Arguments Against Dualism

In the chapter about death, Nagel explored the meaning of death, what death really means to a personal from the inside and outside, how we look at death in terms of good and bad, and if we should fear it or not. He speaks about death from the scientific and spiritual perspective, and one’s thought process as it relates to both. The most profound part is when he discusses what actually happens to one when they die; the varying perceptions of life after death and is there really a life after death considering you no longer exist. Overall, I found the material to be very interesting and thought provoking; not to say I agree with all of what has been said, but I do agree with some of the questions asked and the fact the we shouldn’t perceive death to be this scary annihilation.

Substance dualism is the belief that there are three parts to a person: the mind, the brain and the physical body. The theory holds that although the mind and the brain interact, it is the mind that makes decisions. In other words, the brain’s sole purpose is to transfer sensory information about the world to the mind, and in turn, the mind transfers the decision back to the brain, which then tells the physical body what to do. The question is whether or not substance dualism should be taken seriously. Before continuing to argue for substance dualism, it is important to note that the definition of the mind which substance dualism speaks of is separate from the traditional definition and understanding of the mind in modern society, which usually includes the brain.

In this paper I will explain Elizabeth of Bohemia’s main argument against Cartesian dualism. I will also explain why Churchland rejects Cartesian dualism and her arguments against it and what alternatives she has in mind. At the end I will explain why I think a Cartesian mind is not plausible.

Gertler’s argument defends naturalistic dualism. Naturalistic dualism is the idea that the mental state is existentially separate from the physical state. Dualism’s opposing ideology is physicalism. Physicalism is the idea that the mental and physical state are one in the same. Through this she rejects the identity theory which claims that mental states are ultimately identical to states of the brain and/or central nervous system. So, if the identity thesis is true then every type of mental state is identical to some type of physical state. And so if the identity theory is in fact true: A equals B and then it is impossible to be an A without also being a B. Gertler disagrees with the identity theory and she comes to the conclusion in her argument

First, in my essay about what Princess Elisabeth was asking Descartes to clarify was about the meditation. This meditation was to give an expression of how the mind and the body interact to one another.

Because in this conception the mind is substantively distinct from the body it becomes plausible for us to doubt the intuitive connection between mind and body. Indeed there are many aspects of the external world that do not appear to have minds and yet appear none the less real in spite of this for example mountains, sticks or lamps, given this we can begin to rationalize that perhaps minds can exist without bodies, and we only lack the capacity to perceive them.

Substance Dualism can be the solution to the body-mind problem. Substance Dualism is a Philosophical Position which shows that it is made up of two kinds of substances, material body and immaterial mind. The main basic form of dualism is substance dualism in which the mind and body are both made up of two ontologically distinct substances. Substance Dualism informs that the mind is a completely different substance than the physical brain. For example, if the brain stops working it doesn’t affect the mind because the mind continues to exist. The Body-Mind Problem is the philosophical question of how the mind and body are related and if the mind is a non-physical substance. We

In his philosophical thesis, of the ‘Mind-Body dualism’ Rene Descartes argues that the mind and the body are really distinct, one of the most deepest and long lasting legacies.

Firstly, it is like-minded with knowledge of humans and brains. Secondly, it accounts for the close relation we think there is between mind and body. When we talk about how a person thinks or believes, we are talking about how a human behaves. Thirdly, it is a monistic theory removing mental substance, which makes it an acceptable theory for materialists. In addition, the causal role for mentality is removed. So it could be argued that theory that the mind causes behavior is equivalent to theory that the mind is behavior.

Among materialists, there is till considerable disagreement about the status of mental properties, which are conceived as properties of bodies or brains. Materialists who are ‘Property dualists believe that mental properties are an additional kind of property or attribute, not reducible to physical properties.’

Conclusion: Duality is all around us in both human nature and more common things that happen

Substance dualism is the false theory that persons and bodies are distinct from each other. More definitively, according to the proponents of substance dualism: the person is you – a conscience, and the body is also you, but the body itself is also an entirely separate entity from your conscience. But why is this theory wrong? Substance dualism is false because if I am a nonphysical entity, then I have no spatial location; if I have no spatial location, then how can I exert force upon the world around me? The breakdown of the argument that disproves the theory of substance dualism is as follows:

This paper will critically examine the Cartesian dualist position and the notion that it can offer a plausible account of the mind and body. Proposed criticisms deal with both the logical and empirical conceivability of dualist assertions, their incompatibility with physical truths, and the reducibility of the position to absurdity.

To try and explore the ‘mind’ it is necessary to examine if the mind and the brain are separate or if the mind and body are distinct from one another? Is the mind and body separate substance or elements of the same substance? Is consciousness the result of the mechanisms of the brain, wholly separate from the brain or inextricably linked? I will explore this question by looking at how this question has developed into two key schools of thought: Dualism and Monism. Dualism states that the mind is not physical and exists separately while Monism states that the mind and body are not separate. There are arguments for both theories and these dichotomous ideas have brought to light the mind-body problem, which I will analyse below. There are sub-forms of both schools of thought and one of the key sub-schools of thought under Dualism which I will discuss is Interactionism; that the mind and body are separate but both influence each other

Baruch Spinoza’s geometric structured view on the universe, and everything in general, is beautifully broken down for present and future thinkers to ponder in his work, Ethics. Although complex at times, his method of demonstrating each discoveries of proved proposition aids readers to conceptual God-Nature. At the base of these propositions are definitions and axioms (truths) Spinoza accounts as certain truths and are critical to understanding God-Nature (substance). I will here provide an account of Spinoza’s substance monism and attribute pluralism, along with strengths and weaknesses in his arguments for this picture of reality. This essay will argue that Spinoza’s claims are successfully supported in a manner that effectively utilizes