The Theory Of Substance Dualism

The Theory Of Substance DualismAn stemma has been make against Descartes synergetic nucleus dualism opening that will be analyzed and evaluated in this composing. The Christian apologist J.P. Moreland argued in an online video that goes as such If synergistic signification dualism is true, a non- physiologic ticker could drop an effect on a physiological means. It is meta somaticly unaccepted that a non- personal substance could have an effect on a physical substance. Interactive substance dualism is anomalous. (Moreland J. P., 2009) This written report will set forth to head out that this parametric quantity against Descartes interactive substance dualism theory, while being audio recording in nature, is unsound because its countenance presumptuousness is faux. With the help of modern scientific discipline this paper will argue that it is indeed metaphysically possible for a non-physical substance to have an effect on a physical substance. onward we can appropri ately analyze and evaluate the strain, some terms essential be defined first so that we may understand how this paper will defend interactive substance dualism. The first step when evaluating an lean is to look at the logic of the command. According to Bruce Miller of the University of Michigan an argument is logically sound only if if the premises were true, this fact would constitute heavy grounds for accepting the conclusion as true (Miller, 2000). The current argument against Descartes appears to follow logical correctness which leads to the next idea. Is the argument a deductively logical one? Miller too states that an argument form is deductively legal if and only if it is impossible that its conclusion is false given its premises ar true. (Miller, 2000) If we were to hook on that the premises of the argument in question were true so we would also be drawn to the same conclusion found in the argument. The warrant premise of the argument states that the first is u ntrue and therefor the conclusion is true. If the indorsement premise were in fact true, then one could safely need that interactive substance dualism is indeed false. This flow of sound logic structures and frames this as a deductively valid argument, but is it deductively sound?Even though an argument can be structured logically and found to be deductively valid that may not always make the argument sound. A sound argument can be summed up as an argument that is establish on truths. If a conclusion or argument is drawn from false premises then the argument is considered unsound. For instance, if I were to say that all X ar Y and all Y ar Z, then I could safely conclude that all X atomic number 18 Z. Yet employ a qualifier such as all or all(prenominal) can be tricky, because if average one Y is not Z, then not all Xs could be Zs making the statement deductively unsound. So straight off that we understand what deductively sound and unsound is, let us apply it to the argu ment at take place. To do this we will evaluate the premises and decide whether they are true or false.The first premise of the argument at hand is a reiteration of Descartes interactive substance dualism theory that a non-physical substance could have an effect on a physical substance. Substance dualism more often than not holds that the clay is a physical object having physical properties and that the thinker is a kind substance containing intellectual properties irreducible to the physical. (Moreland Craig, 2003) When one fellowships pain for example, the body may incur certain electrical and chemical stimulus (physical properties), which results in the self or mind consciously experiencing the felt quality and cognizance of the pain (mental property). Descartes argues within substance dualism that the mind and brain closely interact with severally other, though they are different substances with differing properties. This is considered to be Descartes main focalize in the interactive substance dualism theory and this premise will be considered true.The spot premise is where this paper focuses because the argument claims that it is metaphysically impossible that a non-physical substance could have an effect on a physical substance. This premise is false because modern science has shown the effects a mind has over a body and vice versa. It appears fairly obvious to most that physical properties do not have the same features as mental properties. For example, we are unable to apply physical qualities like mass and spatial dimensions to mental events such as thoughts, feelings of pleasure and sensory experiences. (Moreland Craig, 2003) As philosopher Keith Maslin summarizes, physical occurrences do not just appear to be different from consciousness they are utterly different, so utterly different in fact, that it is inconceivable how the physical could produce the mental. (Maslin, 2001)Yet in a published journal we honour that Bruce Hinrichs poi nted out that when a person reads a sentence, hears a speech, experiences an emotion, or thinks a thought, a cluster or network of brain cells fires in a certain pattern with component particular intensity and timing. (Hinrichs, 2001) Similarly, it has been observed that when a part of ones brain is touched with an electrode, it may cause a mental experience such as a memory to occur. (Moreland Craig, 2003) This is evidence in itself that mental states (the mind) can be reduced to physical states (firing of electrodes/electricity) but this only demonstrates so much. While the mind is partly connected to the body, they are not identical. Therefore, the rarity of mental and physical properties and states argues favorably of substance dualism and the casual connection the mind and body share is evidence supporting Descartes interactive substance dualism theory.The world of secondary qualities also argues favorably for interactive substance dualism. Secondary qualities are said to c onsist of properties like color, taste, sounds, smells and textures, whereas primary qualities are properties that characterize press such as weight, shape, size, solidity, and motion. (Moreland Craig, 2003) Frank Jackson explains that a strictly physical and material world would arguably force us to deny itWe hotshot the world as made up of unilateral, materially continuous, macroscopic, stable objects skill and, in particular, Physics, tells us that the material world is constituted of clouds of minute, colourless, highly-mobile particles Science forces us to acknowledge that physical or material things are not coloured This will enable us to conclude that sense-data are all mental, for they are coloured. (Jackson, 1977)Effort should be made to at least acknowledge the reprehensions of interactive substance dualism and potentially defend against them. Some have pointed out a problem of interaction when it comes to substance dualism. This may be the leading criticism against Descartes theory. How can the soul, lacking all physical dimensions, possibly affect, and be unnatural by, the extended body? (Maslin, 2001) It does not appear that we reasonably explain how each separate substance could interact with the other. This argument though appears to be ground on an appeal to our ignorance. It assumes that if we do not understand how X causes Z that it is not reasonable to believe the two can interact. Craig and Moreland wrote that a rear can be moved by a magnetic field, and sombreness acts on a planet millions of miles away. (Moreland Craig, 2003) The magnetic fields and gravitational forces have very different properties to the solid and spatially located entities they affect, and while we may not fully understand how such an interaction occurs, it nevertheless does just as we recognize the interaction between mind and body.An argument was made against Descartes interactive substance dualism theory that will be analyzed and evaluated in this paper . The paper set forth to point out that this argument against Descartes interactive substance dualism theory, while being valid in nature, is unsound because its second premise is false. We discussed that the argument, while logically framed and deductively valid, was inevitably false because of its second premise. The paper presented several arguments in favor of substance dualism by presentation the distinctiveness of mental and physical properties and states as well as the cosmos of secondary qualities. The paper also examined the main criticism of interactive substance dualism and the problem of interaction between mind and body. Given the above arguments for interactive substance dualism and the successfully countered criticism, it seems clear to me that it is indeed metaphysically possible for a non-physical substance to have an effect on a physical substance. If this paper has performed its purpose adequetly, then you as the reader can agree that the second premise of the a rgument against Descartes is false. If a conclusion is drawn from a false premise then the argument becomes deductively unsound and should leave the interactive substance dualism theory in a very convincing position.