The big idea: Brain scanners can now watch your mind light up in real time. So a tempting thought arrives: maybe science is about to explain consciousness completely — or maybe there's one part it can never reach.
Churchland: folk psychology: The philosopher Patricia Churchland bets on science. Our everyday talk of 'beliefs', 'desires' and 'feelings' — she calls it folk psychology — is just an old, rough theory of the mind.
Churchland: eliminative materialism
Her view, eliminative materialism, says: as brain science matures, those old ideas may be replaced by better brain-based ones — the way 'evil spirits' were replaced by germs. Maybe one day we won't say 'I believe' — we'll describe the brain-state directly.
Checkpoint — Churchland: In one line: our everyday mind-words may be a rough theory that better brain science eventually replaces. The next thinker says there's one thing science can never explain away.
Free preview
This is the free notes preview
You're reading the free notes. Aimnova Pro unlocks the full study experience — and you can try it with your first topic free to keep:
- FlashcardsLock in vocabulary and key terms with spaced repetition.
- Practice questionsAnswer exam-style questions and get instant AI marking.
- Mock exams & past-paper vaultSit full mocks and see exactly how examiners award marks.
- Personalised study planA daily plan built around your exam date and weak areas.
The philosopher David Chalmers agrees science can do a lot — but insists it hits a wall.
The easy problems: Chalmers splits the work in two. The easy problems (still hard, but doable) are things like: how does the brain sort information, control attention, or wake up? Science is making real progress on these.
The hard problem
The hard problem is different: why is there any feel at all? Why doesn't the brain just crunch data in the dark, with no inner experience? Even a perfect brain map tells you what happens — never why it feels like anything. That extra step, he says, science hasn't touched.
Easy problems
- How the brain sorts information
- How it controls attention and wakes up
- How it reports its own states
- Science is genuinely progressing here
The hard problem
- WHY is there any inner feel at all?
- Why not just processing in the dark?
- A brain map gives WHAT, never WHY-it-feels
- Untouched by the science so far
Go further — higher-level insight: Churchland and Chalmers are the two ends of the whole topic. Churchland says: keep going, science will get there (or replace the question). Chalmers says: the feel is a genuinely new kind of problem no brain map dissolves.
Go further — set them against each other: This is Nagel's bat and Mary's room turned into a live research debate — set the two against each other and you've got the tension a top essay needs.
Learn what examiners really want
See exactly what to write to score full marks. Our AI shows you model answers and the key phrases examiners look for.
How Section A works: An unseen stimulus (text or image) [25]. Consciousness is one of the strongest issues to reach for — this whole topic feeds it. Use the same 5 steps every time.
The task: Task: with explicit reference to the stimulus and your own knowledge, explore a philosophical issue related to what it is to be human.
Stimulus — A neuroscientist writes in her lab notebook: "We can now map exactly which cells fire when a patient sees red. We can predict it, trigger it, switch it off. And yet, staring at the scan, I have not the faintest idea why any of it should feel like anything at all." With explicit reference to the stimulus and your own knowledge, explore a philosophical issue related to what it is to be human.
Model answer plan
See the mark-by-mark plan — for / against / judgement, with marking guidance — in study mode.
Common mistakes: 1. Describing views instead of arguing. 2. Ignoring the stimulus — quote it. 3. Only one view — top bands need tension. 4. No conclusion — decide, with a reason. 5. Name-dropping — a name earns nothing without its argument.