Dualism and monism are fundamentally different ideas but attempt to offer the same explanation to the problem of what our personal identity is made of. Both ideas give an interesting perspective but I believe that monism provides the most rational explanation.
Dualism is the idea that the mind (i.e. beliefs) and body (i.e., brain) are two distinct things (substances), and could exist (at least theoretically) without each other.
An argument for dualism is that
P1. Pain (mental state) has no weight.
P2. Every physical thing (brain state) has weight.
C. Therefore, pain is not identical to physical things.
P4. The body and its parts (brain state) are physical things.
C1. Therefore, pain (mental state) is not identical to the body (brain state).
The dualist argument relies heavily on Leibniz’s law, which states that “If x = y then anything that is true of x is true of y (and vice versa).” This means that, if something is true of the mind that is not true of the body, it can show that they must be non-identical. For the previous argument, pain (a mental state) does not have the attribute of weight. However, all physical things do have the attribute of weight. Thus, we conclude that pain is not the same as physical things. A dualists knows that the body and all its parts are considered physical things. This means that pain (mental state) and the body (brain state) do not have the same attributes. Therefore, under Leibniz’s law, we conclude that pain (mental state) is not identical to the body and all its parts (brain state).
Monism is the idea that there is fundamentally only one sort of substance and not the dualist’s two. Under the monist view, the brain and body are identical and made from the same substance. To cause doubt...
... middle of paper ...
...ake the inability to detect weight as the conclusion. Thus falsifies the dualist argument. Secondly, the idea of the mind and body being two distinct substances interacting seamlessly leaves me unconvinced. If there are two different properties, they would not be able to interact, but we are able to interact through brain and mental states. For example, consuming alcohol affects the physical states as well as the mental state. If the physical state and mental state were non-identical, then it would be impossible for the alcohol to affect the mental state. Therefore, I believe that the physical and the mental state are made up of the same substance thus having the same effects,
Though dualism provides an interesting perspective, I believe that monism makes more sense because it provides a more logical explanation to the way our personal identity works.
First, when considering dualism, is it conceivable to have a physical drug that can kill something that has no physical attributes? Is it possible to have to have a physical drug that can kill something separate from the body? It seems such a drug would be impossible in principle regardless if you’re a dualist. Perhaps not as much to someone who believes that the mind is wholly separate from the body (still seems a little absurd) but it is important to note that dualism does not require that the mind and body be independent as the story suggests but just merely separate. If dualism truly entailed that a body without a mind could operate exactly as though it had a mind there is definitely something a little wrong with it however it
Richard Taylor explained why the body and the mind are one, and why they are not two separate substances. In the article “The Mind as a Function of the Body”, Taylor divides his article in a number of sections and explains clearly why dualism, or the theory that the mind and the body are separate is not conceivable. In one of these sections it is explained in detail the origin of why some philosophers and people believe in dualist metaphysics. As stated by Taylor “when we form an idea of a body or a physical object, what is most likely to come to mind is not some person or animal but something much simpler, such as a stone or a marble”(133). The human has the tendency to believe a physical object as simple, and not containing anything complex. A problem with believing this is that unlike a stone or a marble a human (or an animal) has a brain and the body is composed of living cells (excluding dead skin cells, hair, and nails which are dead cells). The f...
A dualist may respond with a type of property dualism (epiphenomenalism or interacionism) by saying that mental states supervene on brain states. Therefore, if the brain is damaged, particular mental states will have no supervienence base, and the mind will be affected. This seems to save the duali...
This argument supports the claim that the body and mind are two in the same. Premise 1 explains the reason we feel pain from stubbing our toe is that the mind and body work together. In a Dualist view minds are non-physical and non-spatial. Based on the assumption that our mind can be spatially divided there is no way to prove this because the only way the mind can be divided is in space and we can’t verify this to be true.
Fodor begins his article on the mind-body problem with a review of the current theories of dualism and materialism. According to dualism, the mind and body are two separate entities with the body being physical and the mind being nonphysical. If this is the case, though, then there can be no interaction between the two. The mind could not influence anything physical without violating the laws of physics. The materialist theory, on the other hand, states that the mind is not distinct from the physical. In fact, supporters of the materialist theory believe that behavior does not have mental causes. When the materialist theory is split into logical behaviorism and the central-state identity theory, the foundation of functionalism begins to form. Logical behaviorism states that every mental feeling has the same meaning as an if-then statement. For example, instead of saying "Dr. Lux is hungry," one would say "If there was a quart of macadamia brittle nut in the freezer, Dr. Lux would eat it." The central-state identity theory states that a certain mental state equals a certain neurophysiological state. The theory works in a way similar to Berkeley’s representation of objects. Both mental states and objects are a certain collection of perceptions that together identify the particular state or object.
Dualism claims that the mind is a distinct nonphysical thing, a complete entity that is independent of any physical body to which it is temporarily attached. Any mental states and activities, as well as physical ones, originate from this unique entity. Dualism states that the real essence of a person has nothing to do with his physical body, but rather from the distinct nonphysical entity of the mind. The mind is in constant interaction with the body. The body's sense organs create experiences in the mind. The desires and decisions of the mind cause the body to act in certain ways. This is what makes each mind's body its own.
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.
Dualism is the theory that mind and matter are two distinct things. The main argument for dualism is that facts about the objective external world of particles and fields of force, as revealed by modern physical science, are not facts about how things appear from any particular point of view, whereas facts about subjective experience are precisely about how things are from the point of view of individual conscious subjects. They have to be described in the first person as well as in the third person.
Before we proceed to critique dualism, it is imperative we first understand the arguments that dualists put forward in regards to the exact nature of their theory. Descartes was one of the major proponents of this theory. Dualists generally believe that things exist in or are composed of two different things or entities. Descartes believed that in regards to human beings that two attributes existed; the physical part that talks, walks and exists, the physical body that can be seen and proven to exist empirically and the mind or soul which is an entity that cannot be seen but is believed to exist . This is the part that is autonomous to the physical body. Descartes then went further to illustrate that human beings or matter go on with their own business and follow their own laws until the mind/soul intervenes which interferes with the physical nature of humans. He therefore believed that the mind and body of human beings were therefore two distinct elements.
René Descartes laid the foundations for Cartesian Dualism within his Meditations on First Philosophy. Descartes provides most of his dualist view within the second and sixth meditations. Dualism is the belief, or school, within philosophy of mind that the mind and body are separate. Cartesian Dualism, specifically, is essentially substance dualism, which argues that the mind and body are of separate substances, in Descartes’ case, the mind being spiritual and the body being physical. This viewpoint was a common one during Hobbe...
The purpose of this essay is to discuss how dualism describes reality more accurate than materialism, idealism, and transcendental idealism. Even though dualism doesn’t describe reality one hundred percent just like the other theories about the nature of reality, it is the most accurate argument out of the four major theories about the nature of reality and substance. Dualism was a concept that was not originated by Rene Descartes but coined by him. The concept was that our mind is more than just our brain. The concept was not originated by Rene Descartes because the Bible explains that we are more than our body and brains. It teaches that we have a separate mind, soul, and spirit. One argument for dualism is that the physical and mental territories have different properties. The mental events have qualities such as what does it feel like, what does it look like, or what it sounds like. Another argument is the lack of any understanding of how any possible reaction can take place between the mind and brain. The essay will include reasons for favoring the Thomistic and Cartesian forms of substance dualism and the counter arguments that are against them.
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...
Descartes agrees with dualism, and stands by the mind being independent of the body and vice versa. We agree with the ideas of dualism every time we say, “I am a
Monists, by comparison, argue that there is one nature to things, although they disagree about whether it is primarily mental or primarily physical. Subjective idealism (or "mentalism," as it is often called), argues that there is only the mental world, and that the reality of the physical world is suspect. George Berkeley, for example, provided numerous arguments as to why the essence of existence is to be perceived; when not in direct perception the physical world cannot support the claim of its existence. (Berkeley, by the way, apparently hated walks in the forest, for fear of all those falling trees that he may or may not have heard.) In contrast, materialistic monism takes the position that there is only physical "stuff" to the world, such that ideas, thoughts, and images are actually physical events in the body. Many modern biological scientists would agree with this form of monism, arguing that the brain is primary while the "mind" is either illusory or epiphenomenal.
...nclude, Ryle is correct in his challenge of Descartes’ Cartesian dualism, the mind and body are not two separate parts as dictated by dualist, rather the working of the mind are not distinct from the body. As a result, an observer can understand the mind of another through the actions of the body. It is the combination that makes up a human, human, as they are one and the same.