Is Physicalism Convincing?
Statement of Intent: I will be arguing that physicalism is convincing. Firstly I will show that argument
against physicalism, most notably the Zombie argument fail. Secondly I will show that most forms of
physicalism gives the best account of mental causation because it coheres with what we know empirically
and thus making it really accurate. Lastly, I will show through Occam’s Razor that a physicalist account of
the mind is the most likely explanation of the mind because physicalism is metaphysically light. This is the
most crucial argument because it applies to all physicalist theories.
RICE 1:
R: Arguments against Physicalism is not convincing. Zombie argument challenges the physicalist notion
that it is impossible for two things to have the same physical properties and have different mental
properties. Both Descartes’ Conceivability argument for Substance Dualism and the Zombie argument for
property dualism faces the same multiple problems where the physicalist can attack the same inferences
made in both arguments. The mind and body is not conceivable and zombies are not conceivable and the
only reason why we think so is because they both make circular arguments and assume the truth of the
conclusion, assume physicalism is to be false. If physicalism is the case then it’s be logically impossible
for zombies to exist or the mind and body to be distinct. By definition of physicalism a physical and
functional duplicate MUST also have phenomenal consciousness.
I: It is conceivable for other reason. For PD it is conceivable not cause of the truth of the conclusion but
due to the conceptual distinctness claim. There is no conceptual link between truths of physics (which
use mathematical physical concept) and truths about phenomenal experiences (which use subjective
phenomenal concepts). This is why is it still conceivable that at some possible world my
physical/functional duplicate exists and does not have phenomenal properties. For SD it is conceivable
because it is a clear and distinct idea.
C: There is an issue with conceivability arguments in general in order to discover the nature of the world.
All this conceiving in reality is just a reflection of our own epistemic limitations and shows that
neuroscience has not developed yet. Physicalists explanations have an advantage in being compatible
with experimental science and developments in neuroscience rather then relying on conceivability
experiments. The nature of conciousness is not through conceivability arguments such as the zombie
argument but through scientific investigation, which is what physicalism is able to do. Fundamentally we
shouldn't let considerations about concepts determine in advance what scientific investigations may or
may not discover. This is significant because it means that physicalism is a much more powerful and
accurate explanatory theory.
E: Ultimately it hasn’t proved that physicalism is true but rather shown that arguments against it are
unconvincing. The exchange between the physicalist and the dualist ends somewhat in a stalemate.
Neither Dualism nor physicalism is shown to be true or false. Hasn’t shown definitively that physicalism is
true so not the most crucial argument.
RICE 2:
R: Physicalism largely the best account of mental causation particularly in comparison to dualist theories.
Current science indicates that movements of the body are caused by physical events in the brain rather
then a mental substance/ property. Therefore empirically we are leading towards a physicalist account of
the mind rather then a dualist account
I: Whilst this is true but we have no evidence against dualism either. We still have no clear account of the
very complicated causation involved in making something like a choice. There is no evidence proving that
dualism is false.
Is Physicalism Convincing? 1
Statement of Intent: I will be arguing that physicalism is convincing. Firstly I will show that argument
against physicalism, most notably the Zombie argument fail. Secondly I will show that most forms of
physicalism gives the best account of mental causation because it coheres with what we know empirically
and thus making it really accurate. Lastly, I will show through Occam’s Razor that a physicalist account of
the mind is the most likely explanation of the mind because physicalism is metaphysically light. This is the
most crucial argument because it applies to all physicalist theories.
RICE 1:
R: Arguments against Physicalism is not convincing. Zombie argument challenges the physicalist notion
that it is impossible for two things to have the same physical properties and have different mental
properties. Both Descartes’ Conceivability argument for Substance Dualism and the Zombie argument for
property dualism faces the same multiple problems where the physicalist can attack the same inferences
made in both arguments. The mind and body is not conceivable and zombies are not conceivable and the
only reason why we think so is because they both make circular arguments and assume the truth of the
conclusion, assume physicalism is to be false. If physicalism is the case then it’s be logically impossible
for zombies to exist or the mind and body to be distinct. By definition of physicalism a physical and
functional duplicate MUST also have phenomenal consciousness.
I: It is conceivable for other reason. For PD it is conceivable not cause of the truth of the conclusion but
due to the conceptual distinctness claim. There is no conceptual link between truths of physics (which
use mathematical physical concept) and truths about phenomenal experiences (which use subjective
phenomenal concepts). This is why is it still conceivable that at some possible world my
physical/functional duplicate exists and does not have phenomenal properties. For SD it is conceivable
because it is a clear and distinct idea.
C: There is an issue with conceivability arguments in general in order to discover the nature of the world.
All this conceiving in reality is just a reflection of our own epistemic limitations and shows that
neuroscience has not developed yet. Physicalists explanations have an advantage in being compatible
with experimental science and developments in neuroscience rather then relying on conceivability
experiments. The nature of conciousness is not through conceivability arguments such as the zombie
argument but through scientific investigation, which is what physicalism is able to do. Fundamentally we
shouldn't let considerations about concepts determine in advance what scientific investigations may or
may not discover. This is significant because it means that physicalism is a much more powerful and
accurate explanatory theory.
E: Ultimately it hasn’t proved that physicalism is true but rather shown that arguments against it are
unconvincing. The exchange between the physicalist and the dualist ends somewhat in a stalemate.
Neither Dualism nor physicalism is shown to be true or false. Hasn’t shown definitively that physicalism is
true so not the most crucial argument.
RICE 2:
R: Physicalism largely the best account of mental causation particularly in comparison to dualist theories.
Current science indicates that movements of the body are caused by physical events in the brain rather
then a mental substance/ property. Therefore empirically we are leading towards a physicalist account of
the mind rather then a dualist account
I: Whilst this is true but we have no evidence against dualism either. We still have no clear account of the
very complicated causation involved in making something like a choice. There is no evidence proving that
dualism is false.
Is Physicalism Convincing? 1
