User:Sohanigohal/Property dualism

THE ARGUMENT FROM DOUBT

For Descartes’s research and beliefs to be certain, he had to get rid of all beliefs that were uncertain and doubtful. The philosopher is aware that there is nothing to be certain of in life, like the existence of the world around him or even of his own existence. However, for him to be deceived with reality, he himself must in contrast be real. He supports this with his famous principle cogito ergo sum, “I think, therefore I am”. This reasoning allows him to understand that he can doubt the existence of physical entities, such as his body, but he cannot doubt the existence of his consciousness. [insert argument from doubt]


 * The cartesian description of dualism is substance dualism. It is an idea that we are mental things, and we inhabit a physical body and minds somehow interact with the physical body. Our mind, which is its own substance, tells our physical body what to do and our body transmits information to the mind.
 * We do gain info from our senses, and we transmit information to our bodies.

Qualia: EX: if it feels like pain, then it pains. It is a subjective experience.

ASSESSING THE ARGUMENT FROM DOUBT

Descartes’s argument from doubt is an effective argument to support this philosophy. To further defend this argument, a method often used to distinguish two individuals or things is to find their differences. This essentially means that you must find a property that only one of the two individuals or things is in possession of, that the other lacks. The Leibniz’ Law principle, often referred to as the principle of the indiscernibility of identicals, essentially states that identical entities share the exact same properties. Furthermore, it is known that the mind and the body are not identical since they do not share the same properties. Their difference with respect to dubitability leads us to question whether their existence can be doubted. However, considering this Argument from Doubt is an observer-relative one, and both Descartes’ mind and body have nor lack the property of dubatibility, we can conclude that the Argument from Doubt has not been proven successful.

THE CONCEIVABILITY ARGUMENT

Descartes’ conceivability argument mainly revolves around the existence of God and his belief about God’s existence. His questioning of the mind and the body is done using the Sixth Meditation, a meditation that defines “The existence of material things and the real distinction between mind and body.” Descartes’ argues that for Dualism to be successful, we must assume and understand the mind apart from the body.

This concept relates to God in the sense that everything we can certainly understand can be created by God. Clearly understanding different things can be enough for us to clearly understand things or individuals being distinct and separate from one another by God.

Descartes’ standard form of the conceivability arguments assumes the following:


 * 1) Whatever is clearly and distinctly conceivable is possible.
 * 2) I can clearly and distinctly conceive the mind existing without the body.
 * 3) Thus, it is possible for the mind to exist without the body.
 * 4) If it is possible for A to exist without B, then A and B are distinct entities.
 * 5) Thus, the mind and the body are distinct entities, i.e., dualism is true.

This argument is essentially supported with the belief that claims that was is conceivable is tied to what is possible.

ASSESSING THE CONCEIVABILITY ARGUMENT

The conceivability argument can be interpreted differently from person to person. Not everyone will perceive something the same as everyone else, but like Descartes’ notes, one must perceive something clearly and distinctly as noted in premise 1. To understand all premises, the first premise must be clearly understood.

THE DIVISIBILITY ARGUMENT

The divisibility argument looks more into the nature of the body and its ties to the mind. He writes, “There is a great difference between the mind and the body, inasmuch as the body is by its very nature always divisible, while the mind is utterly indivisible.”

This argument assumes the following:


 * 1) The body is divisible.
 * 2) The mind is not divisible.
 * 3) If the mind and the body differ with respect to their properties, then the mind is a different thing from the body.
 * 4) Thus, the mind is a different thing from the body.

Just the argument from doubt, the divisibility argument uses Leibniz’ Law strategy. However, both arguments utilize different properties, the Argument From Doubt relied on Dubitability which is observer-relative, whereas the Divisibility Argument relies on the physical property of divisibility.

ASSESSING THE DIVISIBILITY ARGUMENT

The divisibility argument contains certain weaknesses regarding the employment of divisibility. Unlike other physical beings, the body is incapable of being divided into two separate and complete bodies. Despite this, the body is capable of being divided into separately identifiable entities. In this sense, we can affirm the first premise by concluding that the brain is divisible into different segments, such as the left and the right hemisphere. As for the second premise, Descartes’ supposes that the mind can be divided into different faculties such as the faculty of will, of understanding, of sense perception, etc. However, Descartes’ views the mind as a whole, as a unified consciousness that is immaterial. Furthermore, any part of the body could theoretically continue to exist independently, but consciousness and all its faculties need to exist as a whole to be considered existent. However, we could also consider the mind to be separated into the conscious and the unconscious mind, or even separate streams of consciousness.

INTERACTIONISM

Observations made by Descartes, which is known as interactionism, is explained as interactions and or events calculated by the mind will lead to an interaction with the body. When your mind wants something, your body will do something to make it happen. The same thing happens but vice versa, events that happen to the body will cause an interaction with the mind. When you are injured, your body sends signals to your brain, which then let your brain know that you are in pain. It will then find a solution, to go through a healing process.

ASSESSING INTERACTIONISM

Considerations were brought upon by Princess Elisabeth. The view of descartes minds being an immaterial substance which leads to the confusion of why the mind interacts with the body which is an immaterial substance. It is also mentioned that the mind cannot have physical contact with the mind. This philosophy is known as Princess Elisabeths objection.

The second objection is called causal closure. Years before, there was no scientific answer of why things happen. Now, as we advance in technologie. We now have answers of why some things happen around the world. For example, it was interpreted that they thought that God was sending thunder and rain. In reality it is caused by something more complex than just God.

It is also included that when your brain desires something your body will evidently do it. The final objection is called Epiphenomenalism. Which is the substitute of interactionism. Once the mind has no causal power, there is no longer any connection to the brain.

THE PAIRING PROBLEM  

The pairing problem emphasizes that they are two types of substances. Which are the material/physical and the mental/immaterial. From a dualistic view the mind has no location since it is immaterial. Descartes believes connection is from the mind to the physical body by the pineal gland. When this observation was first addressed, it would have answered the pairing problem. Sadly for Descartes, the pineal gland has been located in the body, as a source that         “ secretes melatonin and thereby regulates the body's circadian rhythms.” (Kind, 39)

Essentially leaving the pairing problem unsolved. However, Descartes denies that the pairing problem should be added as another problem since there is a much more important problem. Which is the nature of immaterial substances.

CONTEMPORARY VERSIONS OF DUALISM

In an article from Harper's Magazine, Journalist Christopher Beha argues that;

If the sciences had made no headway since Descartes in the effort to understand human consciousness, it might be possible to preserve his distinction [between mind and body], neurologists, psychologists, and cognitive scientist have learned more than enough to convince them that the mind is the physical brain, or at least a function of it, and that no additional mental substance or thinking thing exists. (Beha 2017)

We now comprehend which areas of the brain are in charge of specific functions. Speech, spatiotemporal coordination, and higher order cognition are all examples of basic life functions. Additionally, our knowledge of perception, memory formation, and memory retrieval has advanced significantly. Even in the twenty-first century, some people continue to hold the outdated belief in dualism. For the most of the twentieth century, dualism was rarely brought up in serious philosophical conversations; it was only brought up once again in the 1980s and 1990s. The reflection on qualia was how it began. Qualia is the phenomenal aspect of our four mental states. Science can explain many psychological processes that clarify why things happen the way they do, but it does not appear to be able to explain why things feel the way they do.

Take pain as an illustration. Science can address the difficulty of fully explaining the neural mechanisms associated with pain and the purpose that pain serves in the human system. But science does not appear to be well-suited to address the issue of explaining why these brain activities are accompanied by that specific ouchy sensation—or why they are associated with any feeling at all. Pain seems to reside outside of the world of objectivity that science can engage in.

It is preferable to interpret many of the qualia-based concerns that were expressed in the late twentieth century as arguments of against the physicalist and functionalist viewpoints that had predominated in the middle of the century. One might be persuaded to reconsider adopting a dualist perspective after observing what these beliefs omit.

PROPERTY DUALISM

Descartes and other dualists think that there is an immaterial, non-physical substance that exists. These things are typically described negatively: they are not made of matter, they don't have a physical state, they do not take up space, etc.It is a concept that is veiled in mystery as a due the fact that we are not typically given positive representations of it. Property dualists disprove the notion that there are essentially two distinct types of substances in the world in order to avoid this enigma and other issues.

The mind and the physical brain. As an alternative, property dualists argue that there are actually two distinct categories of properties. Even if some objects, like rocks, solely have physical characteristics, other things with physical characteristics, like the human brain, can also have non-physical characteristics. These non-physical characteristics include mental states.

THE ZOMBIE ARGUMENT

The term zombie is used by philosophers. A  creature that resembles a human both physically and behaviourally. The zombie and its human twin are the same microphysically. In contrast to their human counterparts, zombies are utterly devoid of perceptual consciousness.

The Zombie Argument:


 * 1) Zombies, creatures that are microphysically identical to conscious beings but that lack counsciousess entirely, are conceivable.
 * 2) If zombies are conceivable then they are possible.
 * 3) Therefore, zombies are possible. [From 1,2]
 * 4) If zombies are possible, then consciousness is non-physical.
 * 5) Therefore, consciousness is non-physical. [From 3,4]

When dualist philosophers argue that zombies are plausible, they are basing this assertion on the idea of logical possibility rather than physical possibility.Something needs to be compatible with the laws of physics in order to be regarded as physically conceivable. As a result, something must not only be physically possible but also consistent with the laws of logic in order to be logically possible.

ASSESSING THE ZOMBIE ARGUMENT

Non-dualist philosophers typically pursue one of three lines of objections:


 * 1) Whether zombies are actually conceivable has been questioned by some philosophers.
 * 2) Some acknowledge the conceivability of zombies but disagree that it is reasonable to advance to a claim about their likelihood.
 * 3) Others concede the existence of zombie but contest the notion that this reveals anything about the nature of consciousness.

Many philosophers focus on the first premise and adopt a similar approach to Arnauld's against Descartes. Briefly stated, they contend that we are incorrect in believing that we are truly conceiving what we perceive we are to be.

It suffices for the opponent to point out that there can be a concealed conceptual confusion present in the background when denying the possibility of zombies. According to Chalmer in his book The Conscious Mind (Chalmer 1996), the opponent must provide some context for what conceptual confusion entails. However he still adds that the opponent can support their argument in premise 1 in a number of different ways.

As was previously indicated, non-dualist philosophers have raised several types of objections against the zombie argument in addition to the denial of the conceivability of zombies. Duellist's ability to appropriately address this point does not prove that the argument is valid. However, I t is fair to say that the zombie argument is currently a controversial one that is still going on.

CONCLUSION

In 2009, a survey was done with over 900 attendees going there individual answers 27.1 were in support of the non-physicists  point of view, which is dualism. Although the question was hard to answer, the belief of dualism is still appraised by people from this century.

So for instance, a property dualist might claim that a material thing like a brain can have both physical properties and mental properties, and that these two kinds of properties have very significant differences.

So according to property dualism there are different kinds of properties: there are physical properties which can be seen by the eye  and there are mental properties which can’t be seen by the eye.

The definition of a property dualism is the belief that the brain can have physical and mental characteristics. The belief of the descartes is that the brain is mainly physical but they are substances in the brain that are mental and physical. Descartes’ philosophical inquiry resulted in his belief that the mind is a non-physical entity or a thing, which exists in outer space. This philosophy is called Substance dualism. They  view the mind as a substance, considering it is an entity of its own capable of independent existence.