Issues for Dualism

What are the issues for dualism in general?

epistemological problem of other minds

WITTGENSTEIN: conceptual problem of other minds

RYLE: category mistake

what is the epistemological problem of other minds?

according to dualism, my own mind is perceived directly by introspection and the external world is perceived indirectly by the senses

this means i can only know about other people’s minds indirectly

so there is no firm evidence that other minds actually exist

what is the conceptual problem of other minds?

imagine everyone was given a box containing a beetle and each person could only look at their box and no one else’s

we would suppose everyone’s beetle is the same but we could never check this is the case so everyone may be using the word beetle to refer to something different or maybe even nothing at all (if their boxes are empty)

this is the same for the term ‘mind’

each individual can only experience their own mind and so only understands the concept of mind through their individual experience

we suppose this concept is the same for everyone but can not check this

so it is problematic to generalise the concept of other minds based on the concept of my mind which i gain from my individual experience

so i can not even form the concept of other minds and so can’t prove they exist

what are the responses to the problem of other minds?

HUME: argument from analogy

existence of other minds is the best hypothesis

what is the argument from analogy counter response?

i learn there are law like connections between my mind and body

eg if i step on a nail i feel the mental state of pain and my body shouts while trying to remove the nail

so by analogy if i observe others behaving similarly to similar occurrences, i can infer they have similar conscious experiences

eg if someone steps on a nail and shouts while trying to remove it, i can infer they feel the mental state of pain like i do

what is a counter argument to the argument from analogy?

one case is not sufficient for an analogy

imagine walking across a garden, finding a red fruit that is blue on the inside

it would be unwise to then conclude all red fruit are blue on the inside as you have only experienced this once

the same mistake happens with the argument from analogy- it is unwise to conclude all behaviours of a specific type relate to certain mental states as i have only experienced this once (with myself)

what is the existence of other minds is the best hypothesis response?

scientists believe in atoms even though they are unobservable entities

this is because they are the best explanation of the phenomena we can and do observe

we can correctly predict results such as heated copper will gain weight because the o2 atoms bind to the Cu atoms because of our belief in atoms

belief in mind is the same as belief in atoms because it is the best explanation for the behaviours we observe

we can correctly predict behaviours like shouting when stepping on a nail because of our belief in the existence of other minds

what is the category mistake criticism?

claims dualism makes a category mistake as it confuses one concept for another

imagine a visitor is shown around oxford university and is shown the lecture halls, the dorms, the libraries etc and at the end of the tour he asks ‘ but where is the university?’

here the visitor has made the categorical mistake as he mistakenly put oxford university in the category of individual buildings when the university is in fact the collection of buildings he was shown

ryle says dualism makes the same categorical mistake by assuming the mind is in the category of things when it is just the collection of our behaviours

define interactionist dualism

dualist theories which believe the mind can interact with the physical (cause physical actions) and the physical can cause mental states. eg state of hunger can cause you to get food and being hit in the head can cause you the mental state of pain

what is an example of interactionist dualism?

substance dualism

what are criticisms to interactionist dualism?

PRINCESS ELISABETH OF BOHEMIA: the conceptual interaction problem

the empirical interaction problem

what is the conceptual interaction problem?

it is inconceivable for two things to causally interact unless their surfaces come into contact with each other

the mind has no surface

so it is inconceivable for the mind to interact with the body and vice versa

if such interaction is inconceivable, it is impossible

so mind body interaction is impossible

how does the conceptual interaction problem attack substance dualism?

in the conceivability argument descartes states he has the clear and distinct idea that the mind is a non-extended thing but if the mental can cause the physical then it must have a purpose and be extended

what is a response to the conceptual interaction problem?

DESCARTES argues that the mind-body union is a basic notion in itself and can’t be explained in terms of anything else

explaining mind-body interaction in terms of body-body interaction is like trying to explain the colour blue in terms of yellow

what is the empirical interaction problem?

the law of conservation of energy states ‘in a closed system, energy cannot be added or removed - only transferred’

our universe is a closed system

if substance dualism is true, energy would constantly be added into the closed system of our universe when the mind causes the physical (as causation transfers energy)

so if substance dualism is true then the law of conservation of energy is false

there is more evidence for the law of the conservation of energy than substance dualism so substance dualism is wrong

define epiphenomenalist dualism

dualist theory which believes that the physical world can interact with/ cause mental states but mental states can not interact with/ cause the physical world. eg getting hit in the head can cause the mental state of pain but getting food is caused by the brain and not my mental states

what is an example of epiphenomenalist dualism?

property dualism

what are the criticisms to epiphenomenalist dualism?

introspective self-knowledge

phenomenology of our mental life

natural selection/ evolution

what is the introspective self knowledge criticism? and its counter argument and counter counter argument?

introspection shows mental states are causally linked to one another eg smell of melted butter on toast may cause me to think of my grandma’s kitchen

so introspection shows mental states are capable of causally linked events

CA: conceptual interaction problem by princess Elisabeth of Bohemia

CCA: if epiphenomenalist dualism were true then i would not be able to express my beliefs about my mental states

eg when i say i am in pain this would not come from my introspective self awareness of the mental state of pain

but if my being in pain does not cause me to say i am in pain then the statement i am in pain could not be possible

but it is a possible statement so epiphenomenalist dualism is not true

what is the phenomenology of our mental lives criticism based on sensations cause our actions? and its counter argument?

our reaction to sensations seem to show the mental can cause the physical

eg when i hit my thumb with a hammer, it is the mental sensation of pain which causes me to remove my hand, i would not remove my hand if there was no pain

so without mental states some actions would never happen showing that they do cause the physical sometimes

CA: JACKSON: when watching a punch happen in a cowboy film, it appears that the punch causes the one being punched to collapse

but even though these events are regularly conjoined, there is no direct causal link between one frame causing the next, the real cause is the projector

so just because two events are regularly conjoined it does not mean they cause each other, there may be a hidden third factor

so just because pain and pain behaviour are regularly conjoined, they are not necessarily causally linked, there may be a hidden factor (the brain) causing these events to happen one after another

what is the phenomenology of our mental life criticism based on will causing our action? and its CA and CCA?

we have the notion that we have free will

if my actions are only caused by physical processes, then my desires for what actions i take are irrelevant

so if my actions are only caused by the physical i have no free will

CA: since we do not know everything about the brain, it is possible that what we understand as free will is just another physical process in the brain

CCA: this would be too complicated for the justice system as any criminal could say they had no choice in doing the crime as it was forced by the physical process

what is the problem of natural selection criticism? and its counter argument?

species go through natural selection meaning they evolve with the traits beneficial to them

if mental states are causally redundant it makes no sense that they survived the process of natural selection

so they must have some causal value

CA: JACKSON: a polar bear evolved with a thick coat to stay warm

so the polar bear also evolved to have a heavy coat which does not benefit its survival

this is because a heavy coat is a by product of the warm thick coat

jackson argues the same case happens with the brain and mental states

humans evolved a brain to help survive but also evolved mental states which are causally redundant as a by product of this brain