Minds Are Not The Same As Bodies

Question 1

Substance dualism

Definitions and key approach

Answer 1

Dualism- The view human beings are comprised of 2 distinct things
Substance- anything that doesn’t rely upon something else for it’s existence eg matter
Substance dualism= Minds exist and are not identical to bodies/parts of bodies
Cartesian dualism:
-Humans are composed of 2 distinct substances: mind and body each with distinct set of properties,mental and physical
-Neither rely on the other for their existence= decomposition of body doesn’t mean your mind will be destroyed, mind can survive bodily death
-Mind and body do casually interact eg stimulation of sense organs cause mind to experience sensations, acts of will in the mind cause body to move
-Mind and body substantially different but are in ‘intimate union’ with each other, don’t normally feel as though you’re distinct from your body, but rather extended throughout the body

Question 2

Substance dualism

Indivisibility argument; standard form

Answer 2

P1) Bodies are extended in space
C1) Therefore, bodies are divisible
P2) I cannot detect any parts of my mind, only faculties of my mind
C2) Therefore, the mind is indivisible
P3) If two things are identical, then they share all their properties
C3) Therefore, if two things don’t share all their properties,they’re not identical
C4) Therefore, minds and bodies are distinct things

Can be shorten to
P1) My body is extended and divisible
P2) My mind is unextended and indivisible
C1) Therefore, my mind and body are not identical

Question 3

Substance dualism

Indivisibility argument; reasoning

Answer 3

-Draws attention to obvious feature of all physical bodies= statically extended and so divisible; can be cut up into smaller parts indefinitely because there can’t be any smallest part which can’t be divided further in thought
-Descartes claims the mind is not divisible in this way; evidence from introspection suggest the mind seems to be single and complete, only a thinking thing= a unitary centre of consciousness which is indivisible
-Being indivisible and divisible are incompatible properties= mind and body cannot be the same substance
Assumes Leibniz law; that if two apparently distinct things have exactly the same properties then they are really the same thing. Follows that if we can find one property of two things that they don’t share we can conclude they’re two distinct things. Therefore can conclude mind and bodies are not both divisible= not one thing

Question 4

Substance dualism

Response 1 to indivisibility argument-The mind is divisible in some sense part 1

Answer 4

P1) If the mind is indivisible then its consciousness will be unified and whole
P2) It is possible to have a consciousness which is not unified
C1) Therefore, the mind is not indivisible

Evidence from modern neuroscience:
-Experience of patients who have had the connection between the 2 hemispheres of their brain cut; appears to show two distinct centres of consciousness operating without the patient being aware of this
-Suggests introspection is unreliable evidence= subjective reports on the way consciousness appears is shown to be inconsistent with what is really going on
-If consciousness= literally divided when brain is divided; Descartes second premise is false and argument fails
Nagel- ‘Brain bi section and the unity of consciousness’
-Brain bi-section produces neither two new distinct minds nor are they one unified mind- but it still calls into doubt the unity of consciousness

Question 5

Substance dualism

Response 1 to indivisibility argument-The mind is divisible in some sense part 2

Answer 5

Humes response: criticism of the existence of an indivisible mental substance (‘the self’)
P1)If an idea cannot be traced back to a sense impression it should be disregarded as sophistry and illusion
P2)I have an idea of the self as the underlying mind has impressions and ideas
P3)Upon introspection, I can only experience a bundle of perceptions changing over time, not an underlying unifying substance
C1)Therefore, I cannot trace the idea of the self back to a sense impression
C2)Therefore, the idea of the self is sophistry and illusion
C3)Therefore, we should reject the idea of the self

Reasoning

• Questioning Descartes assertion that I am directly aware of a unitary self through introspection, instead arguing I am only ever aware of various conscious experience, never of any owner of these experiences
• Concludes the mind is just a bundle of conscious experiences and nothing more, so there is no indivisible centre of consciousness, second premise no established

Question 6

Substance dualism

Response 2 to indivisibility argument- Some physical things aren’t divisible

Answer 6

• Does it follow that if the mind is indivisible it has to be a non physical thing?
• Some physical things we observe every day it seems we also can’t make sense of dividing
• For example; being wet or hot(physical states or properties of the body) cannot be divided into parts however they’re also not non physical
• Suggests the mind, consciousness could be like this also; could it be better understood as a property of the brain/whole person
• Indivisibility might only suggest that the mind is a property of a physical substance