PHIL 336 PRT 3 RESP

Running Head: RESPONSES 1

RESPONSES 3

JENNIFER

I started off reading this week’s material being completely confused about the questions and theories surrounding the physical/nonphysical connections of the mind and body. Honestly, the whole time I was reading I kept on wondering why does it matter. What if it is just one of those things that just is, and it does not need an explanation? It was not until I read an excerpt from the second chapter that I was able to comprehend the course material.

“Consider the fact that a piece of art such as a painting is physical, but it can be said to have nonphysical properties” (Westphal 33). With the explanation of the difference between the physical and nonphysical aspects of the painting, I began to understand the varying theories of the mind and body connection. I love art, and I am aware that the materials used different pieces are physical, but the tangible is used to create nonphysical aspects that can give me feelings or emotions beyond it just being a piece of art.  Property dualism makes more sense to me compared to substance dualism and parallelism mainly because both the mind and body are not only two separate things, but they each hold existing properties that cause them to interact with each other. One cannot act without the other in both a physical and nonphysical sense. The theories from those who advocate for substance dualism and parallelism think that the mind and body exist as separate from one another.

The  substance dualist believes that the mind and body operate independently as substances, hence the name. The idea of substance dualism only seems partially plausible to me because I need my body to supply oxygen to my brain so I can think, therefore my mind cannot operate without my body. The reason behind my partial logic being due to a ‘substance’ can be either tangible or not; however, I do not believe that they operate independently. To me, the mind and body are codependent. Of course there is the interactionist substance dualism thinker who believes that the mind and body occasionally interact with one another, so I would naturally side with that frame of mind while still maintaining the idea of partial plausibility.

Finally, the concept of mind-body  parallelism does not seem plausible to me; however, if I am given an example of the logic, I may better understand the possibility of the mind and body being separate and not interacting with each other.  

References:

Jonathan Westphal.  The Mind-Body Problem. The MIT Press, 2016.  EBSCOhost,  https://search-ebscohost-com.ezproxy.umgc.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=e025xna&AN=1365616&site=eds-live&scope=site.

Reply to Thread

JAMES

DISCUSSION QUESTION CHOICE #1: How plausible do you think Substance Dualism is compared to Property Dualism and Parallelism?  (Reading 3.2 pp. 25-32)

Briefly explain your understanding of the solution to the mind-body problem called Substance Dualism and argue why or why not it seems like a plausible explanation.

Use your knowledge of the readings, your own experiences and judgments to support your argument.

            “Substance dualism is the view that mind and body are distinct in the sense that they can exist independently of each other, or are substances. (Westphal p.27)”. With this thinking, it suggests the mind can operate without the body and the body can operate without the mind. This presents the problem that if the mind and body are separate how does the arm know when to raise itself, how does the mind know when the body is entering into sleep. Interactionist substance dualism provides a solution to the mind-body problem. “Interactionist substance dualism is the view that these two substances or things exist and can interact causally. (Westphal p.27)” With this theory, the idea is that the mind and body are still two separate substances but there is a cause-and-effect interaction between the two.

Even if you believe this theory, there is still the question of whether or not the mind and body can exist separately of each other. Questions were raised within the reading to further ponder this question. If the body no longer exists, does the mind still exist? Depending on your religious beliefs, you might say yes to this question. Others would say that when the body no longer exists, the mind enters into a deep slumber filled with darkness. Philosophers argue that since there is a possibility for the mind to exist without the body, this argument is plausible.

            In my opinion, I do not think substance dualism is plausible in comparison to property dualism or parallelism. It seems unreasonable to believe the mind and body are two separate entities with the ability to operate independently of the other. My daughter has a condition called agenesis of the corpus callosum, where she is missing part of her brain. The physical structure is there but this one component is missing. Since it’s missing, it impacts her ability to communicate, walk, control the movement of her limbs, and causes seizures. From seeing this, it would lead me to believe that the mind and body are not separate substances. Based on these facts, the property dualism seems to be more plausible in my opinion.

 

Reference:

Jonathan Westphal. The Mind-Body Problem. The MIT Press, 2016. EBSCOhost, https://search-ebscohost-com.ezproxy.umgc.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=e025xna&AN=1365616&site=eds-live&scope=site.