Problem of interaction and other minds

Question 1

What is the problem of interaction ?

Answer 1

How does a mental substance, which is not in space and has no physical force , can affect a physical substance, which is in space and moved by physical forces ?

Question 2

Who is this debate between ?

Answer 2

Elizabeth of Bohemia
And
Descartes

Question 3

What are the two types of issues that interactionist dualism raises

Answer 3

Conceptual issues
And
Empirical issues

Question 4

What is Elizabeth Stuart’s conceptual problem with substance dualism ?

Answer 4

1 all physical events have physical causes
2 if dualism is true then the mind is not extended and cannot exert physical force or cause the body to move
3 therefore either dualism is false or the mind cannot cause the body to live
4 the mind can cause the body to move
5 dualism is false

Substance dualism therefore fails as it sees the mind as a non physical substance

Question 5

How does Descartes respond to the conceptual problem ?

How does Elizabeth respond ?
What does Descartes say back ?
Evaluation !!!

Answer 5

1 not all physical events have physical causes
2 there is a unique kind of cause an effect with mind and body causation
3 this is not the same as physical causation and cannot be compared

Therefore the non physical mind can have physical causes as there is the exception of body mind causation
Substance dualism still stands

Elizabeth Stuart asks to know more of mind and body causation

Descartes responds by saying it is a basic truth of the universe and cannot possibly be explained as it just is

Evaluation - Descartes response is unsuccessful as he reverts back to his idea in the conceivability criticism of the mind/body separation being inconceivably , of just really being certain of something. He offers no further explanation of why mind and body causation is unique which is necessary

Question 6

What is the empirical problem.

Answer 6

1 if the mind as a non physical substance could move the body then the total amount of energy in the universe would increase
2 therefore the law of conservation of energy would not apply to the universe
3 therefore either Descartes is incorrect or because what is changing the physical energy in the universe is non physical , physics cannot give a correct and complete account of physical energy in the universe
Descartes in saying that the mind (a non physical substance) can cause the body (a physical substance) to move suggesting that energy is created

Descartes argument contradicts the law of conservation which states that energy cannot be created or destroyed but only transferred

Question 7

What is the second empirical problem ?

Answer 7

There is no scientific evidence to support interaction .

There is no test you can do to show it, it is not verifiable and therefore meaningless

Question 8

How may Descartes respond to the empirical problem ?

Evaluation ?

Answer 8

He may say that the law of conservation is just a strong inductive argument with evidence but not concrete proof

Evaluation
Also it is not certain , some evidence is provided compared to Descartes interaction. Physics is more convincing

Question 9

What is interactionist dualism ?

Answer 9

Dualist idea that the mind and body have to be separate to interact

The mind can cause the physical body to move and physical events can cause thoughts

Question 10

Which philosophical thinker should you mention when discussing the problem of other minds ?

Answer 10

Anita Avramides

Question 11

What kind of problem is the problem of other minds

Answer 11

An epistemological problem relating to our knowledge - Anita Avramides

Question 12

What is the problem of other minds

Answer 12

Substance dualists say that our bodies are connected to our minds (which are apart from the physical world) and the only way we can interact with others is on a physical level.
There is no empirical test that can do to establish that any minds exist apart from our own
Therefore we cannot prove anyone else has a mind

Strong deductive argument
1 if substance dualism is true, then we cannot know the mental states of others
2 we do on at least some occasions know the mental states of others
3 therefore substance dualism is false

Question 13

What is the threat of solipsism?

How might this derive from the problem of other minds ?

Answer 13

The view that only your mind exists

This is a controversial and problematic stance that goes against our basic intuitions and is seen as problematic by philosophers as being ‘too skeptical’
By the insinuation that the mind is not part of the physical world, substance dualists may be vulnerable to the trap of solipsism

Problem of other minds could lead to this conclusion as if you cannot prove there are other minds , this could lead to the conclusion that only your mind exists

Question 14

Who responds to the problem of other minds

Answer 14

John Stuart Mill

Question 15

How does Anita Avtamides say about the problem of other minds ?

Answer 15

It’s an epistemological problem as it relates to our knowledge

Question 16

How does John Stuart Mill respond to the problem of other minds

Answer 16

His argument for analogy

Mill argues that it is acceptable to infer that other people have similar mental states (minds) as they respond to stimuli in similar ways

He doesn’t prove other minds exist but provides as reasonable basis to say that other minds exist

1 we cannot experience other people’s minds but we can understand our own actions in terms of stimulus, mental state and response
2 I.e someone breaking up with me , conscious experience of sadness, reaction of crying and throwing your shit out the window
3 we can see this stimulus and response in other people although not the mental state
4 through other people having similar reactions to stimuli we can infer that, by analogy , other people have mental states as we do

Question 17

What is the first criticism of john Stuart mill’s response to the problem of other minds about arguing from analogy from a single case is not strong procedure ?

Response ?

Evaluation?

Answer 17

To argue by analogy with a single case is not strong procedure
Example - if I came across a black bird with a red beak I would not be justified to conclude that all black birds have red beaks
Inductive generalisations require require greater evidence
We have only experienced one mine so it may be foolish to conclude all humans have minds based on experience of one example

Response
The idea that others are similar to me has more going for it than a simple inductive generalisation
There is a great range of ways in which my body and behaviours are similar to other bodies and behaviours
We have lost of examples of our minds reacting to stimulus in the same way that other people do

Evaluation -
The ability to react to stimulus is one example of a way in which ourselves and other beings are similar. There are lots of different ways in which the body reacting to stimulus are similar however these fall under this example and do not count as other examples

Question 18

What is the second criticism of john Stuart mill’s argument from analogy ?

Response

Evaluation?

Answer 18

Mind is defined as non physical so it can never be verified or falsified
Arguments from analogy only work when you can check that a theory is correct
With this analogy with other minds this is it possible
Rule says that in this case the analogical inference is ungrounded

Response
Just because it cannot be verified you can still make a logical inference

Evaluation
This is more damaging as it shows that mill’s example cannot work as an analogy which undermines his argument