Is Substance Dualism convincing?
Statement of Intent: Substance Dualism is not a convincing theory of mind. Firstly, the implications of the
theory will lead to the significant problem of other minds. Secondly, the arguments for Substance Dualism
are not convincing and lastly and most crucially, substance dualism fails to convincingly explain the
interaction with the mind and body.
RICE 1:
R: The implications of substance dualism will that it will lead to the problem of other minds. The problem
of other minds is the question of how we can know that there are minds other than our own given that our
experience of other minds (if they exist) is through behaviour. We only have access to our minds because
minds are unobservable and private and so we could not tell. Whilst this is a general philosophical
problem, this is a specific issue for Substance Dualism because if substance dualism is the case then the
mind and body are entirely independent and so we could not infer from only seeing a body that there is a
mind
I: First Argument from Analogy. I have a mind, I know from experience that my mental states cause my
behaviour. Other people have bodies similar to mine and behave similarly to me in similar situations. By
analogy therefore their behaviours has the same type of cause as my behaviour (mental states). Therefore
other people have minds
C: We can’t drew a conclusion based on a single case. I could be a special case and therefore I could be
the only person with a mind. It’d be like saying that this dog has three legs and therefore all dogs have
three legs.
E: Therefore Problem of Other Mind yet to be resolved 😟
I: Argument from Analogy 2: This behaviour has a mental cause. That behaviour has a mental cause. That
third behaviour has a mental cause. Many behaviours have a mental cause ( I know this from my
experience). Other people exhibit the same types of behaviour as cited above. Therefore behaviours have
mental causes. Therefore other people have minds. This resolves the original issue of a unique case
because we are using multiple cases
C: The argument relies on similarity principle - that similar effects imply similar causes. However if we
consider AI has the similar effects that a human would have yet the cause is completely different - one is
from a human mind and another from a program. How do we not know that other people are programmed
I: The existence of other minds is the best hypothesis. If we consider why human beings behave as they
do and how to explain human behaviour the best explanation is that people have mind and that their
mental states cause them t behave as they do. And if people in general have minds then obviously people
other than me have minds. If we analyse mental states as the inner states of an organism that respond to
the environment and cause behaviour. Pain makes you respond quickly to further damage etc. The theory
that there are such inner sates that cause behaviour is then said to be the best explanation of behaviour.
These inner states are states of a distinct mental substance for Substance Dualism
E: But we can challenge this. It depends on Substance Dualism of being the right account of what mental
states are which I will subsequently show is not. Secondly if we start to understand the mind in terms of
its causal relations to behaviour then we need to solve the problem of interaction - another problem which
needs to be discussed. Thus, this understanding leads to a whole loads of problem which need to be
answered and accounted for. Therefore problem of other mind remains an issue for Substance Dualism
RICE 2:
R: The arguments for Substance Dualism are not convincing at all. Firstly considering the indivisibility
argument which says that because the mind and the body have different properties (the mind because
Is Substance Dualism convincing? 1
Statement of Intent: Substance Dualism is not a convincing theory of mind. Firstly, the implications of the
theory will lead to the significant problem of other minds. Secondly, the arguments for Substance Dualism
are not convincing and lastly and most crucially, substance dualism fails to convincingly explain the
interaction with the mind and body.
RICE 1:
R: The implications of substance dualism will that it will lead to the problem of other minds. The problem
of other minds is the question of how we can know that there are minds other than our own given that our
experience of other minds (if they exist) is through behaviour. We only have access to our minds because
minds are unobservable and private and so we could not tell. Whilst this is a general philosophical
problem, this is a specific issue for Substance Dualism because if substance dualism is the case then the
mind and body are entirely independent and so we could not infer from only seeing a body that there is a
mind
I: First Argument from Analogy. I have a mind, I know from experience that my mental states cause my
behaviour. Other people have bodies similar to mine and behave similarly to me in similar situations. By
analogy therefore their behaviours has the same type of cause as my behaviour (mental states). Therefore
other people have minds
C: We can’t drew a conclusion based on a single case. I could be a special case and therefore I could be
the only person with a mind. It’d be like saying that this dog has three legs and therefore all dogs have
three legs.
E: Therefore Problem of Other Mind yet to be resolved 😟
I: Argument from Analogy 2: This behaviour has a mental cause. That behaviour has a mental cause. That
third behaviour has a mental cause. Many behaviours have a mental cause ( I know this from my
experience). Other people exhibit the same types of behaviour as cited above. Therefore behaviours have
mental causes. Therefore other people have minds. This resolves the original issue of a unique case
because we are using multiple cases
C: The argument relies on similarity principle - that similar effects imply similar causes. However if we
consider AI has the similar effects that a human would have yet the cause is completely different - one is
from a human mind and another from a program. How do we not know that other people are programmed
I: The existence of other minds is the best hypothesis. If we consider why human beings behave as they
do and how to explain human behaviour the best explanation is that people have mind and that their
mental states cause them t behave as they do. And if people in general have minds then obviously people
other than me have minds. If we analyse mental states as the inner states of an organism that respond to
the environment and cause behaviour. Pain makes you respond quickly to further damage etc. The theory
that there are such inner sates that cause behaviour is then said to be the best explanation of behaviour.
These inner states are states of a distinct mental substance for Substance Dualism
E: But we can challenge this. It depends on Substance Dualism of being the right account of what mental
states are which I will subsequently show is not. Secondly if we start to understand the mind in terms of
its causal relations to behaviour then we need to solve the problem of interaction - another problem which
needs to be discussed. Thus, this understanding leads to a whole loads of problem which need to be
answered and accounted for. Therefore problem of other mind remains an issue for Substance Dualism
RICE 2:
R: The arguments for Substance Dualism are not convincing at all. Firstly considering the indivisibility
argument which says that because the mind and the body have different properties (the mind because
Is Substance Dualism convincing? 1
