Arguments Against Dualism

In his writings, “A Contemporary Defense of Dualism,” J.P. Moreland argues the point that the mind and brain are separate from each other. It seems as a quick thought that both are the same. However, the mind deals with ideas, thoughts and hopes. The brain is made up of the neural process. Throughout the entire argument, Moreland tries to prove the theory of physicalism, which is the idea that only things that exist are composed of matter. His explanation is that the soul doesn’t exist and the brain controls everything.

In this paper, I will examine the principal merits and challenges of René Descartes’ concept of dualism and then defend my preferred alternative among the options Paul M. Churchland discusses. After briefly defining Cartesian Dualism, I will show that its principal merits are that it is consistent with common sense and that it is able to explain phenomena that appear mental in nature. Next, I will show that its principal challenges are its failure to adequately explain how the mind and the body can causally interact, and its failure to respond to the observation that brain damage impairs the mind. Finally, I will explain why Functionalism is the best alternative to Cartesian Dualism.

According to J.P. Moreland in his argument for dualism, he states that humans are composed of both an immaterial substance and a physical substance. Moreland notes that there are contrasting differences between the minds and the brains and that they are ultimately separate entities. By defending dualism, Moreland seeks to make nonbelievers believe in immaterial souls, while discrediting materialism. We can look at the arguments in which Moreland uses to support the argument of dualism and belief that the mind and brain are separate entities.

The first supporting argument which I will present to support substance dualism is Divisibility. In earlier writings, Descartes divides the objects of our perception into two main classifications: mental substances pertaining to the mind and physical substances pertaining to the body (Alanen, L., 1996). Any substance with mental properties has an absence of physical properties and any substance with physical properties has an absence of mental properties (Rodriguez Pereyra, G., 2008).

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.

In this essay, I will discuss and formally analyze the opinions in approval of substance dualism and conclude that substance dualism is without a doubt an accurate way of thinking. Firstly, it is important to describe what exactly what I mean by substance dualism. Basically, it asks a very menial question such as: what kind of thing is our mind? According to substance dualists aka Descartes, "the mind and the body are composed of different substances and that the mind is a thinking thing that lacks the usual attributes of physical objects such as size, shape, location etc." [Descartes] Substance dualism is then tested by different opinions which in return vouch for its soundness.

Furthermore if mental states are properties of physical matter in the same way that physical states are, then how is it so that we can scientifically measure physical properties, but not the mental sates that they give rise to? It seems highly problematic for property dualism to claim that there are facts that cannot be measured scientifically; and this issue also renders the theory unfalsifiable.

Substance dualism is a never ending argument in the Philosophy world as it’s been going on for decades. It is the view that the universe contains two important types of entity which is mental and material. The structure of this paper is that four main argument leads to one conclusion. Firstly, I’ll argue about Descartes’s ‘separability argument’ which stands as the definition of Substance Dualism. Secondly, I’ll argue that mental and physical have different and perhaps irreconcilable properties. An argument is not complete without a counter argument which in this case the “pairing” problem that exists in Descartes theory is highlighted and where is the interaction of material and immaterial takes

One statement is that mental states can’t be true or false unlike where physical states can. One cannot say that it's false to obtain love or it's true to obtain love. You cannot compare the mental state to a physical state being the mental state is a different state of dimension. Using introspection, one can say that he knows his mind via introspection, but he cannot know his brain via introspection. This means that both mental and physical states are indeed different. This means that you cannot translate neural activity that is firing in your brain, but you can translate thoughts, beliefs, and desires that are in your mind. This difference of the mental state in opposite of the physical state validities the argument that dualist

There are several arguments to argue that the mind and body are not separate substances. And also, this is especially true in the face of its many different views, one of which does not attack substance dualism directly, but does so indirectly by attacking the very idea of dualism itself. The argument begins by looking at the question of how dualism became so popular. It claims that, firstly, it had to do with the fact that the great majority of Western philosophers around the time when the dualism was at its peak were religious, and most of them are specifically of the Christian faith. Thus, one feature of their religious beliefs was to believe in immortality, and in order to settle their belief with their philosophy, they had to support dualism; the reason being that it was very difficult to believe in immorality without believing in dualism.

The mind is perhaps the most fascinating part of the human body due to its complexity and ability to rationalize. In essence, the mind-body problem studies the relation of the mind to the body, and states that each human being seems to embody two unique and somewhat contradictory natures. Each human contains both a nature of matter and physicality, just like any other object that contains atoms in the universe. However, mankind also is constituted of something beyond materialism, which includes its ability to rationalize and be self-aware. This would imply that mankind is not simply another member of the world of matter because some of its most distinctive features cannot be accounted for in this manner. There are obvious differences between physical and mental properties. Physical properties are publically accessible, and have weight, texture, and are made of matter. Mental properties are not publically accessible, and have phenomenological texture and intentionality (Stewart, Blocker, Petrik, 2013). This is challenging to philosophers, because man cannot be categorized as a material or immaterial object, but rather a combination of both mind and body (Stewart, Blocker, Petrik, 2013). Man embodies mind-body dualism, meaning he is a blend of both mind and matter (Stewart, Blocker, Petrick, 2013). The mind-body problem creates conflict among philosophers, especially when analyzing physicalism in its defense. This paper outlines sound

I am faced with the philosophical task of defending either dualism or materialism, depending on which one is most attractive to me. So either I support the theory of dualism, which is the belief that there is both a physical and a spiritual state, or I believe in materialism, which is the belief that everything that exists is material or physical. Although I believe materialism to be easier to prove, I find dualism more attractive to believe. Throughout the following, I will attempt to build a case for the theory of dualism giving insights both documented and personal. I will also shed light on the theory of materialism and the proofs that support this theory; showing that

Dualism covers the issue that is concerned with the connection between the mind and the brain, and whether humans are composed of all physical matter or contain a mind along with a physical body. Dualism is the belief that humans have both a non-physical mind along with a physical body. There are two types of dualism, which include Substance Dualism and Property Dualism. Substance Dualism claims the mind exists independently from the body, and Property Dualism claims the brain causes the mind into existence. When compared to the other beliefs mentioned prior, Dualism provides strong arguments made by René Descartes and Gottfried Leibniz that help us understand and answer the questions previously mentioned. The main differences between Substance Dualism and Property Dualism are not far

Leibniz’s Law supports dualism through three main arguments: the Indubitable Existence Argument, the Extension Argument, and the Divisibility Argument. Lane summarizes the three arguments as follows:

Another issue Cartesian dualism faces in the mind-body problem. This is how the soul and the body are integrated, and considers how they affect one another. Descartes’ solution is that the body and the mind is separate. Idealists’ solution is that there is only mind, explaining the body as only being an extension of the mind. However as technology has advanced and neuroscience developed, processes such as emotions, memory and perceptions have all been shown to have a neurological basis, refuting the dualism theory of consciousness. PET, MRI, EEG and MEG are all ways of measuring electric and magnetic neural activity, gradually allowing the pathways and areas of the brain to be understood (Taylor 2013.) The mind is no longer such a mystery. A physical reductive approach could be taken to this mind-body problem, where our consciousness is purely generated from matter, and there is no “mind” in the way