The interaction problem

Question 1

Question: What challenge does the interaction problem pose to dualism?

Answer 1

Answer: The interaction problem questions how non-physical mental substances, posited by dualism, can causally interact with physical substances, given their different natures.

Question 2

Question: How does the interaction problem manifest in everyday experiences?

Answer 2

Answer: In everyday experiences, such as moving a hand or feeling sensations like heat, there is a clear causal relationship between mental states and physical actions or experiences, raising questions about how these interactions occur if the mind and body are fundamentally distinct.

Question 3

Question: What argument did Princess Elizabeth of Bohemia present against dualism?

Answer 3

Answer: Princess Elizabeth argued that only physical entities can interact with other physical entities through direct physical contact or force, implying that non-physical entities, such as the mind in dualism, cannot exert causal influence on the physical world.

Question 4

Question: How does Princess Elizabeth’s argument challenge dualism?

Answer 4

Answer: Princess Elizabeth’s argument suggests that if the mind is non-physical, it lacks the ability to interact with the physical world, contradicting the observed causal relationships between mental and physical phenomena.

Question 5

Question: What example does the criticism use to illustrate the challenge to dualism?

Answer 5

Answer: The example of a mental desire to move a hand causing the physical movement of the hand, and the sensation of heat causing a physical reaction, highlights the difficulty of explaining how non-physical mental states can causally affect physical states.

Question 6

Question: What inference does the criticism draw from the observed interactions between mental and physical phenomena?

Answer 6

Answer: The criticism infers that since mental states appear to causally influence physical states, and only physical entities can interact with other physical entities, dualism, which posits separate mental and physical substances, is untenable.

Question 7

Question: How does the criticism challenge the coherence of dualism’s proposed interaction mechanism?

Answer 7

Answer: By arguing that non-physical entities cannot directly interact with physical entities, the criticism challenges the coherence of dualism’s proposed mechanism for the interaction between mind and body

Question 8

Question: What implication does the criticism have for the validity of dualism?

Answer 8

Answer: The criticism suggests that if dualism cannot adequately explain how mental and physical entities interact, then it fails to provide a plausible account of the relationship between mind and body, undermining its validity.

Question 9

Question: What alternative explanations for the observed interactions between mental and physical phenomena does the criticism suggest?

Answer 9

Answer: The criticism implies that alternative theories, such as physicalism or monism, which posit a unified framework for understanding mental and physical phenomena, may provide more coherent explanations for the observed interactions.

Question 10

Question: How does the interaction problem contribute to the ongoing debate between dualism and alternative theories of mind-body relationship?

Answer 10

Answer: The interaction problem highlights a fundamental challenge for dualism in explaining the causal relationship between mental and physical phenomena, shaping the ongoing debate about the nature of consciousness and the mind-body relationship.

Question 11

What was Descartes defence?

Answer 11

Descartes defence: Descartes tried to solve the interaction problem by suggesting that the mind and body interact at the pineal gland.

Question 12

Question: What criticism is leveled against Descartes’ claim regarding the pineal gland?

Counter-defence:

Answer 12

Answer: The criticism points out that Descartes’ claim about the pineal gland, which he identified as the site of interaction between mind and body, lacks empirical support and was later disproved by biologists.

Question 13

Question: Why does the counter-defence reject Descartes’ assertion about the pineal gland?

Counter-defence:

Answer 13

Answer: The counter-defence dismisses Descartes’ claim by highlighting that it was based on a misconception about the uniqueness of the pineal gland in humans, which was later debunked by scientific evidence.

Question 14

Question: What distinction does the counter-defence draw regarding the interaction problem?

Counter-defence:

Answer 14

Answer: The counter-defence argues that while Descartes identified a location where the mind and body supposedly interact, the interaction problem primarily questions the mechanism or how this interaction occurs, rather than the specific location.

Question 15

Question: How does the counter-defence criticize Descartes’ response to the interaction problem?

Counter-defence:

Answer 15

Answer: The counter-defence asserts that Descartes’ identification of the pineal gland as the interaction site does not address the underlying question of how non-physical mental states can causally influence physical states, thus failing to provide a satisfactory solution to the interaction problem.

Question 16

Question: What broader implication does the counter-defence suggest about Descartes’ explanation?

Counter-defence:

Answer 16

Answer: By highlighting the lack of empirical evidence and the failure to address the core issue of the interaction problem, the counter-defence implies that Descartes’ explanation may be flawed and inadequate for addressing the complexities of the mind-body relationship.

Question 17

Question: What principle from physics is invoked to critique substance dualism?

Counter-defence:

Answer 17

Answer: Physicists cite the principle of the universe being “causally closed,” based on the second law of thermodynamics, which states that energy cannot be created or destroyed, only transferred within the physical universe.

Question 18

Question: How does the second law of thermodynamics relate to substance dualism?

Counter-defence:

Answer 18

Answer: The second law of thermodynamics implies that energy cannot come from outside the physical universe to influence events within it. Substance dualism, which posits a non-physical mental realm interacting with the physical universe, contradicts this principle.

Question 19

Question: What conclusion is drawn about substance dualism based on the principle of causal closure?

Counter-defence:

Answer 19

Answer: The critique concludes that substance dualism is false because it conflicts with the principle of causal closure, suggesting that the interaction between a non-physical mental realm and the physical universe would violate the laws of physics.

Question 20

Question: What does the principle of causal closure entail about the origin and transfer of energy?

Counter-defence:

Answer 20

Answer: According to the principle of causal closure, energy cannot originate from sources external to the physical universe and influence events within it; instead, energy can only be transferred within the universe itself.

Question 21

Question: How does the concept of causal closure challenge the feasibility of substance dualism?

Counter-defence:

Answer 21

Answer: The concept of causal closure implies that any interaction between a non-physical mental realm and the physical universe, as posited by substance dualism, would require external energy sources, which contradicts the principle of energy conservation and undermines the viability of substance dualism.