Three Philosophical Topics - 1B

To begin with, my opponent claimed that I did not respond to his arguments about physicalism. I did respond to them indirectly by asking some questions that he has not answered. My main question is: If everything that exists is in the form of matter, even if invisible, then why does something exist that is both invisible and without consisting of matter, although matter is what makes it be? I am talking about conciousness, which is a very important subject in this debate. Dualism itself cannot be disproved before disproving the fact that conciousness consists of nothing. 1. I do give account about conciousness that would invalidate physicalism. I've given the example of consciousness, which my opponent did not explain properly. I expected a response on why something exists without being in the form of matter. 2. I've given my opponent the reasons why physicalism is false. Science and philosophy lie on what makes more sense logically, but before they can disprove an entire subject like dualism, they have to disprove what supports dualism. For instance, science has not proven that conciousness is in the form of matter, so it has yet to disprove the fact that something actually exists without being physical. 3. "If dualism is not true, the mind is limited to the physical brain. Assuming this scenario, what kind of a mind would we expect? We certainly would not expect to have consciousness strictly from materials. Perhaps we could expect to see a mechanical mind similar to a computer that is run by a program. We would not expect things like consciousness, sensations, thoughts, emotions, desires, beliefs, and free choice. Such a mind would behave in a deterministic way based upon the laws of matter. Many scientists and philosophers are now concluding that the laws of chemistry and physics cannot explain the experience of consciousness in human beings."[1] Several things in this part of an article I pointed out mention subjects that are part of conciousness, which also have yet to be explained. If the mind was like the software of a computer, then why would we have consciousness, sensations, thoughts, emotions, and so forth? None of those things are in the form of matter. We cannot touch them, nor see them. However, software of a computer is based on material things, merely because a computer does not have conciousness, feelings, beliefs, and so forth. This is what places a clear destinction between the physical and non-physical, namely physicalism and dualism. 4. If any argument against dualism is to be valid, it must defeat not only dualism itself, but also whatever supports it. As long as we don't have an answer on why we have consciousness, emotions etcetera, we cannot disprove dualism. If the mind was purely material, then it would contradict science, because science finds material as something that cannot think. This belief of mine is supported by various philosophers, including the French philosopher Renï¿½ Descartes, who claimed that the mind is not material, because the materialcannot think. "According to his philosophy, which is specifically called Cartesian dualism, the mental does not have extension in space, and the material cannot think."[2] Conclusion: As long as science does not prove that conciousness is physical, it cannot disprove dualism, because the biggest supporter of dualism is conciousness. Here is another example of why physicalism cannot be true: Let us assume that a person developed something that could suck out whatever was within a specific amount of space, in a balloon for instance. If he were to suck out everything, except any part of the balloon itself, then what would remain there? I'm not referring to the air only, but every atom of anything besides the balloon itself. What would be remaining in the space where the balloon had air, steam, or anything else? If everything is based on matter, and a special machine could suck out any matter/atom within a specific amount of space, then what would remain there? These kind of questions have yet to be answered, therefore dualism has yet to be disproved. In short, physicalism can currently be denied by the fact that dualism is not yet denied, so it is up to the individual to believe in what makes more sense. Belief in God is what usually makes a person believe in dualism, while not believing in God makes a person in most cases believe in physicalism. References: [1]http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org... [2]http://en.wikipedia.org...