Substance dualism

What is an ontological and analytical reduction

ontological - x is numerically identical with y - they are one and the same

analytic - the concepts and sentences to do with x are translatable to concepts and sentences to do with y without loss of meaning

what is it to be a non reductionist about the mental

the mind can’t be translated to the physical or anything else

Explain substance dualism (5)

• a substance is an object

• Substance dualism states that the mind is a substance

• A person is their mind

• The mind is an unextended substance, an immaterial object that doesn’t take up space whereas the human body is an extended substance

• therefore the mind and body are two distinct and different things. Though they are distinct they are related as they interact with each other causally

• the mental is ontologically distinct from the physical

Explain the indivisibility argument (5)

• if there are objects a and b and some things are true of a and not of b, then according to Leibniz’s law, a and b cannot be the same thing and are different

• Physical objects are divisible, however the mind is indivisible.

• therefore minds and objects cannot be the same thing and they must be separate things

• therefore substance dualism is true

Explain the conceivability argument (5)

• whatever is conceivable is logically possible

• Descartes argues that he can clearly conceive of the mind and body being ontologically distinct

• therefore it is logically possible for the mind and body to be ontologically distinct in reality

• therefore the mind and body are really ontologically distinct

• this is true and can be shown using the analogy that water is H2O and nothing else (and vice versa) so they are two different names for the same thing. Therefore, it’s inconceivable that they are different things - it would be contradictory to say that x is not x

• If the mind and body were the same thing, it would be logically impossible for them not to be

• It is logically possible for them to be separate things

• therefore they cannot be the same thing

Explain the problem of other minds (5)

• substance dualism states that the mind is an immaterial so cannot impact on our senses

• However it is impossible to know that another mind around as it is an immaterial object so you cant see it, hear it, or test to find it

• You know you exist because you have privileged access to your own mind - you cant doubt your existence because you need to exist to doubt your own existence

• However the problem of other minds argument makes a skeptical argument against substance dualism that you can’t know that anyone else has a mind other than you as you can’t test for it because the mind, according to substance dualism, is immaterial (it is not the physical brain) and you do not have privileged access to the minds of others

Explain the empirical interaction problem (5)

• Descartes’ view is that the mind interacts causally with the body

• However, his causal interaction substance dualism is not compatible with modern science

• Physics states that the universe is a causally closed system where all cause and effects are physical and have to do with the exchange of energy

• This means that energy cannot come from outside the physical universe and affect things within it. However that seems to be how substance dualism would have to work since the mental is supposedly outside the physical universe. Therefore substance dualism is false.

Explain the conceptual/causal interaction problem

• This issue was raised by Princess Elizabeth of Bohemia in a letter to Descartes

• Princess Elizabeth says that causation involves contact such ass pushing or collisions between objects

• Descartes says that the mind is an immaterial object

• Her idea of causation and Descartes’ idea of the mind don’t fit as the mind according to Descartes has no surface does not occupy any physical space. So it cannot cause a physical change.

• Therefore Descartes’ view of causal interaction between the mind and body is not possible

Explain Descartes’ idea of causal interaction

• mind and body as so closely bound up with one another as to be intermingled

• causal interaction - non physical mental states cause ur physical body to act in a certain way

• eg. my desire to drink lemonade and my belief that there is lemonade in the fridge cause my physical body to walk towards the ridge, sip the lemonade etc.

• and other way around

• eg. when i stub my tow my mind experiences pain

response to concievability arg: mind without body is inconcievable - premise is incorrect

• premise that you can concieve of the mind and body separately is incorrect

• mind according to descartes is an entity with no extension, no physical properties whatsoever - can’t be touched and we cant form a mental image of a mind

• so we can’t concieve of the mind on its own

• so the premise is false and the argument that the mind and body are distinct because they can be concieved of separately is unsound

• thus it fails to show the plausibility of substance dualism and even suggests it is implausible

response to concievability arg: what is concievable may not be physically possible

• even if we can concieve of minds independent on brains, the premise on which Descartes’ argument rests, does not mean it is physically possible

• it might be logically possible (does not involve a contradiction), but it doesn’t mean that it is physically possible

what is metaphysically possible tells us nothing about the actual world

masked man fallacy

because we cannot concieve of them separately they cannot be the same thing in reality - water and h2o example - descartes’ inference

it is fallible because

i concieve of batman as a caped crusader; i concieve of brice wayne as a billionaire who is not batman. therefore, batman is not bruce wayne. though in the story, batman is in fact bruce wayne’s secret identity. this shows that the conclusion is false. this is because it switches from our ideas of what things are to what they actually are themselves - just because you have the idea that mind and body are separate things and can concieve of them as such, does not mean that they are in reality.

response to indivisibility argument: the mind is divisible - conscious and unconscious

• conscious vs unconscious

• descartes rejects this

• beliefs - we hold innumerable beliefs and the vast majority of them are not being excersised in our minds at the same time

• same with desire - i desire world peace but i can hold that desire without consciously thinking about it all the time

• seems that many of my mental states are at any one time unconscious so there is a distiction between unconscious and conscious in the mind

• so the mind is divided

• and therefore divisible

• so the premise that the mind is indivisible is false

• so descartes’ argument is unsound

• PERHAPS he would reply that the mind is indivisible because it is immaterial, and immaterial substances are individible because they are inextended, and only unextended things can be divided

• but this is supes question-begging because the argument relies upon the conclusion it is designed to prove

response to indivisibility argument: not everything that is physical is indivisible)

• atoms - or smaller things

• even descartes believes in them

• not essentially divisible because there are some objects which are not divisible

Mill’s response to problem of other minds - argument from analogy

you know from your own case that a stimulus such as touching fire causes the mental state of pain - because touching fire is very often followed by pain. The mental state of pain causes the behavioural state of screaming, because screaming is very often preceded by the mental state of pain

if you observe in connection with another human, the stimulus of touching fire followed by the behavioural state of screaming then you may infer the existence of the mental state of pain in that human

not always, but highly propable as with how a doctor views symptoms to make a diagnosis

is the argument from analogy convincing

no - feeble argument to support the conviction that others do have a mental life

generalise from a single case - weak - u try one chocolate in box of identical chocolates and it is caramel so u assume they are all caramel

circular - seeking to show that others are like oneself, relies on the assumption that others are like onself

how does descartes question the causal interaction problem

certain things are irreducable - can’t be understood in terms of anything other than themselves

one such thing is how the mind moves the body and interacts causally with it

we cannot understand it in terms of how physical things move each other

we can’t learn from rational philosophising

Ryle category mistake issue

• dualism rests upon a ‘category mistake’ - represents the facts of mental life as if they belonged to one logical type/category when they in fact belong to another

• eg. cambridge - goes to colleges, libraries, admin buildings etc. but asks where the university is

• individual has mistakenly supposed that the concept of a university is some extra entity in addition to the colleges, libraries, admin buildings etc, placing it in the wrong logical category - the category of substances. It is in fact a concept under which things like colleges and admin buildings are gathered together. the individual has made a category mistake

• this is what descartes does when he places the mind in the wrong logical category, the category of substances, rather then considering it to be a blanket term for various mental states (or in ryle’s case, behavioural), in the same way that cutlery is to knives, forks, and spoons etc.

Other minds are the best explanation - response to prob of other minds

• best explenation - abductive

• One way you could argue other minds are the best explanation is their explanatory and predictive power: If other people have minds, it explains why they behave in the ways they do. For example, if someone spends a few minutes before moving a chess piece in a chess match, the best explanation of their behaviour is that they have a mind and were using it to think through their move before making it.

Explain the empirical interaction problem

• universe is a causally closed system

• all physical occurences must be explained by reference to some other physical occurence

• if this is true then it is physically impossible that our bodies are caused to move because of the intervention of some non-physical force such as the mental

• moreover, in causally closed systems like our universe energy must be conserved

• causation involves the transfer of energy

• therefore the mental and the physical cannot interact causally

• BUT BEGS THE QUESTION BECAUSE THE CLAIM THAT THE UNIVERSE IS A CAUSALLY CLOSED SYSTEM IS ONLY TRUE IF DUALISM IS FALSE

• BUT CAN RESTATE THE ARGUMENT - EVERY PHYSICAL EVENT CAN BE COMPLETELY ACCOUNTED FOR IN TERMS OF PHYSICAL CAUSES - epiphenomenalism