Mind Over Matter? (2)

TheSkeptic wanted to debate this so here it is: ========= Introduction ========= This debate will be on the age-old clash in philosophy of mind over the issue of whether or not there is an immaterial element to, but not limited to, persons. This immaterial element is attributed to the mind or the soul. Of course, the question is whether or not this immaterial element even exists and that is what we are here to debate. To put it another way - is there more to persons than their material bodies? I will be answering "yes" to that question so I will be taking the Pro side. My opponent shall presumably be answering "no" to that question and thus will be taking the Con side. To make it very clear: I affirm *substance* dualism as opposed to *property* dualism. [1] I'll leave it to my opponent to describe what kind of materialism he affirms. I will now offer some definitions that I think are necessary as many of these terms have an everyday use and a more narrow, precise, philosophical use. To avoid straw-manning or pigeon-holing my opponent I'll let him define terms for his side if he feels the need to do so. ========== Definitions and Clarifications ========== Mind - (in a human or other conscious being) the element, part, substance, or process that reasons, thinks, feels, wills, perceives, judges, etc. [2] Matter - the substance or substances of which any physical object consists or is composed. [3] Substance - a substance is characterized by its properties, but, according to those who believe in substances, it is more than the collection of the properties it possesses, it is the thing which possesses them. [4] It seems, in summary, that there are at least six overlapping ideas that contribute to the philosophical concept of substance. Substances are typified as: 1. being ontologically basic—substances are the things from which everything else is made or by which it is metaphysically sustained; 2. being, at least compared to other things, relatively independent and durable, and, perhaps, absolutely so; 3. being the paradigm subjects of predication and bearers of properties; 4. being, at least for the more ordinary kinds of substance, the subjects of change; 5. being typified by those things we normally classify as objects, or kinds of objects; 6. being typified by kinds of stuff. We shall see later that the Kantian tradition adds a seventh mark of substance: 7. substances are those enduring particulars that give unity to our spatio-temporal framework, and the individuation and re-identification of which enables us to locate ourselves in that framework. (It should be remarked in passing that at least one major expositor of Aristotle (Irwin: 1988, especially chs 1, 9, 10) attributes a very similar intention to Aristotle himself.) [5] The philosophical concept of "substance" often gets confused so I must hasten to add that this term doesn't presuppose dualism as it could very well be that reality only consists of one kind of substance; a materialist would (should?) take that to be true. (Technically, there could other kinds of substances if other monisms are true like idealism, [6] or neutral monism, [7] but I consider those options irrelevant to the debate.) I am also not talking about substance in terms of chemistry. Dualism - in the philosophy of mind, dualism is the theory that the mental and the physical — or mind and body or mind and brain — are, in some sense, radically different kinds of thing. [8] ========== Rules ========== Preliminary Round: 1st "Round" - is for assent, questions, introductions, clarifications, definitions, worries about how I framed the debate and things of that nature. NO ARGUMENTS, PLEASE! Debate Rounds: 2nd Round - is where both I and my opponent will present our respective case(s) for our respective metaphysical theory. 3rd and 4th rounds - are where the real fun begins and we get to attack each others' positions and defend our positions from attacks. I don't really expect for this debate to devolve into semantics, but, just for posterity's sake, no semantics! P.S. Sorry for the cheesy debate title but I couldn't resist - it's just so perfect for the debate topic. :) P.P.S. I thank my worthy opponent for agreeing to debate with me. I'm sure this will be a good one. ========== Sources ========== [1] http://plato.stanford.edu... [2] http://dictionary.reference.com... [3] http://dictionary.reference.com... [4] http://plato.stanford.edu... [5] http://plato.stanford.edu... [6] http://www.iep.utm.edu... [7] http://plato.stanford.edu... [8] http://plato.stanford.edu...