The conscious mind only exists physically

Thank you to serp888 for instigating this debate. I will be arguing against the resolution. [1] Law of Identity There are three basic laws of logic. The first one states that a thing is what it is, and is not something else. In other words, a book is a book, a table is a table, and a fish is a fish. A fish is not a table, a table is not a book, and a book is not a fish. The way that philosophers define something is by listing predicates or properties of that thing. In order so say that something denoted by one name is actually the same thing as something else denoted by another name, you must demonstrate that all the properties shared by the referent of one term are the same properties shared the other term. If you want to say that A is B, then we must show that A and B share all the same properties. Pro wishes to show that consciousness, usually referred to as a mental phenomenon, is actually a physical phenomenon. For him to do this, he must show that consciousness and physical world share all the same properties. If we find even one property that either consciousness has but that physical things do not, or that physical things have but that consciousness does not, then consciousness and the physical are not to be identified with each other. Now I’m assuming that Pro is not defending materialism, which states that everything in the world is made of matter. It is not taken seriously today and many materialists have retreated to physicalism, which seems to be Pro’s viewpoint, since he says that the mind is the result of synergy, which is not made of mater. Physicalism says that all things are physical, not necessarily material. This is probably what my opponent means. So while I could refute materialism by pointing out that the mind is not perceptible by any of the senses, a necessary property of any material thing, that would not work for physicalism, for phsyicalism admits of immaterial substances. But there is a property the mind has that the physical world does not, and that is (subjective) experience. A classic distinction in philosophy is the one between the objective world and the subjective world. A table is an objective entity since we can objectively talk about it. Our minds however, are subjective. We can’t observe anyone’s mind. We can observe their brain, their behavior, but not their mind. We can talk about someone’s mind and study it, but this is always inferential. Synergy and chemicals the mind, and all its actions (desires, beliefs, reflections, projections, thoughts, etc) are all understood from an “I” perspective: I think, I reflect, I desire. The brain and all its actions are understood from an “it” perspective. I touched the brain, the brain reacted, the brain was crushed. Since there is this difference of property between the subjective mind and the objective brain, the two cannot be identified with each other. One of them has something that the other does not. (1) [2] Free Will If the mind were only a physical substance, then it would have to obey physical laws. If the mind obeys physical laws, then the actions caused by the mind cannot be free, and hence cannot be the result of free will. But experience confirms every day that many of our actions are the result of free will, of a non-physical, rational, reflective agent. Pro might respond that even physicalists admit that the existence of indeterminism, that some actions have no cause, but it does no good to appeal to indeterminism since, as far as we know, that only exists on the subatomic level, not on a psychological level. And even if indeterminism were true on a psychological level, it would still not be enough to give us free will, for free will requires not only a lack of causation but rational reflection on the factors involved in the free decision and the ability to think about the future. So the physicality of the mind implies the absurdity that agent causation does not exist. [3] Causation Does Not Entail Necessitation or Identity It is probably true that the mind interacts with the physical world, that the correlations are in this causations as well. But the mere fact that two things interact with each other does not prove that they identical. The mind interacts with the brain, but that does not mean that the mind is the brain. Pro might object that two things can only interact if they are in the same category. The mind could only interact with the physical world if it were physical. But we have no problem accepting that immaterial things like synergy could interact with material things like chemicals, so why would there be a problem accepting that non-physical things like desires or thought could interact with physical things like synergy? To accept one while denying another is arbitrary. CONCLUSION The contention that the mind is physical contradicts experience, free will, basic laws of logic, and relies on fallacious reasoning. There is no reason for accepting it and hence it should be rejected. (1) “What Is It Like To Be a Bat?” Thomas Nagel Mortal Questions 1979