Arguments Against Dualism Essay Example

In this brief paper, I will discuss Churchland's argument against dualism, as well as discuss his reasoning behind it, and how a dualist would respond to it, while establishing an argument of my own, from the reading “Arguments Against Dualism.” 

Before exploring any arguments, it is important to get the definitions out of the way. Materialism states that only physical things exist, whereas substance dualism states that both physical & mental things exist, this form of dualism states that a substance is something that has properties. For a cartesian/substance dualist, minds are substances, and so are bodies, this form of dualism states that each person is composed of an immaterial mind and a body, and that minds and bodies are able to exist independently. In this brief reading, Churchland mentions many arguments against dualism, mainly substance dualism, such as an argument urged by materalists that appeals to the greater simplicity of their view, as well as other arguments that tie back into the topic of evolution and human history. 

His first argument against dualism is one that appeals to the greater simplicity of the view, using what's called "Ockham's Razor". Churchland stated that the materialist postulates only one kind of substance (physical matter), and one class of properties (physical properties), whereas the dualist postulates two kinds of matter and two classes of properties. In this argument, he mentions that all physical matter exists, but spiritual matter is not yet known. His second objection to dualism is the relative explanatory impotence of dualism as compared to materialism. He mentions that we know the brain exists, how its composed, and about the system as a whole. Using this example, he mentions that a dualist can't tell us anything about the internal constitution of mind stuff, of the nonmaterial elements that make it up, of the laws that govern their behavior, of the minds structural connections with the body, of the manner of its operations, and that a dualist cannot explain human capacities and pathologies in terms of its structures and its effects (Churchland, pg.;19).

In his next argument against dualism, he discusses the origin of evolution. He asks: "What is the origin of a complex and sophisticated species such as ours? What for the matter is the origin of the dolphin, the mouse, or the housefly?"" He mentions that thanks to the fossil record, anatomy, and biochemistry of proteins and nucleic acids, there is no doubt on this matter. In this argument, he mentions that the important point about the standard evolutionary story is that the human species and all its features are wholly the physical outcome of a purely physical process. He mentions that like all organisms, we have a nervous system, and that each nervous system is just an active matrix of cells, and a cell is just an active matrix of molecules. With all this said, he stated: "If this is the correct account of our origins, then there seems neither need, nor room, to fit any nonphysical substances or properties into our theoretical account of ourselves. We are creatures of matter" (Churchland, pgs.; 20-21). These arguments argue against dualism that states that there are such things as spiritual/mental substances, given this process of evolution is wholly physical, and humans, the brain, and all else - is purely physical. This argument is portrayed as follows:

Premise 1: Materialism is true, & dualism is false. 

Premise 2: According to materialism, only physical things exist.

Premise 3: According to dualism, there are both physical things & mental things; ie, there are both physical & non-physical things. 

Premise 4: All humans & organisms are purely physical, and have no room for non-physical/spiritual properties. 

Premise 5:  The human species and all its features are wholly the physical outcome of a purely physical process. 

Subconclusion: Substance Dualism cannot explain the process of evolution, or fully explain the existence of humans & all other organisms, meanwhile Materialism can. 

Conclusion: Materialism can clearly explain the process of evolution & the existence of all organisms, meanwhile substance dualism cannot. Therefore, substance dualism is false. 

Churchlands argument against dualism is the view that dualism cannot explain the origin of humans or any other organisms, because it is all part of a purely physical process. According to materialism, only physical properties exist, and there is no room for non-material properties. Since Churchland explains the process of human/other organisms' evolution, only materialism would make sense in this situation. This argument is sound because the text mentions that only there is no room for non-physical properties/substances. 

Additionally, a dualist could argue against premise 4: “All humans & organisms are purely physical and have no room for non-physical/spiritual properties”, arguing that the mind is a non-physical substance, and each organism has a mind, therefore there is room for non-physical properties, essentially breaking down one of the key points of churchlands argument. A dualist would criticize this premise solely because Churchland argues not only on pages 20 & 21, but on pages 19 & 20, that a substance dualist could not explain anything regarding an organism's origination, or anything regarding their nervous system, brain, etc - claiming those are all solely ‘physical properties & processes’, where these processes have no room for nonphysical properties.

Moving on, my dualist reply would be the same as what I've mentioned above of what a dualist would criticize. I would argue that the evolutionary story of humans/all other organisms also has a part/process that is non-physical. I would argue that the brain is partially non-physical, given there really is no explanation behind what the mind truly is, or how it truly exists - and all humans & organisms have a mind & brain, therefore there must be room for non-physical properties & processes. 

To Conclude, Churchland argues against dualism using three objections: (1) an objection that appeals to the greater simplicity of the view, using Ockham’s razor. (2); the relative explanatory importance of dualism as compared to materialism, and (3): the human species and all of its features are the wholly physical outcome of a purely physical process, therefore there is no room, or need, to fit any non-physical substances/properties.