The argument is a deductive argument, meaning that its premises necessitate the conclusion. While it is not a good deductive argument, it has various tempting aspects. First, the argument is valid, meaning that were the premises true, the conclusion would have to be true. Second, the argument, especially P2, seems intuitive. It appears intuitive that whatever I might be imagining, especially if it is imagined vividly, would be located in my mind. However, while the argument initially appears tempting, it is in fact unsound and its premises are problematic.
This argument follows Leibniz’s law form which holds that if A and B have distinct properties, then A is not B. Leibniz’s Law is not exceptionlessly true, as seen in various Intentional …show more content…
According to Cartesian dualism, minds are thinking, non-extended substances, and bodies are non-thinking, spatially extended substances. These radically different kinds of substances do not appear to have the ability to causally interact because of their distinctly different properties. Descartes proposes that the minds may have locations in space-time, though no other material properties, and thus they can causally interact through their primitive relation – one that cannot be explained or reduced any further. This proposal conflicts with science because Descartes does not explain how non-spatial substances are able to causally interact in a given point in space. While science is not necessarily committed to the use of materialism as its sole explanation of worldly phenomena, no stronger explanatory evidence exists to suggest alternative views such as the existence of immaterial …show more content…
Cartesian dualism violates these physical laws by proposing that non-physical minds causally interact with physical brains. The causal closure principle states that for any causally closed physical system, any physical event within the system has a fully sufficient cause. Thus, according to science, our brain is a closed physical system and any event within it has a fully sufficient physical cause. While Descartes disagrees with the brain being characterized as a closed system, science maintains its view because the empirical evidence supports the brain as a closed physical system. The tenets of dualism also conflict with the law of conservation of energy because while the law states that energy is neither created nor destroyed, dualism’s mind-body interaction would alter the quantity of energy. When an immaterial mind acts, energy would be created in the brain. When an immaterial mind receives an action, energy in the brain would be destroyed. Thus, the total amount of energy is changed. While a dualist might argue that it is possible for a mind and brain to interact without the exchange of energy, the law of conservation of energy, supported by immense empirical research, firmly holds the truth of the conservation of energy. Lastly, dualism’s allowance for immaterial causes of material events counters science’s theory of completeness, which states
This argument follows Leibniz’s law form which holds that if A and B have distinct properties, then A is not B. Leibniz’s Law is not exceptionlessly true, as seen in various Intentional …show more content…
According to Cartesian dualism, minds are thinking, non-extended substances, and bodies are non-thinking, spatially extended substances. These radically different kinds of substances do not appear to have the ability to causally interact because of their distinctly different properties. Descartes proposes that the minds may have locations in space-time, though no other material properties, and thus they can causally interact through their primitive relation – one that cannot be explained or reduced any further. This proposal conflicts with science because Descartes does not explain how non-spatial substances are able to causally interact in a given point in space. While science is not necessarily committed to the use of materialism as its sole explanation of worldly phenomena, no stronger explanatory evidence exists to suggest alternative views such as the existence of immaterial …show more content…
Cartesian dualism violates these physical laws by proposing that non-physical minds causally interact with physical brains. The causal closure principle states that for any causally closed physical system, any physical event within the system has a fully sufficient cause. Thus, according to science, our brain is a closed physical system and any event within it has a fully sufficient physical cause. While Descartes disagrees with the brain being characterized as a closed system, science maintains its view because the empirical evidence supports the brain as a closed physical system. The tenets of dualism also conflict with the law of conservation of energy because while the law states that energy is neither created nor destroyed, dualism’s mind-body interaction would alter the quantity of energy. When an immaterial mind acts, energy would be created in the brain. When an immaterial mind receives an action, energy in the brain would be destroyed. Thus, the total amount of energy is changed. While a dualist might argue that it is possible for a mind and brain to interact without the exchange of energy, the law of conservation of energy, supported by immense empirical research, firmly holds the truth of the conservation of energy. Lastly, dualism’s allowance for immaterial causes of material events counters science’s theory of completeness, which states