Objections and responses to Dualism
- Created by: Freyae99
- Created on: 04-01-18 09:59
View mindmap
- Objections and responses to Dualism
- Interactionist Dualism - Conceptual
- The Princess of Bohemia's letter - sent to Descartes in 1643 - stated the following argument
- 1. Physical things only move if they are pushed.
- 2. Only something extended can touch the thing that is moved can exert that force.
- Descartes rejects this as he argues that this isn't an accurate understanding of how things are moved. When things are pushed, weight doesn't push them because weight is a result of the force of gravity. Gravity is a force of attraction that operates without needing contact between two PO.
- He has not dealt with the major problem of interaction.
- Descartes rejects this as he argues that this isn't an accurate understanding of how things are moved. When things are pushed, weight doesn't push them because weight is a result of the force of gravity. Gravity is a force of attraction that operates without needing contact between two PO.
- 3. The mind has no extension so it can't touch the body.
- 4. Therefore the mind cannot move the body.
- 1. The movement of a PO is only initiated by some physical force that has been exerted.
- 2. If SD is true then the mind is not in space and cannot exert any physical force.
- It is a mistake to try to understand the minds power to act upon a PO in terms of how PO's act on each other.
- This still doesn't explain how a non-physical substance has the ability to exert force on a physical one.
- It is a mistake to try to understand the minds power to act upon a PO in terms of how PO's act on each other.
- 2. If SD is true then the mind is not in space and cannot exert any physical force.
- The Princess of Bohemia's letter - sent to Descartes in 1643 - stated the following argument
- Interactionalist Dualism - Empirical
- The law of the conservation of energy states that in any closed system, the total amount of energy in that system remains unchanged.
- However, if something in the universe e.g. your body, moved without energy coming from another physical source, the law of the conservation of energy would be false.
- Interationalist dualism entails that even physics isn't a correct account of what exists physically.
- However, if something in the universe e.g. your body, moved without energy coming from another physical source, the law of the conservation of energy would be false.
- Current science indicates that movements of the body are caused by physical events in the brain. T, if the mind moves the body it does so by changing what is happening in the brain.
- Interactionalist dualism needs to establish whether the mind creates physical neuronal events or not.
- We cannot accept or reject this claim as there is no evidence to support or reject it.
- If the mind does cause some of the physical events in your brain then no physical event e.g. neurones firing would occur in the brain.
- Interactionalist dualism needs to establish whether the mind creates physical neuronal events or not.
- The law of the conservation of energy states that in any closed system, the total amount of energy in that system remains unchanged.
- Epiphenomenalism
- The mind is a separate substance and has no causal powers.
- This denies that thoughts lead to other thoughts.
- This denies that we have the ability of introspection. This would also mean that thoughts can only be the bi-product of physical processes.
- Physical events aren't caused by our mind
- We need mental causation in order to have freedom to choose what you do. If you don't have this freedom then there must be some other influence who chooses what you do.
- Your choice is simply an effect of some process in the brain.
- We need mental causation in order to have freedom to choose what you do. If you don't have this freedom then there must be some other influence who chooses what you do.
- The mind doesn't cause mental events - they are caused by physical events e.g. the brain
- Some SD take the view that mind and body are separate substances that we possess that aren't causally related. The mind doesn't cause the body to move.
- It is wrong to say that the mind is causally redundant because the mental must cause the physical. E.g. when I feel pain, I am thinking I am in pain and I can vocalise this.
- The mind is a separate substance and has no causal powers.
- Solipsism -The problem of other minds
- Everyone experiences their own mind from within and our knowledge of other minds is very different. If we aren't able to experience others MS, we can only go off of their behaviour.
- J.S.Mill attempts to overcome solipsism.
- 1. I have a mind.
- 2. From experience I know that MS cause my behaviour.
- 3. Other people have similar behaviours to mine.
- 4. T, by analogy, their behaviour must have a similar cause to mine - MS.
- 5. T, other people have minds.
- We can reject this use of induction. You cannot generalise from one case because it could be a unique case.
- 5. T, other people have minds.
- 4. T, by analogy, their behaviour must have a similar cause to mine - MS.
- 3. Other people have similar behaviours to mine.
- 2. From experience I know that MS cause my behaviour.
- 1. I have a mind.
- 1. This behaviour has a MC, as dos that behaviour.
- 2. T, many behaviours have a MC - I know this from experience.
- 3. Other people exhibit the same types of behaviour.
- 4. T, those behaviours also have MC's.
- 5. T, other people have minds.
- This relies on mental causation, a concept that SD is yet to prove is true. There is still no evidence that minds exist.
- 5. T, other people have minds.
- This doesn't mean that what is causing their behaviour is a mind. It could be a brain state.
- 4. T, those behaviours also have MC's.
- 3. Other people exhibit the same types of behaviour.
- 2. T, many behaviours have a MC - I know this from experience.
- Interactionist Dualism - Conceptual
Comments
No comments have yet been made