DIVISIBILITY ARGUMENT
This paper will discuss the dualism’s Divisibility Argument. This argument relies on Leibniz’s Law and uses a different property to prove the distinctness of brain states of mental states. Mary, who is a materialist, presents several objections to that argument. Her main objection corresponds to the first/third-person approach. She believes that Dave presents that argument only from the first-person approach, which is introspection, and totally disregards the third-person approach, which is observation of another mind. Mary’s objections will follow by the Dave’s response on them from the dualist’s point of view.
The purpose of the Divisibility Argument is to prove that mental states are different from the brain states. My body, which includes my brain, is divisible. However, I cannot conceive of my mind as divisible. Therefore, my mind is distinct from any part of my body.
Descartes was the first who established the Divisibility Argument. He held that the two components which constitute man had an independent origin and are of a fundamentally different nature. The body is divisible, since it can be separated for example, my leg or my hand can be cut off; my brain can be cut on half. However, the idea of the divisible mind is inconceivable.
This argument relies on the Leibniz’s Law. It is a principle about identity, which says, “if an object or event X is identical with an object or event Y, then X and Y have all of the same properties.” So if X and Y have any different properties, then X can not be identical with Y. Divisibility Argument uses a different property to prove the distinctness of brain states and mental states: the property of being indivisible. In this case, the mind has a property and brain lacks it. The body can be divided, however, it cannot be done with the mind.
Mary has several objections to this argument. First, she believes that the mind is an entity, which is composed of several mental states: thoughts, beliefs, memories, desires, etc. Mary strongly disagrees with Descartes’ claim that the mind employs itself in its different properties: willing, desiring, understanding, and so on. Secondly, she clarifies the meaning of the word “conceive” in the Dave’s argument. The term “conceive” might mean either “imagine” or “understand.” Imagining literally involves “forming an image of” or “picturing” in one’s mind, whereas understanding is more “conceptual” and does not require the ability to picture something.
The first argument comes from knowledge and extension. From knowledge, he says if he clearly and distinctly understand one thing as distinct from another then he is certain that he exists as a thinking thing but he still isn 't sure about the existence of his body. Therefore, he is a thinking thing and nothing else. From extension, he is a thing that thinks and not an extended thing but he has a distinct idea of body as an extended thing, therefore his mind is distinct from his body. The second argument he makes is that material objects exist. He can understand himself without imagination and sense, but he cannot understand imagination and sense without attributing them to a thing that thinks. Movement is also a power of mine but movement is a power only of extended things. This leads him to the conclusion that although he is essentially a thinking thing, he is not only a thinking thing. He also has an extended body that we are certain of. We not only have the power of passive sense but an active sense too. This active sensing does not require intellect and comes to us against our will. Therefore, it is either God or and external extended body and since God is no deceiver, material objects
The philosophical theory of dualism holds that mind and body are two separate entities. While dualism presupposes that the two ‘substances’ may interact, it contrasts physicalism by refusing to denote correlation between body and mind as proof of identity. Comparing the two theories, dualism’s invulnerable proof of the existence of qualia manages to evade arguments from physicalism. While a common argument against qualia—non-physical properties defined in Jackson’s Knowledge Argument—targets the unsound nature of epiphenomenalism, this claim is not fatal to the theory of dualism as it contains claims of causation and fails to stand resolute to the conceivability of philosophical zombies. This essay argues that epiphenomenalism, while often designated as a weakness when present in an argument, can remain in valid arguments from qualia.
Despite having contrary qualities and fundamentally opposing natures, the mind and body are intertwined and interact with one another. Interactive dualism hold the idea that the mind is eternal and has the ability to exist apart from the body. Descartes holds the idea that if the physical realm in which the body material body exists ceased to exist, the mind would still be. However, if a circumstance arose which annihilated his ability to think, he would cease to exist. Interactive dualism explores the idea that the body is simply an extension of the forms of the individual in the physical world, that the demise of the material body does not render its fundamental nature to be obsolete. Interactive dualism can seem to diminish the importance of the material body, but it does not. Descartes states that the mind and body are united and interact so closely that it seems to create one whole. This unity is expressed by when the physical body experiences pain. If the mind simply related to the body in the manner a sailor relates to a ship, the mind would simply perceive pain through
...e, it is clear that the mind and brain are not the same thing. If they were, then the two would not have any contradicting qualities. The mind is not divisible, but the brain is. Therefore, the two have a characteristic that is different, which makes them not identical.
Do you think that Descartes qualifies to your satisfaction that the mind and body are separate from each other? Only halfway; too many things are left up in the air, and the language is not quite clear. The mind and body can each exist separately and independently of one another. But they also need one another to work properly. This relationship is why the mind and body argument was shown with the sailor and ship scenario. By claiming that the mind and body were similarly related to each other as the sailor and the ship, Descartes was giving the average but intuitive reader something to ponder about while trying to make up his or her own mind about the relation between mind and body. From my point of view, however, Descartes needs further argument to prove that the mind and the body are distinct.
Though I will agree, they are two different things, but that’s not to say that they don’t go hand in hand. Trying to prove that they don’t is like trying to prove that Batman and Bruce Wayne are two different people. They aren’t, but they are two different personas. And that is my argument. The mind and the brain are separate, but they need each other to
The desire to avoid dualism has been the driving motive behind much contemporary work on the mind-body problem. Gilbert Ryle made fun of it as the theory of 'the ghost in the machine', and various forms of behaviorism and materialism are designed to show that a place can be found for thoughts, sensations, feelings, and other mental phenomena in a purely physical world. But these theories have trouble accounting for consciousness and its subjective qualia. As the science develops and we discover facts, dualism does not seems likely to be true.
An important idea is that since the mind can differentiate itself from the body, and the body is unable to think, which leads to the conclusion that the two substances cannot be the same, as they have different properties [Descartes 1641: 32]. This is a valid argument as each premise leads to the conclusion, regardless of whether the premises lead to a sound argument. While this is a valid argument, I would say that premise i. could be seen as a supposition, as there is no empirical proof of Descartes being able to visually or physically separate the substances. As I have presented Descartes argument and supplied additional, suppressed premises, I will now assess the soundness of this
Descartes uses the notion of conceivability to argue that the mind exists independently from the body by arguing that the human population cannot be only made out of physical material. Descartes claims the physical body must be separated from the nonphysical mind. Descartes argument differs from materialists’ beliefs. Materialists believe that “every object and event in the world is physical. So mental states must be physical states” (Textbook, p.198).
In this argument, Descartes is stating that the mind and body are not identical. And spatial divisibility is a property of matter/ body while it is not a property of the mind i.e. is not spatially divisible. By digging deeper into this
René Descartes was the 17th century, French philosopher responsible for many well-known philosophical arguments, such as Cartesian dualism. Briefly discussed previously, according to dualism, brains and the bodies are physical things; the mind, which is a nonphysical object, is distinct from both the brain and from all other body parts (Sober 204). Sober makes a point to note Descartes never denied that there are causal interactions between mental and physical aspects (such as medication healing ailments), and this recognition di...
One of the ways in which Descartes attempts to prove that the mind is distinct from the body is through his claim that the mind occupies no physical space and is an entity with which people think, while the body is a physical entity and cannot serve as a mechanism for thought. [1]
...ning of mind is something that cannot be divisible but that is hard to see because I have already proved that by my understanding of the mind it has parts. It is also hard to think of a mind or soul that does not have such things as memory and personality therefore I believe Descartes argument is false.
Descartes is a very well-known philosopher and has influenced much of modern philosophy. He is also commonly held as the father of the mind-body problem, thus any paper covering the major answers of the problem would not be complete without covering his argument. It is in Descartes’ most famous work, Meditations, that he gives his view for dualism. Descartes holds that mind and body are com...
two distinct kinds of entities, bodies and minds (1). All objects that exist or can exist belong to one of these categories. The two forms are said to be mutually exclusive and commonly defined by fundamentally different characteristics, yet both are required to accurately define the world around us. According to Descartes, the body is a tangible physical substance (the unthinking thing), whereas the mind is an intangible non-physical substance (the thinking thing) and comes metaphysically before the body (3). The mind and body casually interact with one another while maintaining their distinctiveness: the eyes perceive objects and then focus the image to the pineal gland, where it transmits the information to the non-physical mind; the mind then may transmit a signal to the body, telling it what to do. The mind and body are independent from one another, yet they work in harmony; the mind receives signals from the body and the body responds to signals from the mind.