Mind-Body Dualism
I. Introduction
Why is the Mind body problem an issue in the first place? The issue with the mind body problem is the relationship with the mental and the physical. What is the relationship between the physical and the mental? Well first what are some examples of mental properties? Beliefs, an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists, and desires, a strong feeling of wanting to have something or wishing for something to happen. What are some physical properties? Chemical and neuronal brain states. The brain is a structured piece of tissue containing an intricate web of neurons. The problem is some say that maybe the mind isn’t physical. Are the mind and the brain the same?
There are several possible answers to the mind body problem. A few examples are Identity theory, Dualism, Functionalism, and Logical behaviorism. I will be concentrating on the solution of Dualism in more detail in this paper. Dualism states that there are two kinds of things in the world, physical and mental objects. Dualism states that “brains and the bodies in which they are found are physical things; the mind, which is a nonphysical object, is distinct from both the whole body and is also distinct from all of the body’s physical parts.” Descartes doesn’t deny that there are interactions between the mental and the physical but it seems impossible to deny that desires and beliefs can cause parts of your body to move in different ways. That example did not incline Descartes to leave the possibility of Dualism. To better understand Dualism and why it is a possible answer to the mind body problem we will need to go over a few things. In the following paragraphs, we will be discussing Leibniz’ Principle of Identity Indiscernible, Descartes’ Indubitability Argument, Descartes’ Indivisibility Argument, Sobers’ Criticism of the Indubitability Argument, and Sobers’ Criticism of Indivisibility Argument.
II. Leibniz’ Principle of the Indiscernibility of Identicals
Leibniz Principle of the Indiscernibility of Identicals, also known as Leibniz law, is a valuable argument in Dualisms favor. Leibniz law defends Dualism because it is about trying to find a property that the mind has but, that the brain does not. The property they use is immortality which we know is a very controversial topic. The principle of Leibniz law is that if M and B are the same, then they must have the exact same properties. As stated in the book, “M has property P, B does not have property P, If M has a property that B lacks, then M does not equal B. Therefore, M does not equal B.” Leibniz law challenges you to find at least one property that M has and B lacks because if you do then you will have shown a possibility of M and B as being distinct identities (Indiscernibility of Identicals).
III. Descartes’ Argument for Dualism: The Indubitable Existence Argument
The indubitable existence argument is Descartes first argument for Dualism. This argument states that you can doubt that you have a mind and that you have a body. I’ll make this a little clearer, the Indubitable existence argument goes based off doubt. Descartes says that your mind has a property that the body lacks which would follow Leibniz law and meet all the requirements to be a valid argument. Descartes claims that you can’t doubt that you have a mind because even if you tried to doubt the possibility of having a mind, you would need to use thinking processes which come from the mind and technically you’re using your mind to doubt the possibility of having one, so you must agree that you have a mind. Next, you can doubt that you have a body, for doubting that you have a body you do not need to use your body but instead the mind. Descartes says that, “…, you can entertain the thought that you are a disembodied spirit.”
IV. Descartes’ Argument for Dualism: The Divisibility Argument
Descartes Divisibility Argument is his second argument for Dualism. The Divisibility Argument is a much simpler concept that the Indubitable existence argument. The Divisibility argument has two possibilities that go hand in hand. The first concept states that physical things have spatial parts which means it can be separated into pieces. The example he uses is, “A surgeon can divide my brain into pieces. My mind, however, does not have spatial parts.” This example follows Leibniz law and therefore is considered a valid argument. The other example Descartes uses states, “If the body has the properties of divisibility and extension, but the mind does not, dualism follows.” This is also valid if we follow the guidelines provided by Leibniz law.
V. Sobers’ Criticism of the Indubitable Existence Argument
Sober asks all the questions that we may be considering from the Indubitable Existence argument. For example, can you even doubt that you have a body? Can you even think of yourself as being a disembodied spirit? Can you honestly not doubt that you have a mind? These are all very valuable questions to consider but Sober grants Descartes argument that, “…he can’t doubt that he has a mind and that he can doubt that he has a body.” What Sober wants to conclude is if Dualism follows from those premises by Descartes. “Descartes claims that his mind has the property of Indubitable Existence, and that his body lacks that property.” Sober says that for an object X to have this property means that the “owner” of X can’t doubt that X exists.”, “It is the first- person case that matters here- a person can’t doubt the existence of his or her own mind.” Sober argues that Indubitable existence is not a real property. He uses the example of Lois Lane. The example states, “Lois Lane wants to marry Superman, Lois Lane does not want to marry Clark Kent, Superman is not identical with Clark Kent.” We all know that Superman is the same person as Clark Kent, but based on Leibniz law this would be valid. It’s not! Based on Leibniz law Superman has a quality that Clark Kent lacks therefore based on Leibniz law this would conclude that Superman and Clark Kent are Non-identical. The two premises are considered true but the conclusion is clearly false. Superman and Clark Kent as we know have the same properties because they are the same person but, this example is completely wrong based on Lois Lane’s desires. “The propositions are different; the people are identical.” This relates to Descartes propositions of I have a brain, I have a mind; you’re able to doubt one, but not the other. Based on this argument, you do not comprehend that the mind has a different property from the brain, yes, the propositions are diverse, but that doesn’t conclude that your mind and your brain are diverse objects.
VI. Sobers’ Criticism of the Divisibility Argument
Sober concludes that the Divisibility Argument is inconclusive. If the body does in fact have the properties of extension and divisibility, but the mind doesn’t, dualism then follows. Sober agrees that this is valid, but his question is, are the premises of Descartes true? Sober grants Descartes that it does sound uncanny to say that the mind can be separated into several parts and that it is located between his ears. Sober also says that it is bizarre to say that your mind weighs about five pounds and that it has blood vessels running through it. Sober says that just because these ideas sound strange one explanation would be that they are not true. If they were not true, then Dualism would be able to follow because then we would have stated properties that the mind does not have, but the brain does. Another possible explanation for those reasons to sound strange is because we are unfamiliar with the facts of our mind. An example Sober gives is, H2O; this is the scientific name for water. H2O is made up of tiny molecules all combined to make water, if we were not educated on this topic or if we were unfamiliar with the term H2O for water then we would think it was false. Sober uses this example to state that Descartes argument is not entirely false, but it is inconclusive. “If the mind and the brain are really identical, then many surprising facts may follow.”
VII. Evaluation
Based on the explanations previously given by Sober, he concludes that Descartes arguments for Dualism do not work. Sober says that the first argument of Indubitable Existence is invalid, and that the second argument of Divisibility is valid, but that it begs the question. “There seems to be no reason to accept the premises (that the mind is indivisible and lacks extension) unless you already believe that the conclusion (Dualism) is true.” Sober states that the arguments aren’t false, but that the arguments are unsuccessful.
VIII. Conclusion
With the two arguments for Dualism by Descartes and the Leibniz Law we are left to our own interpretation and belief as to whether we support Descartes. He offered extremely sound arguments if read without the feedback from Sober. With Sobers clarifications and his perspective, I believe that there is much more left to be added into Descartes arguments for Dualism to be credible. He makes amazing points and is very concise with his thoughts and that is very helpful, but he does leave some questions in my mind. Sober is a more credible Philosopher and I agree with his viewpoint on Mind-Body Dualism.