Arguments Against Substance Dualism

445 Words2 Pages
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 order to defend substance dualism, one must consider the existence of the soul, because it seems as though it is what substance dualism refers to as the mind. Many philosophers believe in the existence of the soul; it is also mentioned plentifully in Greek mythology as well as in
…show more content…
Instead, it uses the brain as a medium in order to receive indirect communication from the mind. The mind is the “brains of the operation”, and the brain serves to connect the mind to the physical realm. Again, there is no way to actually physically measure the mind that substance dualism speaks of. Since this is the case, it is very possible that the mind is actually the soul. The soul is a popular belief amongst modern society as well as in past societies throughout history. The fact that it cannot be physically measured should not make it any less viable, since a. it is widely accepted and b. other things, such as conscious experiences, cannot be physically measured either. Therefore, substance dualism is a feasible
Open Document