Empirical evidence cannot resolve this dispute as the scenarios are of whether a certain state is possible or impossible to be present and absent in the in body and mind at the same time. Most of this state are almost always abstract and cannot be examined in a laboratory experiment. In order to perform a scientific experiment one needs to collect data and since the dispute between dualist and physicalists is purely about naturalism it would be impossible to gather facts. Thought experiments on the other hand, provide the basis for creation of the naturalist concept which, although abstract, can be captured in a human mind either by imagination or conceiving.
What is the difference between imagining something and conceiving it? Give your own examples of each.
Imagination involves creating a mental picture of something so clearly that you can visualize the details without necessarily having ever seen it in reality. For example one can imagine a man having wings and flying. On the other hand, conceiving something involves forming an idea in the mind for instance one can conceive the idea of a man giving birth to a baby, but it would be impossible to imagine a man giving birth. (Forming that picture in the mind is impossible since we already a mans anatomy)
How does Gertler defend the claim (featured as the second premise in her disembodiment argument) that if one can conceive of something then it is possible?
Gertler states that all of the reasoning we do while performing investigations or experiment must and usually begin with a certain concept. She says that for example in biology we begin with the reproduction concept, while in ethics, one begins with the concept of good. According to Gertler, concept is indispensable when carrying out an investigation. To proceed with any kind of inquiry, one needs to employ some concept to put things into perspective. Finally she says that the using the conceivability test reveals what is possible and or impossible. Meaning that for as long as our concept are not clouded with obscurity, by using clear objects that are comprehensive, indeed, whatever we conceive is possible.
How does Gertler propose to understand what counts as physical for purpose of discussing the dispute between physicalists and dualist
Gertler proposes that one regard the physicals as the nonmetal phenomena just like the physicalists describe them.
In defending the first Premise of her disembodiment argument it is important for Gertler to explain why our concept of pain is sufficiently comprehensive in a way that our concept of water is not. How does she defend this claim
Gertler says that ones concept of water is not sufficiently comprehensive since one can conceptualize water as something with more essence, something that requires scientific investigation to understand, she points out that this hidden essence is actually H2O. Therefore, unlike pain, water cannot be conceptualized by a thought experiment. As for pain, Gertler notes that we conceptualize it as that has no hidden essence and that has its essential nature in itself therefore it would be easy to conceptualize it using the thought experiment.
What is so called problem of chauvinisms for the identity theory that concerns the issue if mental causation.
Gertler says that according to the problem of chauvinisms, in consideration to the Pain = c-fibre stimulation, posed by the identity thesis, it means that all the creature that do not share our physical structures, whose physical structure is significantly different from ours do not feel pain since they do not have the c-fibre stimulation that is responsible for pain. This means, for example, aliens from other planets with different physical composition from us from earth do not feel pain. According to Gertler, this scenario is inconceivable.
Many critics of mind-body dualism have complained that the view is as Gertler puts it, spooky. How does Gertler try to defuse this objection?
Gertler says that as much as the dualism is not sufficiently comprehensive in the explanation of the relationship between mind and body, it would be uncalled for to refer to it as spooky. She compares dualist to modern science, claiming that as the world continue to make great advancement in physics; the physical realm has continued to become even more exotic. According to her, Dualism does not spookify the world; the world is and has always being spooky due to the advancement of science.
Need a paper on the same topic?
We will write it for you from scratch!
If you are the original author of this essay and no longer wish to have it published on the SpeedyPaper website, please click below to request its removal: