Chapter 2 - Substance Dualism Flashcards
Substance Dualism
There is one thing- the body- and another thing - the mind - and the two interact with each other, the body is a physical thing, and the mind is not physical.
The mind does not equal the brain.
Indiscernibility of Identicals Argument
1) If A=B, then A and B share every property in common.
2) The mind has the property of (Being non-spatial)
3) The body does not have the property of thoughtfulness
4) The mind does not equal the body, they are two distinct things.
Masked Man Objection
The entire argument constitutes a misapplication of the Indiscernibility of Identicals Principle. What I think about a thing is not a real property of the thing. Consider
1) If A=B, then A and B share every property in common.
2) My father has this property: I know who he is
3) The masked man does not have the above property (I don’t know who he is
4) My father does not equal the masked man (they are two distinct people)
Obviously enough, something has gone wrong. it might be that my father is, in fact, the masked man. so if all the versions of the indiscernibility argument are like the masked man argument, they all fail.
What are the properties of the Mind?
A) Being non-spatial
- physical things like tables, quarks, and human bodies take up space - your mind does not.
B) thoughtfulness
-beings with minds typically think. But mere physical machines do not; blind mechanisms are not enough for thought.
C) intentionality
-beings with minds think about your stuff in a very unusual way. we can think about things that don’t seem to be causally related to us. for example, we think about the future, or a galaxy far away, so it might be difficult to understand intentionality as a physical mechanism.
D) Having phenomenal aspects
- there is a phenomenal aspect of being a minded being - there is something it is like to see red, for example, it might be difficult to understand this what-it-is-like aspect of the mind as a purely physical mechanism
E) being known with certainty
-Descartes famous argument
I know with certainty that I (my mind) exist. but I don’t know with certainty that my body exists. a powerful being could fool me into thinking I have hands, arms, a brain, etc when I really don’t. but it’s hard to see thats how the being could fool me into thinking I have a mind when I don’t really. If im thinking that I have a mind, then that’s enough to show that I have a mind.
Explanatory gap argument for dualism
(1) If the mind is physical, then a full explanation of the mind can be given in purely physical terms.
2) It is not the case that a full explanation of the mind can be given in purely physical terms.
3) The mind is not physical.
The backup premise for (2)
even if you know the full physical story about what is involved in bat echolocation, you will not know what it is like from the perspective of the bat to echolocate. so, the physical explanation is not the full explanation - there is a gap in the story.
Objection to the explanatory Gap argument for Dualism
It is not clear that we should really buy the backup for premise (2) consider:
1) IF life is a purely physical phenomenon, then life can be explained without invoking the vital spirit.
2) Life cannot be explained without invoking the vital spirit
3) Life is not a purely physical phenomenon.
just a few hundred years ago, this argument would have been widely accepted as sound. it is not largely rejected because as science progressed, it became possible to explain a bunch of biology in purely physical terms.
Premise 2 in this argument is false, and so we should question premise 2 in the explanatory gap argument.
The modal argument for dualism
1) anything that is conceivable is possible
2) I can conceive of my mind existing without my body
3) it is possible that my mind exists without my body
4) if this is possible, then my mind does not equal my body.
5) my mind does not equal my body.
Objection to the modal argument
premise 1 is questionable
I can imagine Goldbach’s conjecture being true. but if it is false, it’s false necessarily; there is not even the possibility of it being true.
-note: the connection between conceivability and possibility is very complex and the source of much debate.
The Ghost is the Machine independent argument against dualism
How can casper both grasp the physical clothes and pass through the physical rubble? is he physical or not?
The argument from ontogeny against dualism
Where in my development from ovum to adult human did I get my non-physical mind?
the argument from phylogeny
If typical adult humans have non-physical minds, do dogs? cats? ants? plants? Bacteria?
the unintelligibility of a non-physical mind argument against dualism
When I go to Paris, does my mind come with me?
The paucity of explanation argument against dualism.
it’s not clear how positing the non-physical realm helps to explain anything about the mind
