The following very bad, blatantly question-begging argument has been offered by about one third of the students who have written the "Why I am Still a Dualist" version of the paper. They have done so after I've explained to them (orally and/or in writing) why the argument is a very bad, blatantly question-begging one. But I'm going to try again. Doing philosophy takes stamina and persistence.
The challenge the student faces is: to show that the mind is non-physical despite the apparent strength of the No Interaction Argument and the Problems of Other Minds. To meet this challenge, many have argued as follows:
The Very Bad, Blatantly Question-Begging Argument for Dualism (Covert Version)
(1) Mental process M is non-physical.
(2) If a process is non-physical, then whatever the process takes place in must also be non-physical.
(3) Mental process M takes place in the mind.
(4) Therefore, the mind is non-physical.
-where, for example, M might be: love, fear, knowledge, thought, hope, belief, grief, sadness, pain, or any other mental process (or state, or activity).
Why accept (1) (for a particular choice of M)? Here's the argument (implicitly or explicitly) given by many students:
The "Why We Should Accept (1)" Argument
(5) Mental process M takes place in the mind (since it is a mental process!).
(6) The mind is non-physical.
(7) If a process takes place in something non-physical, then the process is non-physical
(8) Therefore, mental process M is non-physical. [=(1)]
Since (8) = (1), we can put the two arguments together in this way:
The Very Bad, Blatantly Question-Begging Argument for Dualism (Overt Version)
(9) Mental process M takes place in the mind (since it is a mental process). [=(5)]
(10) The mind is non-physical. [=(6)]
(11) If a process takes place in something non-physical, then the process is non-physical. [=(7)]
(12) M takes place in the mind.
(13) Therefore, the mind is non-physical.
But premise (10) = the conclusion (13)! So the very question raised by the objections to dualism - Is the mind non-physical? - is begged, since what was to be shown - that the mind is non-physical - was simply assumed.
Many students have used the Very Bad Argument above to argue against the second premise of the No Interaction Argument - "All causation requires contact (possibly mediated)" - and for the conclusion that it is possible for causation to occur without contact. Here's how they've argued:
Causation without Contact Argument
(14) Mental process M causes bodily behavior B . (E.g., grief causes crying.)
(15) If mental process M causes bodily behavior B, then something that is non-physical causes something physical.
(16) If something that is non-physical causes something physical, then there is causation without contact.
(17) Therefore, there is causation without contact.
But why believe that (15) is true? If any attempt is made to support (15) - often, no attempt at all is made - the argument goes this way:
The "Why We Should Accept (15)" Argument
(18) The mind is non-physical.
(19) If a process takes place in something that is non-physical, then the process is non-physical.
(20) Mental processes take place in the mind.
(21) Mental processes cause bodily behavior.
(22) Nothing that is non-physical can come into contact with anything that is physical.
(23) Therefore, if mental processes cause bodily behavior, then something that is non-physical causes something physical.
-where the Very Bad, Blatantly Question-Begging Argument is in turn offered in support of (18)!!
Since the specified audience for the paper consists in rational people who do not already accept dualism, none of these arguments has any reasonable hope at all of persuading those in the audience of dualism's correctness.
Dualism is a lot easier to "defend" if you take its truth for granted - but then your "defense" will be ineffective, you won't do a large part of the assignment, and you'll lose 30-60 points. You might even not qualify for enhanced grading. Pretty depressing.
Back to Dualism Paper - Rules and Advice
Back to Dualism and Thinking Things