1. Cartesian dualism is meant to explain that the isn’t one kind of thing that exists in the world (physicalism) but rather two kinds of things ( physical & non-physical). This would prove that “the mind” exists and it is separate from the body. His argument distinguishes the essence of each – the mind: thoughts and the body: extension. Then he also differentiated the properties of each and concluded that the contrasting properties had nothing in common so the two entities: mind / body exist separately and independent of one another. This lead to the mid-body problem because Descartes at first describes the mind/body as being connected to one another such and one can affect the other but they are totally separate, this seemed to be a direct contradiction because interaction would typically require the existence of similar properties and Descartes argument relies on mutually exclusive properties. The problem is how something non-physical could affect physical and vis – versa, the claim is Descartes hasn’t proved this is possible.
2. Descartes solution was to claim he had found the specific place where the mind and the body communicated which was the pineal gland. As if there was some sort of mediator for the two separate entities to interact. I think this response wasn’t that successful because it seems to be a long shot.
3. Materialism is the concept that only matter existed, when science evolved into discovering energy and other non-material things that concept transformed into physicalism. Physicalism would describe anything that exists that follows somesort of law. In the provided reading I could not find a clear argument for physicalism or materialism. From what I gathered each had just made the claim that only _____ existed based on whatever scientific evidence was available. So because there is no clear guidelines to explaining reality or what can possibly exist this argument will continue to evolve as science evolves to discover and prove new things – it will then make room for whatever else. To me this is as weak as a no – nothing little brother agreeing with everything his big brother says; puffing up and making assertions when really he knows nothing but is just repeating what he here’s his brother saying. Basically there is no independent foundation to these claims it’s leaning on science and relying on science to prove reality which seems legit but I would say there are some things science has yet to explain. So there doesn’t seem to be an argument formed for physicalism to prove without a doubt only one type of stuff exists.
On the other hand dualism makes the claim that there is some other type of stuff we don’t know about yet. This does seem way for out and everyone is pounding they’re desks screaming “ There’s no proof your stuff exists– We have proof our stuff exists!” Basically dualism compares some non-physical / physical properties and essences to show there are two contrasting kinds of stuff. This argument can’t be convincing because there is no science to back it up.
Personally I don’t think either argument makes a compelling case for either “one kind” or “two kinds.” The one kind argument is seemingly stronger because it has science on its side as the big brother who is going to beat everybody up. But in my mind I want to look at from the point of view that does not rely on science. Science is a useful tool to discover the world around us but it did not create the laws, we found them; same with math and logic. So if these concepts or whatever they are existed before us discovering them, then in my opinion there must be something else out there non-physical. Concepts such as scientific laws/ numbers/ mathematical theories/ language/ thoughts/ emotions /logic/ ……all of these things can become embodied within something physical or applied to something physical but they don’t seem to have any physical properties themselves. Color? Weight? Nothing sensory. My own experience would tell me that these things are in a different category of “stuff” compared and contrasted with the physical realm. Although science can’t explain this yet that doesn’t mean that itself is a reason for its non-existence. There were a lot of things that existed despite whether or not science had found out about it yet, ie. when matter was thought to be the only thing they didn’t know energy existed at that time. It would have been credible to say “only matter exists” at that time with the information at hand but that couldn’t have made it true. We might be at that point in time where science hasn’t evolved enough, it might be able to eventually show or prove there is another kind of stuff. Point is, we don’t know yet neither side has convinced me yet.
* sorry this is so long- I got a lil more into it than I expected to : /
No comments:
Post a Comment