Studied by 0 people
Define dualism (3)
Dualist theories of the mind argue that there are two types of thing - hence dualism. They deny that the mind is the same as the brain and some deny that the mind is wholly a product of the brain.
Define what is meant by substance in dualist theories. (3)
A substance is an entity, a thing that does not depend on another entity for its continued existence. It has 'ontological independence'. Physical substances, such as the body are physical, material objects , while mental substance refers to minds.
Define substance dualism (5)
Substances are what possess properties; properties cannot exist without substance - they depend upon substance to exist. For example, the property 'being 1 metre long' depends on something being that long.
Substances persist through changes in properties - for example, a snake can change from being 1metre long to 1.1 metres long by growing. Clearly, the property of being 1 metre long does not persist, even though the substance of the snake is still there.
Substance dualism holds that there are two fundamentally different types of substances:
Physical substances (bodies)
Mental substances (minds)
It claims that minds do not depend on bodies in order to exist - minds can exist separated from any body. Minds and bodies are ontologically distinct and independent.
If mental substance exists, it will be very unlike matter - for example, Descartes claims that it does not exist in space and does not have parts.
Define Ontology (3)
The branch of metaphysics dealing with the nature of being. It is concerned with questions of what there is and what sort of entities exist. In the philosophy of mind, ontology questions whether there is just brains or minds and brains or just minds.
Describe Cartesian Dualism (3)
This is Descartes view that mind and body are ontologically distinct substances - each having radically different and essential natures. Substances are characterised by their properties and things which posses these properties. Descartes separates the mind from the body as the body is governed by physical laws, so Aristotle's view that an immaterial soul as the form of the body must be rejected.
Briefly Outline Descartes' Indivisibility Argument (3)
P1: My mind is indivisible
P2: My Body is divisible
P3: Leibniz's Law - things which have different properties cannot be one and the same thing.
Conclusion: My mind is not my body - they are distinct substances.
Outline Descartes' Indivisibility Argument (5)
Descartes claims that the mind and body have different properties - thought and extension.
Leibniz's Law states that if two things have different properties, they are not identical. So, if mind and body have different properties, this proves that they cannot be one and the same thing.
For example, "Liz Truss" and "the former British Prime Minister" are two names for the same person, so anything true of Liz Truss will be true of the former British Prime Minister. If there was one or more things that were true of Liz Truss but not true of the former British Prime Minister, then they are different people.
Additionally, Descartes claims the mind cannot be divided because it is thought and not extended. This means, while the body is divisible into parts (physical substance) the mind(mental substance) is not.
Therefore, they are entirely distinct types of thing.
Outline Descartes' Indivisibility Argument (12)
Descartes claims that the mind and body have different properties - thought and extension. If they were the same thing, they would have the same properties. This thought was later formalised by Leibniz as Leibniz's Principle of the Indiscernibility of identicals - Leibniz's Law. If two things are identical, they will have the same properties and if two things have different properties, they are not identical. So, if mind and body have different properties, this proves that they cannot be one and the same thing.
For example, "Liz Truss" and "the former British Prime Minister" are two names for the same thing, so anything true of Liz Truss will be true of the former British Prime Minister if they are identical. If there was one or more things that were true of Liz Truss but not true of the former British Prime Minister, then we can demonstrate that they are different people.
Descartes adds another claim: the mind does not have any divisible parts and cannot be divided because it is thought and not extended. Descartes says, " When I consider the mind... I can't detect any parts within myself; I understand myself to be something single and complete." This means, while the body is divisible into parts (physical substance) the mind(mental substance) is not. Therefore, they are entirely distinct types of thing.
Briefly Outline Descartes' Conceivability Argument (3)
Premise 1) It is conceivable that mind can exist without body.
Intermediate Conclusion) Therefore, it is possible that mind can exist without body.
Main Conclusion) Therefore, mind and body are distinct substances.
Outline Descartes' Conceivability Argument (5)
I have a clear and distinct idea of myself as something that thinks and isn't extended.
I have a clear and distinct idea of body as something that is extended and does not think.
If I have a clear and distinct thought of something, God can create it in a way that corresponds to my thought.
Therefore, God can create mind as something that thinks and isn't extended and body as something that is extended and does not think.
Therefore, mind and body can exist independently of one another.
Therefore, mind and body are two distinct substances.
Explain Descartes' Conceivability Argument (12)
Descartes first premises of this argument claim that I have a clear and distinct idea of myself as something that thinks and isn't extended. as well as I have a clear and distinct idea of body as something that is extended and does not think. Descartes' notion of clear and distinct ideas shows that clear and distinct ideas are trustworthy, complete, and true rather than just random thoughts that may or may not be accurate. So, these premises entail the claim that it is conceivable that mind can exist without body and nothing in our concepts rules this out.
The next two premises state that if I have a clear and distinct thought of something, God can create it in a way that corresponds to my thought. Therefore, God can create mind as something that thinks and isn't extended and body as something that is extended and does not think. These premises mean tat the concepts of mind and body aren't self-contradictory. So, God can create the mind and body just as Descartes conceives of them - a thinking thing and an extended thing.
The final two premises state: therefore, mind and body can exist independently of one another. Therefore, mind and body are two distinct substances. A substance is something that does not depend on another thing in order to exist, so these two distinct substances are separate because they exist independently of each other.
Outline the Objection to the Indivisibility Argument That the Mental is Divisible in Some Sense (5)
There are cases of mental illness in which the mind does seem literally divided. For example, the dissociative disorder commonly known as multiple personality disorder could suggest that the mind can be divided.
In addition, psychological theories suggest that we have conscious and unconscious desires, so it would make sense to talk about 'parts' of the mind.
For instance, Freud separates the mind into id - fully unconscious; ego - mostly conscious; and super-ego - mostly unconscious.
Modern neuroscience suggests that the mind is spatially located and different functions are in particular spatial locations. So, the mind can be spatially divided.
An example of this would be people who have a corpus callosotomy, which is a surgical procedure where the main connection between the left and right hemispheres of the brain is severed, so they cannot share information
This demonstrates that the different sides of the brain have different functions. As the left side is involved in verbal processing, while the right side is not, so they are able to draw what is processed by the right side of the brain but cannot say it.
Outline the Objection to the Indivisibility Argument That the Mental is Divisible in Some Sense (12)
There are cases of mental illness in which the mind does seem literally divided. For example, the dissociative disorder commonly known as multiple personality disorder could suggest that the mind can be divided. These alternate identities often cannot communicate with other parts, or remember their actions.
In addition, psychological theories suggest that we have conscious and unconscious desires, so it would make sense to talk about 'parts' of the mind. For instance, Freud separates the mind into id, ego and super-ego. Id refers to fully unconscious desires, which demand immediate gratification and pushes to gain pleasure or reduce tension. Super-ego is mostly unconscious and is referred to as your conscience. Ego is mostly conscious and is known as the self. These different parts suggest that the mind is divisible.
The mind is also spatially divisible, as proven by modern neuroscience and experiments on the brain. These suggest that the mind is spatially located and different functions are in particular spatial locations. So, the mind can be spatially divided.
An example of this would be people who have a corpus callosotomy, which is a surgical procedure, for epilepsy, where the main connection between the left and right hemispheres of the brain is severed, so they cannot share information. An experiment conducted would be to show different fields of view a word and ask the person what they saw. One side will be able to say what they saw, but one will not. This demonstrates that the different sides of the brain have different functions. As the left side is involved in verbal processing, the person will saw the word which they saw. While the right side cannot, but they are able to draw what is processed by the right side of the brain even though they cannot say it.
Outline the Objection to the Indivisibility Argument That Not Everything Thought of as Physical is Divisible (5)
P1) Not everything thought of as physical is divisible - such as physical properties like being too hot cannot be broken down, as well as physical substances like subatomic particles.
P2/ Intermediate Conclusion) Therefore, it may not be an essential or defining property of every physical substance that it is divisible.
P3) In that case, the fact that the mind is not divisible does not entail that it is not physical.
P4) It could be a form of non-divisible physical thing.
Main Conclusion) Therefore, even if Descartes is right that the mind isn't divisible, this doesn't prove that it isn't physical.
Outline the Objection to the Indivisibility Argument That Not Everything Thought of as Physical is Divisible (12)
There are properties that human bodies have that are not divisible, but which are clearly physical - such as being too hot, being soaking wet and running. These physical sensations/ properties cannot be broken down. So, thought they are indivisible, it would be nonsense to suggest that they are non-physical states. This means that even if the mind is divisible, it does not follow that it is a special, distinct substance from the body.
Physical properties are not divisible and neither are physical substances, such as sub-atomic particles. Descartes claims that extension is the essential property of physical objects, before arguing that what is extended is divisible. But in the case of sub-atomic particles, which are understood as packets of energy or force fields, this is not true as these cannot be further divided. As well as processes or waves which cannot be divided spatially and form a fundamental part of the physical universe.
Therefore, it may not be an essential or defining property of every physical substance that it is divisible. In that case, the fact that the mind is not divisible does not entail that it is not physical. It could be a form of non-divisible physical thing. Therefore, even if Descartes is right that the mind isn't divisible, this doesn't prove that it isn't physical.
Define Logical Possibility/ Impossibility (3)
Logical Possibilities are things which we can conceive of without contradiction, such as three-sided triangles. If it cannot be conceived without contradiction then it is a logical impossibility, such as married bachelors.
Define Physical Possibility (3)
These are things which follow the physical laws of nature, such as jumping over a puddle. If something does not follow the laws of nature the it is a physical impossibility, such as flying horses. Physical impossibilities, like flying horses are still conceivable without contradiction.
Define Metaphysical Possibility (3)
These are things which could be true in a possible, alternate world. For example, it is metaphysically possible that there is a possible world with horses which can fly. A logical impossibility is a metaphysical impossibility, for example, there is no possible world where the is married bachelors.
Outline the Criticism of Descartes' Conceivability Argument That What is Conceivable May Not be Possible Using the Masked Man Fallacy (5)
1)Suppose that I believe the Masked Man has robbed the bank and I also believe that me friend has not robbed the bank.
2)Clearly, I conceive that the Masked Man is not my friend. But this does not mean that it is possible that the mask man is not my friend as I could be mistaken about who the Masked Man is.
3) If he is my friend then is it logically impossible for my friend to be a different person from the Masked Man.
4) From conceiving that 'two' people are distinct, we cannot infer necessarily that it is possible they are distinct.
5)This can be applied to Descartes' conceivability argument as he argues that it is possible for the mind to exist independently of the body because he can conceive of it existing without the body.
6) But this doesn't follow as it is possible that Descartes' conception of the mind or body is wrong, such that, unknown to him, the mind is not ontologically independent and it is impossible for it to exist separately from the body.
Outline the Criticism of Descartes' Conceivability Argument That What is Conceivable May Not be Possible (12)
This criticism attacks Descartes' inference from the claim that mind without body is conceivable to the conclusion that mind exists without body in reality. This argument is supported from the following example of the masked man fallacy:
Suppose that I believe the Masked Man has robbed the bank and I also believe that me friend has not robbed the bank.
Clearly, I conceive that the Masked Man is not my friend. But this does not mean that it is possible that the mask man is not my friend as I could be mistaken about who the Masked Man is.
If he is my friend then is it logically impossible for my friend to be a different person from the Masked Man.
From conceiving that 'two' people are distinct, we cannot infer necessarily that it is possible they are distinct.
This can be applied to Descartes' conceivability argument as he argues that it is possible for the mind to exist independently of the body because he can conceive of it existing without the body. But this doesn't follow. It is possible that Descartes' conception of the mind or body is wrong, such that, unknown to him, the mind is not ontologically independent and it is impossible for it to exist separately from the body.
This can be summarised: my friend and the masked man cannot possible be two different people if I am mistaken and they are one and the same person; mind and body cannot possibly be two different substances if Descartes is mistaken and they are one and the same thing.
Outline the Criticism of Descartes' Conceivability Argument That What is Logically Possible Tells Us Nothing About Reality (5)
We can conceive of mind as something that thinks and of body as something that is extended.
From this, it does not follow that we conceive of mind as something that thinks and isn't extended or of body as something that is extended and does not think.
There is nothing in the initial concepts of mind and body in (1) that oppose each other.
There is no contradiction in conceiving of mind as something that is extended and thinks.
Likewise, there is no contradiction in conceiving of body as something that is extended but which may think. So, we can conceive of each, mind and body, having both thought and extension.
If this is right, then we can conceive of mind and body as distinct substances, or we can think of thought and extension as properties of the same substance.
Outline the Criticism of Descartes' Conceivability Argument That What is Logically Possible Tells Us Nothing About Reality (12)
There are two ways of criticising Descartes on the point that just because it is possible for mind and body to be distinct, this does not mean they are in reality.
The first way begins with Descartes' claims that whatever we can clearly and distinctly conceive of is logically possible; therefore, it is logically possible that mind and body are distinct substances. But equally, it is logically possible that thought and extension are two properties of a single substance. Simply knowing what is logically possible dos not tell us which possibility correctly describes reality. Therefore, just because it is logically possible for mind and body to be separate substances doesn't show that they re separate substances.
The second way is described here. We can conceive of mind as something that thinks and of body as something that is extended. From this, it does not follow that we conceive of mind as something that thinks and isn't extended or of body as something that is extended and does not think. There is nothing in the initial concepts of mind and body in (1) that oppose each other. There is no contradiction in conceiving of mind as something that is extended and thinks. Likewise, there is no contradiction in conceiving of body as something that is extended but which may think. So, we can conceive of each, mind and body, having both thought and extension. If this is right, then we can conceive of mind and body as distinct substances, or we can think of thought and extension as properties of the same substance.
Outline the Criticism of Descartes' Conceivability Argument That Mind Without Body Is Not Conceivable (5)
This criticism is about the first premise in Descartes argument, "it is conceivable that mind can exist without body".
This premise is inconceivable from everyday experience of recognising people by their body. If people lost their bodies and were disembodied souls, we wouldn't be able to recognise them as the same person. So, the body is an essential component of who we are.
Additionally, the premise is inconceivable as according to verificationism, it is nonsense to talk about a non-physical substance or being outside of one's body in an out of body experience. This is because they are not empirically verifiable by science as experiences are private to each person.
This premise is also inconceivable to Hume due to his thoughts that we are aware of sensations, emotions and beliefs but not aware of a particular owner of these conscious experiences. If the mind is immaterial, then it lacks extension, so it couldn't be a possible object of sense experience.
There is also the 'mental twin' example, which is someone with the same thoughts as me. There is no physical or mental way to draw a distinction if we didn't have a body. So, there must be a body in order to differentiate in such a case, so a body is an essential component of who I am.
Outline the Criticism of Descartes' Conceivability Argument That Mind Without Body Is Not Conceivable (12)
This criticism is about the first premise in Descartes argument, "it is conceivable that mind can exist without body". This premise is inconceivable from everyday experience of recognising people by their body. If people lost their bodies and were disembodied souls, we wouldn't be able to recognise them as the same person. So, the body is an essential component of who we are. We cannot detach ourselves from our bodies and roam a different plane as we could if dualism was true. Additionally, out of body experiences make explicit references to moving in physical space, which implies physical position, which without a physical form is impossible.
Additionally, the premise is inconceivable as according to verificationism, it is nonsense to talk about a non-physical substance or being outside of one's body in an out of body experience. This is because they is not empirically verifiable by science. To verify science, claims must be subject to repeatable independent tests. However, out of body experiences are private to each person so they cannot be verified.
This premise is also inconceivable to Hume due to his thoughts that we are aware of sensations, emotions and beliefs but not aware of a particular owner of these conscious experiences, so there is no concept of the singular mind, but of a multiplicity of experiences. If the mind is immaterial, then it lacks extension, so it couldn't be a possible object of sense experience.
There is also the 'mental twin' example, which is someone with the same thoughts as me. Dualists say that the mind identifies who a person is, not their body. So, with the mental twin example, there is no physical or mental way to draw a distinction if we didn't have a body. So, there must be a body in order to differentiate in such a case, so a body is an essential component of who I am.
