Dualism Essay Research Paper DualismIn this paper

Dualism Essay, Research Paper

Dualism

In this paper I will be discoursing the philosophical position of Cartesian Dualism. To pull upon dependable beginnings my information will be base from the text editions Making Doctrine every bit good as the Unfortunate Dualist found in the anthology Mind s I. I will do an effort to demo that Smullyan s theories based on anti-dualism do non keep weight in modern doctrine

During the period when Descartes was alive, faith was a major portion of society. The belief that God was all around, watching and commanding everything. This steadfast belief in faith made it easier for Descartes to warrant dualism to the multitudes. If there were computing machine during that clip his sentiment may hold differed because it would demo him that the human head is non the lone signifier or intelligence. In order to turn out many things such as the being of a higher power, and the immortality of the psyche, Descartes came up with. The thought experiment entailed conceive ofing your being without a stuff organic structure, which is imaginable. Therefore Descartes envisioned the theory of dualism, the being of the immaterial head and the physical organic structure.

The chief opposition to Cartesian Dualism is the theory of philistinism. The theory of philistinism provinces that the head is encephalon affair and is stimulated or engaged into action. Bodily maps are occur when the encephalon tells the organic structure it needs to travel, and the organic structure does so by nerve cells and electrodes that fire from the encephalon and excite the musculuss in order to execute motion.

In Smullyan s sentiment nil exists outside of the physical universe. He is saying that if there is something that can non be touched or can non be observed ; so it is non-existent. He besides says an immaterial object does non be and therefore can non be killed. It is perfectly impossible to kill something that you can t touch and you can t analyze the physical make up to happen out what would kill it or assist it. He so states that the drug is a physical object that could merely so consequence another physical object. Since the head is immaterial physical substances can non kill it.

In this thought experiment it is assumed by Smullyan that the head can be effected by such a drug that is from a material universe. Even if the drug could be it would be non-effective because the organic structure continues on as it did earlier even without the head. So it would non be necessary to take the drug, alternatively you could take a placebo, and believe that your psyche was killed but you still experience the same because you were told your life would go on as it ever had when you had your psyche. The intent of the drug is to kill your head, but the lone manner the drug would work is if the user made themselves believe the drug worked. They would so flim-flam their head, when they would take the drug the user would believe they had killed their head. By dualist rules the head is non killed but since the organic structure goes on operating as usual the user so believes the drug has taken consequence.

Some hidden and controversial topics about this scenario exist. Theses topics are personal beliefs, most of these are controversial because I can possible conceive any of these things happening. First, it is impossible to hold a physical drug that can kill something that has no physical properties. Most dramatic is that we must presume that there is another human being that would walk into his friend s house and shoot him with a needle full of a drug without confer withing him foremost. Third, how did this cat come across the drug before it was placed on the market? They are minuscular topics that do non consequence whether or non the drug work or it exists, but to do the full idea experim

ent complete these three controversial topics are necessary. Due to the fact I personally can non gestate these actions happening it so makes it much more hard for me to hold with Smullyan s anti-dualistic theories.

There are many statements that would confute the claims of materialist. The conceivableness statement proves that it is imaginable for discorporate being but the organic structure can non be without the head, so therefore we are non matter but an immaterial head. This is an statement that requires a batch of certainties, but this is a belief that many keep to be true.

The following statement presented by Descartes is the divisibility statement. The rule of indiscernibility of identicals: if two things are numerically indistinguishable ( that is, if two names or descriptions refer to one and the same thing ) , so whatever is true of one is true of the other, and visa versa. ( 54 Doing Philosophy ) The premises presented by this is 1 ) Our heads are indistinguishable to our organic structure, so what is true for the head is besides true of the organic structure. 2 ) Minds are non divisible and our organic structures are divisible. 3 ) With the old premises it can be derived that the head is non indistinguishable to the organic structure. It proves the unfortunate dualist s head would non be effected because the head is non indistinguishable to the physical organic structure so the physical drug would non wound the adult male s head.

The following statement for Cartesian Dualism is epiphenomenalism. This thought states that the head is an ineffective by-product of our organic structure. This theory still states that the head and organic structure both exist so it fits under Cartesian Dualism, but it states that what you experience physically during your life-time is what you mind is composed of. For illustration when you were a immature kid and you touched the range while it was on, you will fire yourself, and following clip the kid sees the range is on he or she will non travel near it. Since the organic structure experienced hurting from the range it learns non to execute the same action once more. The head is a byproduct of a encephalon procedure and has no consequence on the encephalon that produced it. ( Making Philosophy, 58 ) Using this posit to the Unfortunate Dualist it makes it impossible for the head to be effected due to the fact that head is non physically harmed like the organic structure is, and merely learns from the experience of the organic structure.

In decision Smullyan s Unfortunate Dualist is a thought experiment plagued with holes and uncertainnesss. As a strong advocate of dualism I feel that Smullyan s anti-dualist scenario is fallible and impossible. As antecedently stated in the paper it is non possible to state if there is a drug that can kill merely the head, since it is a thought experiment it is so necessary for the reader to conceive of such a drug. But in fact, I see the thought experiment as a advocate of dualism, because it states that the drug is effectual at foremost but since his organic structure was already traveling through the gestures of traveling to the shop and acquiring the drug and shooting it that the organic structure could non state the difference between the head working or being dead already. This explains that head still existed because the dualist so believed the drug did non consequence him and his head is stating him it is non working. Therefore the physical drug could non kill the immaterial head. Though the mercenary position that our organic structure is working on nerve cells firing invariably is a safe stake because it is a proved scientific fact, but it is difficult to conceive of that the complex ideas and memories that go through my caput are electrodes. Rather the dualist would province that those complex ideas and memories are intangible and no scientific theory could turn out, for illustration a CAT Scan can merely demo the encephalon and non the memories inside of it.

316