I could have sworn there was a school work help section but I can't find it, oh well). I would really like to do good on this paper so I'd really appreciate it if you, yes you, could help me edit this. In particular, inform me of any akward sentences or fragments in my piece that need to be revised. Also tell me if something is not explained well or could be explained clearer. I really appreciate this. The sooner someone can edit/review this the better. Love yall!!

...

Minds of Death Row

Mark and Brandon are both inmates in prison. They have both committed acts of murder and have been sentenced to death by lethal injection. Mark is much older and believes himself to be a wise philosopher. Brandon respects Mark and enjoys conversing with him . The two inmates are discussing the philosophy of the mind over dinner…

MARK: So explain to me why you killed that girl.

BRANDON: I don’t know Mark. My mind was filled with rage and jealousy. It is like I didn’t have any other choice. I just grabbed the knife and stabbed her.

MARK: A mind, my friend, is a very interesting subject. You claim your mind was filled with rage and jealousy, eh? What do you think a mind is?

BRANDON: Mark! You know what a mind is. It’s the thing that controls your body. It is what you think and feel.

MARK: You misunderstood me my friend. What exactly do you think a mind is? You claim it can be filled with rage and jealousy. Do you think it is a physical thing?

BRANDON: Well… no… the mind isn’t something physical.

MARK: Well then, if it isn’t physical, how exactly can it be filled with rage and jealousy?

BRANDON: Umm… well… I suppose… no… I don’t know. What do you think the mind is?

MARK: I have an idea. But I am not entirely sure. I’ll explain it to you and you tell me what you think, ok?

BRANDON: Sounds good to me.

MARK: Well, I believe, although I could be mistaken, that the mind is simply one’s behavior. All our thoughts and beliefs can be reduced to a physical behavior or some sort or another. For example, if I say I am hungry, I will simply eat the food here. Or if I am tired, I will simply go back to my prison cell and sleep. Any and all of our “mental states” are simply referring to behaviors. Do you understand? I forget where I heard this, but I think it’s rather ingenious. If one believes it, one no longer has to ponder the concept of the material and the immaterial or supernatural explanation of the mind. Everything can be reduced to material states! What do you think my friend?

BRANDON: Hmm, I like it. It’s very compelling. Tell me, where would my “rage and jealousy” fit into this theory of yours?

MARK: Well, I believe your “rage and jealousy” would simply be referring to the behavior of you actually committing the murder. These concepts are just complex descriptions of your behavior my friend.

BRANDON: I see. But what if I hadn’t committed the murder, yet I still felt rage and jealousy? I think there is a flaw in your theory.

MARK: Nonsense! If you hadn’t committed the murder then you wouldn’t have felt “rage and jealousy.” The committing the murder was the “rage and jealousy,” that’s all there is to it.

BRANDON: No, I changed my mind, I’m not buying this. I don’t think you comprehend my point. I’m saying one can feel an emotion and not have any behavior dispositions to account for it. Let me think of a better way to put this… I’m thinking, just a moment… Yes, I have it. Shortly they will be injecting you with a lethal injection, yes? But let’s say that instead of a lethal injection, they injected you with some sort of paralysis injection. Of course this is entirely hypothetical and would never happen, but let’s just go along with it so I can explain my point. You receive a paralysis injection instead and your entire body goes numb. You can not feel a thing nor can you move a muscle. But yet, you can still think. Do you get what I’m saying? You have no behavioral dispositions to account for your mental states, and yet you can clearly still think and you clearly still have mental states.

MARK: My friend, you have certainly impressed me! I suppose you are quite correct. I would still have my mind working fully and yet I would have no behavioral actions to account for it. I was so certain it was a good theory too. You have proven to be quite the philosopher my friend.

BRANDON: Thanks a lot Mark, I appreciate it. Come to think of it, I think I have my own sort of theory now…

MARK: Well, let me hear it my friend!

BRANDON: The paralysis scenario I set up got me thinking. One still has one’s mind, yet does not have any behaviors. And yet one is still alive, quite clearly. One’s brain is still firing neurons or whatever and brain activity goes on and such. Only the body is paralyzed, but the brain itself continues to work. So I was thinking that perhaps the solution is that our mental states are simply our brain states. Perhaps when we talk about our mind, we are simply talking about our brain. Like your behavior theory, it also reduces the mind to a material thing and makes things easier to comprehend. So the “rage and jealousy” we were discussing earlier. They are just certain neurons firing in certain positions in my brain causing me to “feel” that way. Do you get it? Our mind is simply our brain! There is no difference between the two; they are one in the same!

MARK: This is rather clever of you. But I do not buy it. If the brain and mind truly were identical, then whatever you knew about your mind you would know about your brain, yes? You’d know you were in a “rage,” however, you would not know what neurons are firing where in your brain. They can’t be identical. You know one thing about your mental state but you no absolutely nothing about your brain.

BRANDON: That is absurd, Mark! Just because two things are the same thing does not mean your knowledge of those two things are exactly the same. Here is an example for you: let us say you meet somebody who knew the person you killed. However, he does not know that you murdered his friend. You are one person, of course. He knows who you are and that your name is Mark. However, he does not know that you are the murderer of his friend. Do you understand what I am saying? Knowledge of two things does not have to be the same for the two things to be identical. Your counterpoint makes no sense.

MARK: Ok, I get your point, my friend. But this theory still does not settle well with me. I suppose you are correct with your point about knowledge. But, would you agree, that if we know all the knowledge there is to know about two identical things, then everything we know about one of those things would be equivalent to what we know about the other?

BRANDON: Yes, I suppose that is correct. If one knew everything there is to possibly know about you and everything there is to know about your victim’s murderer, then yes, then everything they know about one would be identical to the other.

MARK: Good, then we’re agreed. Let us suppose somebody invented some futuristic gadget. Some professional brain surgeon makes this gadget and with it, will you let you know everything there is to know about the brain and its states. And we are able to use this gadget on dead people to view all their previous brain states and such. Let us pretend we use this gadget on the girl you murdered and we are able to know everything there is to know about any and all brain activities that took place in her head. According to your theory, then, we would then know everything there is to know about her mental states.

BRANDON: Exactly.

MARK: But, my friend, there is a flaw here. For there is something we would still not know. We would not know what it feels like to be her. We would not know how it feels to be murdered or go through all the mental states she has gone through. We would not have knowledge of what it feels like to experience anything and everything she felt. We would know everything there is to know about her brain and yet we would not know what it was like to actually be her. Do you get what I am saying? If we would not know what it feels like to be her, then we can’t possibly know all about her mind. And if we know everything about her brain and not everything about her mind, then they must not be identical.

BRANDON: But if they aren’t identical… then my theory… is worthless! Ah, I guess I’m not as smart as I thought I was.

MARK: Don’t feel down on yourself my friend; you gave it a good shot. Very impressive if you ask me. I think it might have even been more advanced then my behavior theory. At least your theory allowed for mental causation.

BRANDON: We will both be put to death in just a matter of days. I suppose we will never know what the mind truly is…

MARK: Don’t give up my friend. We still have time, I’m sure if we put our minds together we can figure this out!