Is substance dualism a convincing account of the mind?
INTRO
Substance dualism states that the mind is a nonphysical object. Substance dualists argue that the mind
and the body are two distinct substances and that the mind is a thinking thing that lacks the attributes of
physical objects like size, location, and adhering to the laws of physics. Substance dualism is seeking to
solve the problem of the mind and where it is located. However, substance dualism is an untenable
account of the mind because it cannot respond to the objections raised against it such as the problem of
other minds, mind body interaction and the categorical mistake that Descartes makes.
P1 – ARGUMENT 1 – Conceivability
P2 – WEAK REPLY – What is metaphysically possible tells us nothing about the actual world
Rebuttal It only applies to contingent facts
P3 – STRONG REPLY - Frege sense/reference distinction (superman, Clark Kent ) you think u can imagine
one in the room and one not but acc you can’t because despite the senses being different the references
are the same. We can’t trust conceivability as there are illusions of it.
P4 – ARGUMENT 2 – DIVISIBILITY SNIP SNIP 😉
P5 – STRONG REPLY – Category mistake, nonsensical to talk like that about the mind descartes ex Tour
of oxford uni “where is oxford uni” well it is all the buildings, oxford uni as something above oxford uni
Misunderstood semantics of the term, oxford uni is not a concept
The mind is not a concept it is a category mistake to think of it like that
P6 – PROBLEM 1 – prob of other minds
P7 – WEAK REPLY 1 – argument from analogy “ouch”
P8 – REBUTTAL – Small sample size
P9 – REPLY 2 – abductive reasoning IBE
Conclusion
Though the arguments for don’t work the problems can be avoided.
INTRO
Substance dualism states that the mind is a nonphysical object. Substance dualists argue that the mind
and the body are two distinct substances and that the mind is a thinking thing that lacks the attributes of
physical objects like size, location, and adhering to the laws of physics. Substance dualism is seeking to
solve the problem of the mind and where it is located. However, substance dualism is an untenable
account of the mind because it cannot respond to the objections raised against it such as the problem of
other minds, mind body interaction and the categorical mistake that Descartes makes.
P1 – ARGUMENT 1 – Conceivability
P2 – WEAK REPLY – What is metaphysically possible tells us nothing about the actual world
Rebuttal It only applies to contingent facts
P3 – STRONG REPLY - Frege sense/reference distinction (superman, Clark Kent ) you think u can imagine
one in the room and one not but acc you can’t because despite the senses being different the references
are the same. We can’t trust conceivability as there are illusions of it.
P4 – ARGUMENT 2 – DIVISIBILITY SNIP SNIP 😉
P5 – STRONG REPLY – Category mistake, nonsensical to talk like that about the mind descartes ex Tour
of oxford uni “where is oxford uni” well it is all the buildings, oxford uni as something above oxford uni
Misunderstood semantics of the term, oxford uni is not a concept
The mind is not a concept it is a category mistake to think of it like that
P6 – PROBLEM 1 – prob of other minds
P7 – WEAK REPLY 1 – argument from analogy “ouch”
P8 – REBUTTAL – Small sample size
P9 – REPLY 2 – abductive reasoning IBE
Conclusion
Though the arguments for don’t work the problems can be avoided.
