Substance Dualist Interactionism
Student’s Name
Institutional affiliation
Instructor’s Name
Substance dualist interactionism
Introduction
This research paper seeks to insightfully expound on the fact that the provisions and principles held by the Substance dualism theory do not surmount to a perfect explanation of the existence and operation between the mind and the body. The true perspective on the explanation of the interaction and processes between the mind and the brain is Physicalism. Even though Physicalism too has its inadequacies, but its description backed by the psychological explanations on the operations of the brain sets it as the best concept offering the facts as supported by its foundation in metaphysics (Lycan, 2018).
Substance dualism is the philosophical proposition that holds that both the mind and the body differ in all aspects of comparison and existence. Substance dualism opposes all element of identification of the mind with the brain. The brain is a physical mechanism while on the other hand, the reason is an immaterial element (Lycan, 2018).
According to the protagonist of the Mind-body Dualism, Descartes, the mind is an immaterial substance that is involved in different actions. It rationally undergoes through various stages or phase such as thought, imagination, having sensations, and willing. Based on the principles of physics, the matter is subject to different changes taking place. Therefore the mind being matter is subject to various modifications and transformations, through these changes in the mind the human body get affected in one way or the other through the different mental events that arise from the changes in the mind. These developments lead to the philosophical aspect known as interactionism (Lewtas, 2018).
Interactionism is an aspect of philosophical explanation that explains that a certain degree of interaction exists between the mind and the body. Through interactionism, its proponents hold that certain developments or occurrences in the mental state such believing, desiring something will occasionally influence interaction with the physical states (Lewtas, 2018).
The critics to interactionism hold that the proposition does not hold water and is illogical. The explanations given by the interactionist tend to appeal more to the common-sense than provide practical reasons. Further, the provisions of the interactionist school of thought fail to recognize that the mind and mind are alien to each other and therefore, a form of interaction between the two is out of order. Mechanistically, the preposition of the interactionist of the interaction between the mind, which is non-physical and the physical body is impossible since it is impervious for non-physical substances to affect those elements which are in the physical realm (Reppert, 2018).
The distinction between Substance dualism and Physicalist theories of the mind.
One of the most outstanding theories developed to critic the Substance dualistic interactionist preposition on the relationship between mind and body is the Physicalism. Physicalist proponents distinguish Physicalism as the explanation that everything is physical and that nothing or occurrence supersedes the physical aspect. On this basis, therefore, the physicalist differs from the interactionist by holding that mind is a material substance made of different parts such as neurons. The brain and the mind are therefore one and that the reason is merely a by-product formed out of the connections of numerous neurons. Therefore it is highly apparent that when the brain is affected, i.e. through damage, then conclusively the mind too will be affected or damaged since they are the same (Ravenscroft, 2018).
The explanations and principles of the physicalist provide an opportunity to disapprove the unconvincing proposition of Dualism of how an immaterial element causes an effect on a physical or material aspect, i.e. the problem of interactionism(Ravenscroft, 2018).
While the Physicalism can be rationally explained based on the working and relationship between the brain and mind, dualism prepositions cannot be rationally ascertained on how the interactions between that mind and the body take place.
While the dualism school of thought does not explicitly elucidate on the relationship between the mental events and the physical events, physicialist have a clear connection on the processes of underlying the physical events (Ravenscroft, 2018).
Example of a Substance Dualist Interactionist view.
On our daily lives, several events happen to us based on our interactions and relationships with our surroundings. Most of the occurrences are related to common-sense intuitions. For example, an event like in which one gets to the kitchen room to get a cup of coffee, on holding the coffee pot he feels a burning sensation scream and instantly withdraws his hands from the coffee pot (Lewtas, 2018).
From this chain of activities, a substance dualist interactionist will offer the following explanation based on an association of mental events and physical events around the whole episode of events. Getting up to go the kitchen to get a cup of coffee is an initiative of the mind, i.e. a desire(mental event), touching the coffee and feeling the hot sensation is felt on the hands(physical event), the burning sensation causes an unfavourable feeling of pain( mental event). The withdrawal of the hand and screaming because of the problem (physical event). Based on this illustration, dualism interactionist holds that every physical event is preceded by a mental event. Since the mind which is responsible for mental events is non-physical or immaterial, there is a cause-effect relationship between mind in its transcendental state with the body which is in the physical realm (Lewtas, 2018).
Jackson’s Knowledge Argument
The knowledge argument, as promoted by Frank Jackson, gives prominence to the fact that knowledge and understanding are acquired through processes which involves non-physical elements. Jackson’s school of thought is one of the most significant arguments against the principles held by the physicalist. With inferences deduced from the Mary experiment, the knowledge argument provides that the physical knowledge that the physicalist ascribe to does not meet the threshold of phenomenal experience. Therefore it is apparent that complete physical understanding is not guaranteeing consciousness (Rickabaugh, 2018).
Jackson’s argument is consistent with the various ideas put forward by the different protagonists of the substance dualist interactionist school of thought. One of the views for Dualism is the one supported by the substance dualists; these proponents suppose that both the mind and the body are all made up different substances. A mind is primarily a thinking object that does not have physical attributes like shape, location, motion and does not obey the basic principles of physics. Substance dualists are categorized into; interactionist, occassionalists, and parallelists (Rickabaugh, 2018).
The other set of dualists who are in support of the principles and reasoning behind Dualism are the property dualists. The property dualists hold the argument that the mental states that exist are all attributed to the conditions of the brain. The proponents of Dualism under this category believe that the distinctive form of the mind is attributable to the non-physical aspects of the physical elements. one of the most outstanding elements of non-physical substances is consciousness(Rickabaugh, 2018).
Conversely, critics of Dualism who upholds scientific provisions and explanations have been able to counter the arguments for Dualism by holding that the principles of Dualism are inconsistent with the law of thermodynamics such as properties of matter like temperature or being electrically charged thus making the dualists explanation of the state of mind to be void in the face of the laws and truths held by science (Rickabaugh, 2018).
The opponents to Dualism opines that the preposition is not coherent conceptually since the pre-supposed interrelationships existing between the mind and the body is not humanly possible.
Responses to arguments against Dualism
Critics of Dualism puts forward the argument of the problem of causation. Under this opposition, the antagonists hold that the immaterial mind cannot effectively affect the material or physical body. On this opposition, the dualists respond that; based on the model of ‘billiard ball ‘not all the causations happen based on the model and that all the interactions between the mind and body which represents an interaction between an immaterial substance and a material substance respectively (Reppert, 2018).
Pairing problem is the other argument held against Dualism. On this particular assertion by the critics of Dualism, the hold that dualists are not in a position to satisfactorily explain the cause and series of events in which two people tend to exhibit similar actions inspired by similar desires. The dualist counters this argument by asserting that; this kind of action demonstrates that physical events appear to depend on the activities of the operations of the immaterial Substance; the mind (Reppert, 2018).
References
Lewtas, P. (2018). Passive Causation; Making Interactionism Work. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 25(9-10), 139-162.
Lycan, W. G. (2018). Redressing substance dualism. The Blackwell companion to Substance dualism, 22-39.
Ravenscroft, I. (2018). Why Reject Substance Dualism? The Blackwell Companion to Substance Dualism, 267.
Reppert, V. (2018). Extending the Debate on the Argument from Reason: A Further Response to David K. Johnson. Philosophia Christi, 20(2), 517-539.
Rickabaugh, B. (2018). Dismantling Bodily Resurrection Arguments against Mind-Body Dualism.