Leibniz's Law of Identity Research Assignment Paper

Leibniz’s Law of IdentityNameInstitutional AffiliationDate
Leibniz’s Law of Identity
Dualism emphasizes that there is a radical difference between the mental states and physical states. Dualists deny the fact that the mind is the same as the brain and some deny that the mind is a product of the brain. In my research paper, I am going to look at the arguments that have been presented to prove that the mental states are distinct from the physical states. Specifically, I am going to look at the arguments that are based on Leibniz’s Law of Identity. I will provide a rebuttal that can be used by a theorist against the argument and evaluate whether the rebuttal is effective or not effective in reference to Leibniz’s Law of Identity.
According to Leibniz's Law of Identity, two things are identical if they simultaneously share the same qualities. Dualists who use the theory to emphasize on the distinction between the mental states and physical states attempt to identify the attributes of the mind that are lacked by matter. These attributes include privacy or intentionality or vice versa or having a certain temperature or electrical charge. An example that can be used to illustrate this is that the mental states are private in the sense that it is only those who possess them who can know them directly. For instance, if I desire to eat an orange, I will know by myself that I have the desire of eating an orange introspectively, but others cannot know of my desire of eating an orange through verbal means or non-verbal means. My bodily and neural activities are for the public, and hence anyone can observe them. Mental states are private to the person who possesses them, but the brain states are not, and therefore they cannot be identical to the brain states.
Another argument is that the mental states that I have as an individual can be known without any inference. As an individual, I can know or recognize them immediately. There are also other people who can know their mental states by making inferences that are mostly based on the verbal, non-verbal or a neurophysiological activity. If I wear gumboots when I come out of my house, you may deduce that I believe that it will rain since I am wearing my gumboots but on my side, there is no need to deduce or infer the mental states that I have since I can know them immediately. I knew when I wore my gumboots that it would rain. In the case of the first person, the mental states can be known without any inference, but for the third person, they are only known only by making an inference. The explanation above shows that human beings in their capacity have the authority over our mental states that no one else can have. Therefore, the mental states are not the physical states.
There are also flaws that are associated with the use of the theory. One of them is that the arguments present an assumption that some of the mental states such as truth, intentionality, privacy or meaning are attributed to the physical substances, and as such, they are attributable to the non-physical substances. This is not true. We must get an understanding of the way in which the states and their properties are generated by the central nervous system so that we can understand the way in which th...