Jaegwon Kim argues that the “pairing problem” is a serious issue for substance dualism. He thinks that dualism is unintelligible and aims to show that the “pairing problem” explicates this. The conclusion that Kim is presenting is that the mind as an immaterial substance cannot causally interact with physical objects and furthermore, not with anything at all; this renders minds futile thus leaving us the conclusion that substance dualism is also useless. I will be explicating what casual relations are, and the pairing problem to clarify that the pairing problem does render dualism unintelligible. I will further contemplate a possible objection to this position and a possible reply. In conclusion, I agree with Kim’s approach, the pairing problem succeeds in making dualism unintelligible by showing that minds have no way of interacting with physical objects due to the fact that they cannot be rightly paired by cause and effect.
Before attacking what the pairing problem is and what it does to dualism I’d like to comment on what Kim says about casual relations in general. He begins by presenting an argument for physical causation. In this argument two guns are fired A and B and both kill a person X and Y respectively. The question posed is what makes A cause the death of X and B cause the death of Y and not vice versa? This is the notion of pairing, what pairs with what and why? So, Kim thinks that if there is a casual relationship present between two relational properties or events then there is some way of comprehending that we can couple those two properties or events together. He believes that there are two different ways that we can explicate these casual relations between two incidents. The first possible way is to track a ...
... middle of paper ...
...rect pairing; whether it is the use of direct spatial coordinates or a list of conjoining events these seem to be the only two plausible options. Therefore, we can conclude that to obtain the correct pairing between two events, both objects in such events must be physical in order to have spatial relations. Mind and body do not occupy the same spatial realm and cannot be properly paired so consequently, substance dualism is unintelligible.
Works Cited
Vaught, J. R. (2008). Kim's pairing problem and the viability of substance dualism. (Master's thesis, Georgia State University)Retrieved from http://scholarworks.gsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1042&context=philosophy_theses
Oxford University Press. (2014). The oxford dictionary. Retrieved from http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/
Kim, J. (2011). Philosophy of mind. (3rd ed.). Philadelphia, PA: Westview Press.
One of Descartes’ most popular theory? is the distinction between mind and body. This is known as substance dualism. Substance dualism is a human being consists of two kinds of things that interact. Using this theory of substance dualism, we can explain why some people can experience excruciating pains and urges like the phantom limb syndrome.
The premise of the dual self quite probably has its roots in the waking field of science and the publication of Charles Darwin's Origin of the Species. There was an upsurge in discoveries that made people of this time-period realize that there was a great deal they didn't know or understand. Also adding to this anxiety was the prevalence of disease, an aging Monarchy, and the shifting hierarchy among the classes. Changes in society and the fears that plague a society eventually find their way into literature, as witnessed in both of these texts.
The philosophical theory of dualism holds that mind and body are two separate entities. While dualism presupposes that the two ‘substances’ may interact, it contrasts physicalism by refusing to denote correlation between body and mind as proof of identity. Comparing the two theories, dualism’s invulnerable proof of the existence of qualia manages to evade arguments from physicalism. While a common argument against qualia—non-physical properties defined in Jackson’s Knowledge Argument—targets the unsound nature of epiphenomenalism, this claim is not fatal to the theory of dualism as it contains claims of causation and fails to stand resolute to the conceivability of philosophical zombies. This essay argues that epiphenomenalism, while often designated as a weakness when present in an argument, can remain in valid arguments from qualia.
Richard Taylor explained why the body and the mind are one, and why they are not two separate substances. In the article “The Mind as a Function of the Body”, Taylor divides his article in a number of sections and explains clearly why dualism, or the theory that the mind and the body are separate is not conceivable. In one of these sections it is explained in detail the origin of why some philosophers and people believe in dualist metaphysics. As stated by Taylor “when we form an idea of a body or a physical object, what is most likely to come to mind is not some person or animal but something much simpler, such as a stone or a marble”(133). The human has the tendency to believe a physical object as simple, and not containing anything complex. A problem with believing this is that unlike a stone or a marble a human (or an animal) has a brain and the body is composed of living cells (excluding dead skin cells, hair, and nails which are dead cells). The f...
While reading this chapter, I notice that the author divided philosophers into two main groups those who claim there is only one kind of reality, and those who claim there are two kinds of realities. On page 55 it states the first place is metaphysical monism and the second is metaphysical dualism.
The mind-body problem can be a difficult issue to discuss due to the many opinions and issues that linger. The main issue behind the mind-body problem is the question regarding if us humans are only made up of matter, or a combination of both matter and mind. If we consist of both, how can we justify the interaction between the two? A significant philosophical issue that has been depicted by many, there are many prominent stances on the mind-body problem. I believe property dualism is a strong philosophical position on the mind-body issue, which can be defended through the knowledge argument against physicalism, also refuted through the problems of interaction.
René Descartes was the 17th century, French philosopher responsible for many well-known philosophical arguments, such as Cartesian dualism. Briefly discussed previously, according to dualism, brains and the bodies are physical things; the mind, which is a nonphysical object, is distinct from both the brain and from all other body parts (Sober 204). Sober makes a point to note Descartes never denied that there are causal interactions between mental and physical aspects (such as medication healing ailments), and this recognition di...
A dualist may respond with a type of property dualism (epiphenomenalism or interacionism) by saying that mental states supervene on brain states. Therefore, if the brain is damaged, particular mental states will have no supervienence base, and the mind will be affected. This seems to save the duali...
To try to explain Dualism through God, we must talk about corporeal bodies and our knowledge of them. Regarding the nature of corporeal bodies and what is known about them and given Descartes premises, the conclusions he draws in Meditation Six are generally the correct ones. He again invokes the causal to argue that the ideas...
The desire to avoid dualism has been the driving motive behind much contemporary work on the mind-body problem. Gilbert Ryle made fun of it as the theory of 'the ghost in the machine', and various forms of behaviorism and materialism are designed to show that a place can be found for thoughts, sensations, feelings, and other mental phenomena in a purely physical world. But these theories have trouble accounting for consciousness and its subjective qualia. As the science develops and we discover facts, dualism does not seems likely to be true.
...mergent property of which is liquidity, neurons in the brain come together to form the brain, an emergent property of which is deliberative processes. The difference between water and the brain, however, is that the brain has downward causal powers, i.e. the ability to affect other parts of the body by making decisions and choices, and by causing events. In this sense, accepting that agent-caused actions are not inconsistent with basic physical laws does not require that we accept dualism. The emergent physical properties within the brain are deliberative processes which cause events through an agent. Without accepting dualism, we have agent causation as a consistent aspect of physical law.
Functionalism is a materialist stance in the philosophy of mind that argues that mental states are purely functional, and thus categorized by their input and output associations and causes, rather than by the physical makeup that constitutes its parts. In this manner, functionalism argues that as long as something operates as a conscious entity, then it is conscious. Block describes functionalism, discusses its inherent dilemmas, and then discusses a more scientifically-driven counter solution called psychofunctionalism and its failings as well. Although Block’s assertions are cogent and well-presented, the psychofunctionalist is able to provide counterarguments to support his viewpoint against Block’s criticisms. I shall argue that though both concepts are not without issue, functionalism appears to satisfy a more acceptable description that philosophers can admit over psychofunctionalism’s chauvinistic disposition that attempts to limit consciousness only to the human race.
This essay will define Cartesian dualism, explain and critically evaluate Gilbert Ryle’s response to Cartesian dualism in his article, “Descartes’ Myth” and support Ryle’s argument on Descartes’ substance dualism.
Since Descartes many philosophers have discussed the problem of interaction between the mind and body. Philosophers have given rise to a variety of different answers to this question all with their own merits and flaws. These answers vary quite a lot. There is the idea of total separation between mind and body, championed by Descartes, which has come to be known as “Cartesian Dualism”. This, of course, gave rise to one of the many major responses to the mind-body problem which is the exact opposite of dualism; monism. Monism is the idea that mind and body one and the same thing and therefore have no need for interaction. Another major response to the problem is that given by Leibniz, more commonly known as pre-ordained harmony or monadology. Pre-ordained harmony simply states that everything that happens, happens because God ordained it to. Given the wide array of responses to the mind-body problem I will only cover those given by Descartes, Spinoza, and Leibniz. I will also strive to show how each of these philosophers discuss what mind and body are and how each accounts for God’s influence on the interaction of mind and body, as this is an interesting distinction between them, as well as the important question of the role of substance. This is important, I believe, because it helps to understand the dialogue between the three philosophers.
But, “human persons have an ‘inner’ dimension that is just as important as the ‘outer’ embodiment” (Cortez, 71). The “inner” element cannot be wholly explained by the “outer” embodiment, but it does give rise to inimitable facets of the human life, such as human dignity and personal identity. The mind-body problem entails two theories, dualism and physicalism. Dualism contends that distinct mental and physical realms exist, and they both must be taken into account. Its counterpart (weak) physicalism views the human as being completely bodily and physical, encompassing no non-physical, or spiritual, substances.