The Argument from Brain Damage is based on the observation that damage to the brain can lead to changes in mental states, such as memory loss, personality changes, or impaired cognitive abilities.

The Argument from Brain Damage concludes that mental states are identical to brain states because it is argued that if damage to the brain can lead to changes in mental states, then mental states must be dependent on brain states. And if mental states are dependent on brain states, then they must be identical to brain states.

The strongest objection to the Argument from Brain Damage is that it relies on a false dichotomy. The argument presents a choice between two options: either mental states are identical to brain states or mental states are independent of brain states. However, there is a third option that the argument does not consider: mental states could be partially dependent on brain states and partially independent of brain states.

Hilary Putnam is the philosopher who is most closely associated with the Argument from Brain Damage. He first proposed the argument in his 1967 paper "The Nature of Mental States".

The Argument from Brain Damage demonstrates the importance of the brain in mental life. It shows that damage to the brain can lead to changes in mental states, which suggests that mental states are dependent on brain states.