Lecture 1- Philosophy of mind & substance dualism

mind

umbrella term for states, processes, events, capacities

• perceptions

• bodily sensations

• emotions

• beliefs

• desires

• intentions

• reasoning

• memory

• etc.

mind- body problem

the mind has characteristics that the body doesn’t have, and vice versa

• some mental states are conscious and have a phenomenal quality

• some mental states have intentionality

but is there a real diffeence between mind and body? if so, how can they relate each other? if not, how can we understand the mind as part of the natural world?

4 positions about the mind-body problem

• there is nothing but the body/brain

• there is nothing but the mind

• body & mind exist in parallel

• bdy & mind interact

substance dualism in philosophy

humans consist of two substances: an immaterial soul and a material body

• they are two distinct substances; two different building blocks of reality, that can exist independently and have different properties

arguments in favour of substance dualism

• Leibniz’s Law: Identity of Indiscernibes

• Doubting argument

Leibniz’s Law: Identity of Indiscernibles

if x= y → x and y have the same properties

… mind and body have different properties… mind ≠ body

Doubting Argument- Descartes

doubting everything we presume to know to provide a solid foundation for our sciences.

• can we doubt the existence of material things; the external world & our body? Yes.

“Cogito ergo sum- I think therefore I am.”

• there is only 1 thing we cannot doubt, the existence of something that doubts something

we gain knowledge through our sense organs. I can doubt I have a material body, but I cannot doubt I exist, because I am having the doubting thought

• so, I am not identical to my body

problem with leibniz’s assumption

doesn’t work for psychological states, such as thinking, knowing, believing, doubting.

• bc what i think abt something isn’t necessarily a property of it. we can’t assume identity of a subject’s knowledge with the object itself

  • unjustified leap from epistemology to ontology

intensional fallacy

relates to how we interpret mental states and intentions behind behaviour

• the mistake (fallacy) of thinking you can understand behaviour by just looking at intentions, without considering the whole situation/ other factors

premise 1: i cannot doubt that I exist

premise 2: i can doubt that my body exists

conclusion: therefore, I am not identical to my body

even though I can doubt that I have no body, this does not imply that I am not identical with my body. the idea that mind and body are two distinct substances is an ontological thesis, while Descartes’ argument relies of epistomological difference.

ontology

study of what really exists

epistemology

study of what we know

which challenges does substance dualism face?

• interactionism

interactionism

• mind & body continuously interact

• substance ualism requires that mind & body can exist as separate entities, but interactionism defies this by positing that they interact (and maybe depend) on each other

• body and mind lack the commonalities necessary for interaction: spatial point of contact

  • causal interaction needs spatial contact: how can something non-spatial (mind) interact with something spatial (pineal)

dualistic alternatives to interactionism

parallelism (e.g. Leibniz)

• body and mind are different substances that do not interact with each other

occasionalism

• body and mind are different substances that don’t directly interact with each other

substance dualism vs. monism

substance dualism: mind & matter are two different substances

substance monism: everything is made of the same substance

idealism

everything that exists is mind

materialism

everything that exists is matter