Consider the following argument for Dualism...?

Question

1. I know that I have a mind
2. I don't know that I have a body
3. Therefore, my mine is Not equal to my body.

I'm pretty sure this argument is invalid but I'm having a hard time being able to explain why! Probably because I don't agree with the second premise, so it's not making any sense to me.
Can anyone give me an example as to why this argument is invalid?

Answer 1

Considered several times. But still I am not able to get any clue. Let me consult my Mentor and revert back. It all depends on the present mental health condition, mental steadiness or mental stability. Moreover I don't want to argue with elders and knowledgeable people. It is considered a sort of disrespect. I am ready to discuss amicably in a friendly way.



On the other hand, if we engage ourselves in unnecessary arguments with a drunkard person, it is difficult to know who is drunkard and who is a sane person.

Answer 2

specific, it ties in nicely with Dualism and Descartes would be delicate with maximum if no longer all your assertions. truly, your argument shows one that Descartes made. that's complicated to return with something new, particularly on a question that individuals have been kicking around for over 2000 years! in my view, i'm overjoyed as quickly as I arise with something on my own that I in elementary terms discover out later exchange into argued via somebody else in the previous me. (i will experience sensible too) I actual have a pair of caveats for you, nevertheless. As your argument stands, you will no longer convince all and sundry who would not already proportion your instinct. Minds and bodies are no longer in elementary terms distinctive kinds of stuff (maximum materialists will consider this), you desire to assert, alongside with Descartes, they're self reliant, that's, they are able to the two exist with out the different. A materialist won't settle for that with out you making a case for it. Secondly, on a similar time as you rather rightly element out that qualia haven't any actual properties, it would not help the case you have the desire to make related to the suggestions or soul latest continuously. somebody would desire to element out that the adventure of roughness, as an occasion, relies on there being some actual floor and a traumatic device. as quickly as the outdoors drops out of the photograph the studies of roughness basically ceases to exist. Now you're no longer any doubt real that qualia do no longer die, yet there is not any reason to think of that they stay to tell the tale after the actual precursors are long previous. Why shouldn't we predict of that the comparable element happens to the suggestions while the physique dies? It basically ceases to exist. you haven't any longer given any reason to think otherwise, that's a complicated section. a sturdy first attempt!

Answer 3

thanks tropos for the video link. In my view they are both wrong on some things and right on others. I quote myself :" unless all that is is known then one can not be certain of anything"

the follow on quote to this is "there can only be that answer which is most correct" This line of reasoning is one of the foundation blocks of humility. which leads to another personal quote nod to Marx; "arrogance is the opiate of the ignorant" Basically everything remains an open question. obviously one can not question everything and remain sane, but everything should be understood to be an open question. This leaves the mind free and encouraged to seek a better answer. Arrogant assumption of something has the opposite result leading to ignorance.

All that is can be expressed mathematically. I believe everything is a form of energy and i agree with the little i know of string theory that all that is is energy vibrating at a given frequency. If i depart from string theory due to a lack of understanding of it, then that remains my current position position.

,

soul, mind, thought are all forms of energy. all energy has the potential of assuming the forms we know of as mass and an infinite number of other forms and the reverse is true. It is a question of knowing and applying the right force to achieve the desired frequency and result.



frankly based on what i saw in the dualism video dualism though it probably contains much useful data and concepts is thematically seriously flawed.



i find it interesting genetic material is left out of the miind and body summation. I think chances are fifty fifty the soul and possibly our consciousness, if not the same thing reside in our genes. as for levels of consciousness who knows, they might be independent separate entities that work together for some reason.



as for Descartes, he was doomed if religion was his guide, faith and wisdom are like oil and water.

faith is arrogant assumption. Faith deadens the brain, destroys and or renders irrelevant the notion of thinking let alone questioning. Faith is a tool to control the masses and breed ignorance.,

you do not need faith to believe in the existence of a God. You do not need religion to believe in the existence of a God. You need only to make a decision with conviction.

as far as It goes I have three things to say about the God question.

If their is a God he has a God too.

no-one on earth is qualified to tell someone else a God exists or what Gods job description is.

I am inclined to believe there is a God. More accurately a superior being. As many secret societies contend, as it is above so it is below. this is consistent with.fractal theory and micro and macro atomic s.. As for God having a God, Moving in micro, macro, or dimensionally there will be a point of relevance. that point where anything beyond is simply irrelevant. it is likely at that point in any direction is where we would find our God. Repeat as you desire.

without exception there is always a big fish in the pond (God), but their are always bigger ponds.

just an opinion. absolutely no disrespect intended to the religious or anyone else. when it comes to such matters as these we all, the entire human race has each the same chance of having that answer which is most correct as another.

I may not agree with the beliefs of another, but i do sincerely respect that persons belief.

"to question convention is not only a good idea, it's our duty" myself.. . .

Answer 4

The concept "mind" and the concept "body" do not have to be referring to the same set of things(equal) for one to be part of the other. How would you establish that the mind isn't a subcategory of the body?



Also the processes of the body and the signals sense organs return to the brain, aren't much less established than the sum of processes referred to with the term "mind." The ability for the mind to conceptualize itself("you") is only one aspect of its processing. The idea that the signals from the sense organs don't meet the criteria for an acquaintance with the facts(knowing) is really unestablished.



I think you may be appealing to Decartes' perceived need for absolute certainty to fulfill the expectations that were contrived by his religious beliefs. Rather than recognizing that acquaintance and accuracy in representing existence(truth) are gradients, not binary.



I'd say that the processes we reference with the term "mind" are based on the structure of the brain. All of the evidence that we have on the subject suggests this to be the case.



Here's a good video on the subject of dualism that you might be interested in. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RS4PW35-Y00