3.4.2 Descartes Conceivability arguement for substance dualism

Question 1

Define substance dualism

Answer 1

The theory that two kinds of substance exist, mental and physical substance.

Question 2

What is the concievability argument?

Answer 2

Arguments for dualism from the conceivability of mind and body being distinct.

Question 3

What is logical possibility?

Answer 3

something possible to conceive of without contradiction, e.g: 1+1=2

Question 4

What is physical possibility?

Answer 4

something possible given the laws of nature in this universe
e.g: throwing a brick at the window and it breaking

Question 5

What is metaphysical possibility?

Answer 5

something logically possible but not physically possible
e.g: pigs flying
mind/body separation

Question 6

State the conceivability argument formally

Answer 6

P1. If I can clearly and distinctly conceive of the essential natures of two things separately, it must be metaphysically possible to separate them.
P2. I clearly and distinctly perceive myself (my mind) to be essentially a thinking and unextended thing.
P3. I clearly and distinctly perceive my body to be essentially an extended and
unthinking thing.
C1: It must be metaphysically possible for mind and body to be separate.
C2: Therefore mind and body are distinct substances.

Question 7

What is Descartes conceivability argument, stated simply

Answer 7

He is saying that it is conceivable and therefore possible for mind and body to exist separately. He then goes on to say that because of this they are sperate things.

.

Question 8

Why is it not important that there is a leap from possibility to actuality in the Conceivability arguement

Answer 8

It may seem a bit of a leap from it’s possible that mind and body are separate to mind and body are separate. But this topic is about what the mind is – its identity. If it’s possible for the mind to exist without the body, then what the mind is** cannot be the same thing as the body** (or any part of the body)
so they must be distinct substances (substance dualism)

Question 9

What are the three criticisms of the conceivability arguement?

Answer 9

-mind without body is not conceivable
-what is conceivable may not be metaphysically possible
-what is metaphysically possible tells us nothing about the actual world.

Question 10

How can the concievability arguement be critiqued?

Answer 10

1) Deny P1 (It is concievable that mind can exist without body)
2) Deny Inference P1-> C1 (because it is conceiavle that mind can exist without body, it is possible that mind can exist without body.)
3) Deny C1->C2 (because it is possible that mind and body can exist seperately, mind and body are distinct substances)

Question 11

Option 1 critique - Deny P1) It is possible to concieve of mind without body

+ What are the subcategories of this arguement

Answer 11

This view invites us to consider that when we have a better understanding of the mind/body relationship then we will see that in fact they are not conceivably separate.
-problem of identity
-‘life’ without sense expoerience
-problem of communication
-hume

Question 12

Explain the problem of identity

Answer 12

Descartes claims the true nature of ourselves is not phsyical. But this goes against our intuition of what it means to be a person.
In our everyday lives we recognise people based on their physical bodies.
Example: next wek a person turns up with a different body to teach you, could you be persuaded that it was really the same person?
If not it suggests that a persons body is an essential component of who a person is.

Question 13

Explain the life without sense experience problem

Answer 13

Imagine waking up in the morning, loking in the mirror and there being nothing there. Is that concievable? If yes, those accounts make emplicit reference to embodiemt - you need eyes to see. If the sould/mind could be detatched from the body-where would it be? Given it is unextended and does not exist in speace, does it make sense to say it exists in space, does it make sense to say it exsists in any place at all?

Question 14

What is the problem of verification?

Answer 14

According to AJ Ayer only statements which are verifiable are meaningful . Minds are non-physical; it is impossiblle for snese experience to detect them or to come to any knowledge of them
Therefore claims about non-physical are not something which is verifiable, so it is not meaningful.

Question 15

What is the problem of communication?

Answer 15

Without a body it would be impossible to communicate with others, because communication involves the use of sense organs. So if disembodied conciousness is possible, it would appear a rather lonely project, unless some form of telepathy were possible. But ordinary experience suggests we cannot peer into the contents of other people’s minds to see what they are thinking and feeling.

Question 16

Explain Hume’s Objection

Answer 16

Hume denies Descartes’ belief in the Meditations that one can through introspection findwithin the self, a thinking thing, a subject, an ‘I’.
The evidence cannot reveal the existence of a self.

Question 17

The Masked Man Fallacy

Answer 17

This use of Leibniz’ law demonstrates that in intentional contexts (ie. when properties identified as in common/not in common to a person’s understanding) it is not secure.
The fallibility of this inference can be shown with the following example:

• I conceive of Batman as a caped crusader
• I conceive of Bruce Wayne as a billionaire who is not a caped crusader
• Therefore, Batman is not Bruce Wayne

Question 18

How might Descartes respond to Masked Man Objection

Answer 18

Descartes doesn’t think that this is a fair comparison. My awareness of Batman as a masked crusader as distinct from the identity of Bruce Wayne all based on empirical observation. My awareness of the separate nature of my mind - on the other hand - is deduced from clear and distinct awareness that I have, founded on the principle of the cogito. In other words: I know my own mind better than I know anything else.