Instigator / Pro

David

1485

rating

debates

45.65%

won

Topic

#602

Mind-Body Dualism

Status

Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics

Better arguments

Better sources

Better legibility

Better conduct

After 5 votes and with 6 points ahead, the winner is...

David

Tags

Philosophy

Parameters

Publication date: 03.14.2019 04:54PM
Last updated date: 05.28.2019 06:03PM
Type: Standard
Number of rounds: 4
Time for argument: Three days
Max argument characters: 10,000
Voting period: Two months
Point system: Multiple criterions
Voting system: Open

Contender / Con

Type1

1266

rating

119

debates

15.97%

won

Description

Resolved: Mind-Body Dulaism is true

Definitions

Mind–body dualism, or mind–body duality, is a view in the philosophy of mind that mental phenomena are, in some respects, non-physical,[1] or that the mind and body are distinct and separable.[2] Thus, it encompasses a set of views about the relationship between mind and matter, and between subject and object, and is contrasted with other positions, such as physicalism and enactivism, in the mind–body problem

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind%E2%80%93body_dualism

It is my burden to prove that mind body dualism is true and it is my opponent's burden to prove that mind-body dualism is false. The burden of proof is shared. Con has to do more than refute my arguments, con needs to present arguments against mind-body dualism.

Rules

1. No forfeits
2. Citations must be provided in the text of the debate
3. No new arguments in the final speeches
4. Observe good sportsmanship and maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere
5. No trolling
6. No "kritiks" of the topic (challenging assumptions in the resolution)
7. For all resolutional terms, individuals should use commonplace understandings that fit within the logical context of the resolution, the reality of the US political landscape, and this debate
8. The BOP is evenly shared
9. Pro must post their arguments in R1 and waive in R4
10. Rebuttals of new points raised in an adversary's immediately preceding speech may be permissible at the judges' discretion even in the final round (debaters may debate their appropriateness)
11. Violation of any of these rules, or of any of the R1 set-up, merits a loss

Round 1

David

03.14.2019 06:16PM

Pro

I want to thank type1 for accepting this debate. I am looking forward to debating you on this topic.

C1: Conjoined Twins

In my opinion, this is one of the stronger arguments for mind-body dualism and I don’t think anyone has really discussed this before. What happens if there are

cojoint

twins that are connected at the brain? They both share the same brain, but are they one person with two bodies or are they two people with one material brain and two immaterial minds?

There is, in fact, a set of twins that I think can answer this question. Krista and Tatiana Hogan are twins that are connected at the brain. They can read each other’s minds, can move each other’s limbs, can feel what the other is feeling, and can even see out of each other’s eyes! However, their personalities are very different. One is talkative while the other is laid back. They think differently and have different abstract thoughts.[1]If the mind is equivalent of the material brain, then we should expect them to be exactly the same. It is clear that these are two different people who share one material brain.

C2: Argument from free will and reason

P1) If humans have free will, then dualism is true
P2) Humans have free will
C1) Therefore, humans have free will

Free will is defined as the ability to make choices without external coercion. If all

what we

are is a bunch of chemical reactions, then we cannot have any free choice. Indeed, under strict physicalism, I had no choice in starting this debate or writing these arguments. I was pre-programmed to do so, and my opponent was preprogrammed to accept this debate.

There are good reasons to believe the second premise to be true. In order to hold someone accountable, they must have had free choice. Our sense of moral duty is strongly indicative of having free will. If there is no free will, then there is no morality.

Conclusion

All-in-all the following is clear: (1) conjoined twins prove that the physical minds cannot be the self; (2) physicalism fails to account for the laws of logic, reason, and free will.

1. https://www.cbc.ca/cbcdocspov/features/the-hogan-twins-share-a-brain-and-see-out-of-each-others-eyes

Type1

03.16.2019 05:22PM

Con

The structure of the twins’ brains makes them unique in the world. Their brains are connected by a thalamic bridge, connecting the thalamus of one with that of the other. The thalamus acts like a switchboard relaying sensory and motor signals and regulating consciousness.

This excerpt is from the article that Pro posted. While the case of the Hogan twins is absolutely amazing, it is still clearly caused by a physical mutation that caused their physical brains to be physically linked. If anything, this proves mind-body dualism wrong. Because while they have distinct personalities, their consciousness/mind is largely shared all because of a physical abnormality, all because the matter in their brains was linked in an unlikely but clearly physical way. If the line between two supposedly metaphysical minds can be blurred by a mere "thalamic bridge" than what basis is there to assume the mind is metaphysical?

There are good reasons to believe the second premise to be true. In order to hold someone accountable, they must have had free choice. Our sense of moral duty is strongly indicative of having free will. If there is no free will, then there is no morality.

Holding people accountable for their actions is something that we as humans feel the need to do, the universe/reality itself shows no sign that it cares. There is no reason to assume that we have free will just because our ideas of law and justice would be undermined otherwise. To argue that we must have free will for the above reasons is similar to arguing that there must be an afterlife because I don't want to die. Also morality is subjective and it is also largely determined by ones experiences and cultural influences. The simple fact that we have moral values, which are massively dependent upon our experiences and environment, does not prove that we have free will.

Round 2

David

03.19.2019 05:20PM

Pro

I'm posting with less than 10 minutes to spare so my arguments aren't gonna be that good. I'll expand in the next round. First off, note that my opponent has failed to meet his burden of proof. The burden of proof is shared. Con has to do more than refute my arguments, con needs to present arguments against mind-body dualism. That being said, let's dive right in.

1. Conjoined twins

Con fails to grasp this argument and answer the questions these twins pose. If materialism monism is true, then we would expect a set of twins who share a physical mind to be exactly the same, but we do not see that. These are two distinct people who share one physical brain.

2. Free will

I have 3 minutes left so I'll address this in the next round!

Type1

03.20.2019 02:13PM

Con

Con fails to grasp this argument and answer the questions these twins pose. If materialism monism is true, then we would expect a set of twins who share a physical mind to be exactly the same, but we do not see that. These are two distinct people who share one physical brain.

That's like saying since there are two hemispheres in the brain you would expect them to be the same. The human brain has many types of compartmentalized functionalities, different sections of the brain all doing different things to compile the elements of the human mind. In this case two minds are compartmentalized in one brain, and this in no way requires some metaphysical explanation anymore than the mere existence of consciousness does. There is clearly a physical reason for this difference in personality. It probably comes down to one of them being the dominant side of the brain and the other being the more passive side, which is observable in how one has a more shy personality and the other both controls more limbs and has a more "Type A" kind of personality. I am not aware of the exact structure of the brain they share, But I would place my bets on the fact that there is a neurological reason for their personalities rather than it being due to one brain having two souls or something like that.

If the mind is not a physical phenomenon then why can someone literally "lose their mind" if the brain is damaged? When someone is turned into a vegetable due to brain damage, and is technically still sentient but has lost most of the faculties of the mind, does that mean a portion of their metaphysical essence has left them in accordance with the physical brain damage? Does God put half their soul to rest and leave the other half inside them or something?

Round 3

David

03.23.2019 02:13PM

Pro

Forfeited

Type1

03.26.2019 02:13PM

Con

Forfeited

Round 4

David

03.29.2019 02:13PM

Pro

Forfeited

Type1

03.29.2019 06:03PM

Con

Jew

bsh1

04.20.2019 08:37PM

-->

@TheRealNihilist

*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: omar2345 // Mod action: Removed

>Points Awarded: 3 points to Con for sources and conduct

>Reason for Decision: The instigator used sources so basically a source is better than no source.
Pro also kept it to the debate while the contender called Pro a "Jew". Bad conduct.

>Reason for Mod Action: The voter does not sufficiently justify any of the points they award. If one debater offers no sources, the comparative analysis between sources is not necessary, but it remains necessary to perform the other steps required to award sources points, namely: explaining how the sources that were used impacted the debate and assessing at least one source specifically for its strengths or weaknesses. On the conduct point, there is no comparative analysis between the debaters' conduct, and the voter does not "demonstrate how this poor conduct was either excessive, unfair, or in violation of mutually agreed upon rules of conduct pertaining to the text of the debate."
************************************************************************

Wrick-It-Ralph

03.30.2019 11:42AM

-->

@David

Interesting topic. Shame it wasn't played out all the way. The story about the twins is fascinating but I see a hole in the argument. Pro stated that it was "two people sharing one brain" But this is not actually accurate. The cited article clearly stated that there was a wall between their brains that was so unique that it has it's own name. Both of them still had separate brains and after doing a little bit of research I was able to find that the behaviors that Pro highlighted from the article are easily explained physically. The parts of the brains that are connected is used for sensory and motor function, which the twins can co control. So this makes physical sense. The parts of them that are different, personality, quirks, etc. were other parts of their respective brains that were not connected. If the twins in fact had one unified brain, this story would have been truly amazing, but sadly, this was not the case.

Also, on your syllogism, the conclusion was suppose to be "then dualism is true" I'm assuming it was just a typo.

That1User

03.29.2019 06:04PM

Final argument:
"Jew"
10/10

Death23

03.19.2019 09:59PM

-->

@David

When the brain is split, the mind is also split. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Split-brain How can mind-body dualism be reconciled with this?

Type1

03.16.2019 02:08AM

-->

@David

Don't worry I will add an argument tomorrow.

Pinkfreud08

05.02.2019 01:39AM

Criterion

Pro

Tie

Con

Points

Better arguments

3 point(s)

Better sources

2 point(s)

Better legibility

1 point(s)

Better conduct

1 point(s)

Reason:

Con called Pro a " Jew",

That's poor conduct

RationalMadman

04.20.2019 07:57PM

Criterion

Pro

Tie

Con

Points

Better arguments

3 point(s)

Better sources

2 point(s)

Better legibility

1 point(s)

Better conduct

1 point(s)

Reason:

In the following debate, bsh1 allowed a debate with four rounds where only 2 are forfeited to result in non-removal of Pink freud's vote:

"Pro ff 2 rounds which is poor conduct"
https://www.debateart.com/debates/767/vote_links/1426
https://www.debateart.com/debates/767/comment_links/8578

This debate is identical. so my RFD is that Pro forfeited 2 Rounds, which is poor conduct.

Barney

04.17.2019 09:29AM

Criterion

Pro

Tie

Con

Points

Better arguments

3 point(s)

Better sources

2 point(s)

Better legibility

1 point(s)

Better conduct

1 point(s)

Reason:

Got to say, con's final remark sealed the debate. There was no physical stimuli to encourage him to make a racist remark, yet his spirit cried out...

With literally half the debate forfeited, the arguments did not quite reach any destination. Had con stuck to the facts instead of straw manning everything (pro never mentioned God, so why bring that in?), his case could have carried him across the finish line. Had pro not forfeited, his withheld Free Will defense almost certainly would have seized the day. The issue of the twins suggests something we clearly do not understand; but con did a decent job relating it back to physical mechanisms (while I would also expect a shared brain and shared experiences to produce one person not two, this wasn't followed up on enough). As for Free Will, we indeed base our sense of justice on criminals having a choice, but as con pointed out, we might just be hoping it matters.

Ramshutu

04.02.2019 04:11AM

Criterion

Pro

Tie

Con

Points

Better arguments

3 point(s)

Better sources

2 point(s)

Better legibility

1 point(s)

Better conduct

1 point(s)

Reason:

No matter how much I want to give this to pro, I can’t. Con gave clear reasons why we shouldn’t consider the example of the hogan twins, and stated that free will isn’t necessarily true as our moral imperative doesn’t mean much.

However BoP is shared here, and con offers nothing of his own - so it’s not possible for me to award him arguments.

This was very close though virt - stop forfeiting rounds!

Arguments: tied.

Conduct.

Final round: “Jew”

I shouldn’t need to explain how egregious Racial and religious slurs are in a debate. This is so outrageous it outweighs pros forfeits. What is wrong with you con?

Conduct to pro.

oromagi

04.01.2019 03:55AM

Criterion

Pro

Tie

Con

Points

Better arguments

3 point(s)

Better sources

2 point(s)

Better legibility

1 point(s)

Better conduct

1 point(s)

Reason:

Interesting topic but incomplete debate for which both participants share responsibility. Pro's opening is surprisingly weak. There's the case of the conjoined twins which is both recent and unique. It is hard to draw many conclusions from a phenomenon so difficult to measure or repeat. C2's syllogism is miswritten (conclusion should read dualism is true, I suspect) and soft. Philosophers have been debating free will since the Garden of Eden: Pro's argument amounts to we have free will because most of us believe we have free will. Con countered fairly effectively but did not read Pro's setup- Pro must offer evidence refuting dualism. Con never addressed shared burden and loses arguments. Pro barely responds and no-shows the rest of the debate. Con likewise forfeits and then ends with a personal epithet clearly meant to offend in the present context. Under most circumstances, Pro's double forfeit should have been insurmountable but Con snatches defeat from the jaws of victory by twice failing Pro's rules (dual burden + civil conduct) as well as violating DART's code of conduct. Both args and conduct go to Pro by default.