• Your task is to write a coherent, self-contained paper, with a clear, unified argument, about one or two specific points. Do not try to write about a whole article or book, or a whole issue, or...

Surname
Surname
2
Name of the student-
Name of the supervisor-
Date-
Title of the paper-
Paper topic number-
Agreeing or disagreeing with the article (Armstrong proposes that consciousness is a self-scanning mechanism)
Introduction
One of the most vital areas of the philosophy revolves around explaining consciousness nature. There are some of the philosophers who have tried to explain what consciousness is all about but they are unable to explain like Armstrong.
It can be said that Armstrong used his dispositional analysis in terms of accounting for consciousness. Furthermore, it is also explained by Armstrong is one of the most significant advocate of the inner sense view. In terms of advocating a materialist theory of mind, view of introspection is also advanced by Armstrong as a self-scanning procedure in the
ain. On the contrary, there are huge amount of disagreements between the theorists working on the consciousness nature, I personally believe that a materialistic view of a man will become the doctrine that is scientific. Mental states are
ain states. This particular essay will be agreeing with the facts laid down by Armstrong and I will be also supporting my argument with reasonable facts.
Body
It has been stated by Armstrong and as per I understood that the self-scanning mechanism as an inner eye have the capability for monitoring the other
ain state activities. On the other hand, it is believed by this author that consciousness is also like the assumption expects the fact that it is the assumption of an individual’s state of mind. One has the power to scan their inner states in the similar way they can scan a physical environment as well as distinguish between some of the things for instance colour. Moreover, Armstrong also stated that the self-scanning is one of the most important mechanism could be solving the problem with regard to the consciousness as he rejected classical behaviourism’s ideology. It is also thoroughly believed by Armstrong that each and every mental state can be explained with regard to the material states without any type of remainder.
Consciousness is defined by Armstrong as “nothing but perception or awareness of the state of our own mind” as well as “a self-scanning mechanism in the central nervous system”. I completely agree with Armstrong’s claim the driver’s inner eye is entirely closed and is not aware what is exactly going inside his mind. Arguably, the higher order scanning mechanism can be devised as an inner sense directed towards other inner sense for making decisions along with behaving selectively towards the own state of mind[footnoteRef:1]. [1: Bacon, John, Keith Campbell, and Lloyd Reinhardt, eds. Ontology, Causality, and Mind: Essays in Honor of DM Armstrong. Cam
idge University Press, 1993.]
Throwing light on the above-mentioned discussion it can be claimed that Armstrong stated that the state scanned as well as the scanning state should be well-defined states such as he said that although both are mental states still it is not at all possible that the thing introspected as well as introspecting must be one as well as similar mental state. However, a mental state cannot be aware of itself and also having said that it is also argued by Armstrong that relationship between the two states is quite casual in nature. On the other hand, if we agree with the fact that science has the authority and the ability as claimed Armstrong then it becomes quite reasonable for creating an account in mind that is quite compatible with the view that an individual is nothing without the physico-chemical mechanism. I think after studying this statement that it can be achieved by the Materialist type of mind. However, it must be noted that Armstrong did not particularly set out for proving that the mind has a physical existence but his main aim mainly revolved around creating an account that is compatible with the materialism. Armstrong mentioned clearly that the mental states can be identified with the physical states. However, I think this is one of the strongest possible objections that are made by the author. I feel that they are one and similar thing. If I describe love or anger for a...