MOM- substance dualism

Question 1

25 mark plan:
assess substance dualism

Answer 1

intro: substance dualism false
define: substance dualism

argument 1: descartes conceivability argument

response: masked man fallacy

argument2: descartes divisibility argument

response: mind is divisible (multiple personality disorder)
response2: even if mind is indivisible doesn’t mean its non-physical

argument against: conceptual interaction problem

conclusion: both conceivability + divisibility arguments fail. conceptual interaction problem shows SD is false!

Question 2

what are the two different kinds of substance in our universe according to substance dualists

Answer 2

Mental substances
physical substances

Question 3

what are some examples of physical substances

Answer 3

trees, cars, houses, the body, the brain

Question 4

is the mind considered a psychical substance?

Answer 4

no non-psychical dualist argue the mind is completely different substance to the brain.

Question 5

what are Descartes two arguments for substance dualism?

Answer 5

conceivability argument
divisibility argument

Question 6

what is Descartes divisibility argument summarised?

Answer 6

-I have a clear + distinct idea of my mind as a thinking thing that is not extended in space.
-I have a clear + distinct idea of my body as a non-thinking thing that is extended in space.
-anything I can conceive of clearly + distinctly is something that god could create.
-so, God could create my mind as a thinking thing that is not extended in space + my body as a non-thinking thing that is extended in space.
-so, it is possible for my mind + body to exist indecently of each other
-so, mind + body r two separate substances.

Question 7

what is Descartes overall saying in his conceivability argument?

Answer 7

it is conceivable and therefore possible for mind + body to exist separately.

Question 8

what are the responses to the conceivability argument (list them)

Answer 8

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

Question 9

response: mind without body is not conceivable summarised

Answer 9

-behaviourism says that to have mental states is to have behavioural dispositions
-to have behavioural dispositions is to be disposed to move your body in certain ways
-it is inconceivable to be disposed to move your body in certain ways if you don’t have a body.
-so, it is inconceivable to have mental states if you don’t have a body
-so, mind without body is inconceivable.

Question 10

what’s a possible response to mind without body is not conceivable

Answer 10

assumes that behaviourism is the correct account of the mind. If behaviourism is wrong then there is no contradiction in the idea of mental states without behavioural dispositions + so we can conceive of disembodied thoughts

Question 11

what does the what is conceivable may not be possible point out

Answer 11

it attacks Descartes inference from the claim the mind without body is conceivable to the conclusion that mind exists without body.
example to support:
1. I conceive of batman as a caped crusader
2. I conceive of bruce Wayne as a billionaire who is not a caped crusader
3. Therefore, batman is not bruce Wayne
conclusion clearly false: batman IS bruce Wayne
Fall for masked man fallacy

Question 12

explain why the conceivability argument is fallacious

Answer 12

because it switches from talking about ideas to talking about things themselves. sometimes our ideas are mistaken - what we have an idea of as possible is in fact not possible.
In relation to batman example:
-just because you have an idea of batman + bruce Wayne as separate people.
-similary just because you have an idea that the mind + body r separate, this doesnt mean its possible they r separate things.

Question 13

what’s a possible response to masked man fallacy (response to conceivability argument)

Answer 13

Descartes would accept you can’t always infer from ideas to reality. But D there’s an important difference between two examples.
-batman example my ideas r not clear + distinct.
D would claim reflecting on the proposition “my mind is a thinking thing that is not extended in space” reveals it is true, whereas this is not the case with the proposition “Bruce Wayne is a billionaire who is not a caped crusader”.

Question 14

what’s a Clear and distinct idea

Answer 14

from epistemology
Is one that the thinker can see is true through the use of rational intuition- the thinker can see it is true and certain.

Question 15

response to conceivability: what is possible tells us nothing about the real world.

Answer 15

even if we accept the mind without body is possible, we can still reject D conclusion that substance dualism is true. just because something is possible this doesn’t tell us anything about reality.
example: it is logically possible for me to jump onto moon from earth, this definitely doesn’t tell us anything about the actual world!
similar to D conceivability A: even if its possible that my mind + body are separate substances, this doesn’t show that my mind + body are separate substances in reality. its equally possible that my mind + body are the same substance

Question 16

what is the divisibility argument summarised:

Answer 16

1. my body is a divisible substance
2. my mind is an indivisible substance.
3. therefore, my mind + body are separate substances
   4th implied premise: Lebiniz law of indiscernibility of identicals.

Question 17

what’s leibiniz law of indiscernibility of identicals

Answer 17

lebinz law says that if 2 things are the same thing then they will have all the same properties. for example, water has the same property of wetness + so does H20, because water + H20 are the same thing.

the converse of lebniz law is also true: is two things have different properties then they can’t be the same thing. For example: “that guy can’t be jones because that guy has black hair + jones is blonde” in this jones has the property of having blond hair but “that guy” has the property of black. so that guy and jones can’t be the same person.

Question 18

list all the responses to the divisibility argument

Answer 18

• the mind is divisible
• not everything that is psysical is divisible

Question 19

not everything that is physical is divisible
(divisibility response)

Answer 19

Even if the mind is indivisible doesn’t necessarily prove Descartes conclusion: the mind is a separate kind of substance. instead- its possible the mind is just an indivisible type of physical substance.
obviously can divide the body e.g. cutting leg off. but if you keep dividing it you’ll reach a point where u cannot divide it any further. eventually you’ll be left with just atoms. these could be divided into sub-atomic particles but it’ll eventually be indivisible.
OVERALL POINT: if its possible to reach a point where physical matter becomes Indivisble then not everything that is indivisible is non-physical. so even if Descartes shows that the mind is indivisible, this doesn’t prove that the mind is non-physical. instead possible same substance of the body but just an indivisible form of that same substance.

Question 20

response to divisibility argument;
The mind is divisible

Answer 20

rejects the 2nd premise
1st example: there r forms of MENTAL ILLNESS where the mind does literally seem divided e.g. multiple personality disorder. In this case one person can have multiple parts of their mind that seem to be completely separate from another. may have completely different memories, beliefs + personality traits. these parts may be completely unaware of the other parts.

2nd example: CORPUS CALLOSOTOMY. potential side effects, mind becomes divided in some way. split-brain patients suggest the left + right hemisphere can have differing personalities, tastes, beliefs.

these examples suggest the mind is divisible in some sense + so the 2nd premise of D argument appear to be false.

Question 21

what’s a possible response to the claim the mind is divisible
(divisibility response)

Answer 21

dualist can respond that even if the mind is in some sense divisible it is not divisible in the same way as the body. the physical body is spatially divisible e.g. you can cut off a finger + move it to a different spatial location. however the mind is not different locations. instead, you could say that the examples of divided minds above examples of minds being functionally divisible.

Question 22

list all the responses to substance dualism in general

Answer 22

-the problem of other minds
-causal interaction version 1 + 2

Question 23

what is the problem of other minds

Answer 23

the problem of how can we know other people have minds - similar to issue of solipsism.

We have experienced our own minds- our own thoughts, sensations + feelings. But other people, we have never experienced their actual minds. we only experience the behaviour of their psychical body. Raises the question of how to know whether there is a mind “attached” to that body at all.
partially difficult for substance dualism to respond to the problem of other minds because substance dualism claims mind + bodies are completely separate substances. Means- its possible on dualist view to have physical behaviour without a physical mind. SO if dualism is true its impossible to know wether other mind exist.

Question 24

Who gives the 1st response to the problem of other minds?

Answer 24

JOHN STUART MILL

Question 25

what’s the 1st response to the problem of other minds

Answer 25

JSM “common sense” response
-I have a mind
-My mind causes my behaviour
-other people have bodies + behave similarly to me in similar situations
-by analogy, their behaviour has the same type of cause as my behaviour: a mind
-therefore, other people have minds.

Question 26

Whats the response to Mills common sense response

Answer 26

one example of a relationship between mind + behaviour is not sufficient to prove relationship holds in all cases. it would be like saying “that dog has 3 legs therefore all dogs have 3 legs”.
Its a dubious inference to go from one instance of a relationship to claim that this relationship holds in all instances.

Question 27

Whats the 2nd response to the problem of other minds

Answer 27

OTHER MINDS ARE THE BEST HYPOTHESIS

Question 28

explain other minds are the best hypothesis
(2nd response to the problem of other minds)

Answer 28

we can’t prove the existence of other minds, but the existence of other minds is the best explanation for human behaviour.
yes we can’t directly observe other peoples minds, just like we cent observe other theoretical entities in science. however minds explain why humans behave as they do. so its reasonable to believe in the existence of minds.

Question 29

which two arguments apply to interactionist

Answer 29

Version 1: The conceptual interaction problem
Version 2: the empirical interaction problem

Question 30

what is version 1: the conceptual interaction problem

Answer 30

general issue for dualism- how mental things can causally interact with physical things when they are supposed to be two completely separate substances.

our mental state effects behaviour. example; if I’m feeling hungry, it might cause me to move my body top the fridge + get food. But how does the non-physical substance (mental state) somehow transfer into the physical world + cause things to happen there?

Question 31

What was princess Elizabeth of Bohemia objection of Descartes work?

(version 1 conceptual interaction problem)

Answer 31

1. physical things only move if they are pushed.
2. only something that is physical + can touch the thing that is moved can push it.
3. if substances dualism is true, then the mind is not physical + can’t touch the body.
4. therefore, either dualism is false, then the mind cannot move the body.
5. the mind can move the body
   C. therefore substance dualism is false

Question 32

what’s a response to the conceptual interaction problem
e.g. descartes quote

Answer 32

“and the activity of the soul consists entirely in the fact that simply by willing something it brings it about that the little gland to which it is closely joined moves in the manner required to produce the effect corresponding to this volition”
little gland = pineal gland
in this D provides scientific account of how the mind (soul^) moves the body .

Question 33

what’s version 2: the empirical interaction problem

Answer 33

attacks causal interaction issue in an empirical way by appealing to scientific law of conservation of energy:

-the law of conservation of energy says that: in a closed system, energy cannot be added or removed - it can only be transferred.
-our universe is such a closed system
-if substance dualism is true, it would mean energy is constantly being added into the closed system of our universe every time we think
-so, if substance dualism is true, it would mean energy is constantly being added into the closed system of our universe every time we think.
-so, if substance dualism is true the law of conservation of energy is false.
-but there is a lot of evidence to suggest that the law of conservation of energy is true.
-so, substance dualism must be wrong.