Total Posts:35|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Necessary Truths, Material/Ideal/Dualism

Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2014 12:21:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Are materialism/idealism/dualism necessary mutually exclusive worldviews?

That is, if any one of them are true in one metaphysically possible world, then are they true in all possible worlds (akin to how 2+2=4 would be).

I say this because I am looking back over one of my old debates, where I ran into the following argument:

P1: IF mind is matter, THEN solipsism is impossible (exists in no possible worlds).
P2: Solipsism is possible (does exist in some possible world).
C: Mind is not matter.

Where in this case one could then dispute premise 1, stating that solipsism IS possible, but only in a metaphysically possible world where mind is not matter, in which case, the argument becomes:

1. If necessarily, mind is matter, THEN solipsism is impossible
2. Solipsism is possible
C. Then it is false that necessarily, mind is matter (is not true in all possible worlds)

To make mind not matter in any possible world, the following would have to be true:
3. If mind is matter then , necessarily mind is matter

Which seems to be the hidden premise. I'm not too familiar with the philosophy of this, so...

Thoughts?
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2014 12:23:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Sh1t... I posted this in religion forum... It was supposed to be in the philosophy forum, I'm sorry.
Romanii
Posts: 4,851
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2014 1:13:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/28/2014 12:21:26 PM, Envisage wrote:
Are materialism/idealism/dualism necessary mutually exclusive worldviews?

That is, if any one of them are true in one metaphysically possible world, then are they true in all possible worlds (akin to how 2+2=4 would be).

I say this because I am looking back over one of my old debates, where I ran into the following argument:

P1: IF mind is matter, THEN solipsism is impossible (exists in no possible worlds).
P2: Solipsism is possible (does exist in some possible world).
C: Mind is not matter.

Where in this case one could then dispute premise 1, stating that solipsism IS possible, but only in a metaphysically possible world where mind is not matter, in which case, the argument becomes:

1. If necessarily, mind is matter, THEN solipsism is impossible
2. Solipsism is possible
C. Then it is false that necessarily, mind is matter (is not true in all possible worlds)

To make mind not matter in any possible world, the following would have to be true:
3. If mind is matter then , necessarily mind is matter

Which seems to be the hidden premise. I'm not too familiar with the philosophy of this, so...

Thoughts?

Heh, I have always found that argument to be rather weak.
I think the problem with it is in the contradicting assumptions underlying the two premises. The first one assumes that mind is matter in all possible worlds, and thus solipsism is impossible. The second one assumes that mind is only matter in some possible worlds and thus solipsism IS possible.
PeacefulChaos
Posts: 2,610
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2014 1:35:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I've always seen claims that solipsism is possible, but I've never seen any arguments for it. It's like there's a huge missing premise.

P1: I know I exist (I think therefore I am stuff blah blah).
P2: I don't know for sure if anyone else exists.
P3: ????
C: Clearly, everything is a figment of my imagination.

Clearly.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2014 1:41:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/28/2014 1:35:28 PM, PeacefulChaos wrote:
I've always seen claims that solipsism is possible, but I've never seen any arguments for it. It's like there's a huge missing premise.

P1: I know I exist (I think therefore I am stuff blah blah).
P2: I don't know for sure if anyone else exists.
P3: ????
C: Clearly, everything is a figment of my imagination.

Clearly.

The argument was not for solipsism though, only that the possibility of such falsifies materialism.
PeacefulChaos
Posts: 2,610
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2014 1:45:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/28/2014 1:41:19 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 5/28/2014 1:35:28 PM, PeacefulChaos wrote:
I've always seen claims that solipsism is possible, but I've never seen any arguments for it. It's like there's a huge missing premise.

P1: I know I exist (I think therefore I am stuff blah blah).
P2: I don't know for sure if anyone else exists.
P3: ????
C: Clearly, everything is a figment of my imagination.

Clearly.

The argument was not for solipsism though, only that the possibility of such falsifies materialism.

Yeah, but what is there to suggest solipsism or make it a possibility? Is it just because we're uncertain?

I don't mean to make this a thread about solipsism, but how can we gain knowledge if solipsism is true?
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2014 1:48:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/28/2014 1:45:21 PM, PeacefulChaos wrote:
At 5/28/2014 1:41:19 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 5/28/2014 1:35:28 PM, PeacefulChaos wrote:
I've always seen claims that solipsism is possible, but I've never seen any arguments for it. It's like there's a huge missing premise.

P1: I know I exist (I think therefore I am stuff blah blah).
P2: I don't know for sure if anyone else exists.
P3: ????
C: Clearly, everything is a figment of my imagination.

Clearly.

The argument was not for solipsism though, only that the possibility of such falsifies materialism.

Yeah, but what is there to suggest solipsism or make it a possibility? Is it just because we're uncertain?

I don't mean to make this a thread about solipsism, but how can we gain knowledge if solipsism is true?

Again it's not about whether or not solipsism is true, only that if it is a metaphysical possibility, then it means there is at least one possible world where materialism is false.

The issue is whether or not materialism MUST be a necessary truth. Is materialism MUST be a necessary truth, THEN materialism is false in all metaphysically possible worlds (including this one).

I haven't seen many arguments myself, but for metaphysical possibility just pointing out the fact it is not inherently contradictory, and is a conceivable possibility, that makes it seem metaphysically possible.

I'm not terribly convinced by this line of arguing, but I'm not too familiar with subjunctive logic so... I am very open to being corrected on the matter.
PeacefulChaos
Posts: 2,610
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2014 1:51:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/28/2014 1:48:36 PM, Envisage wrote:

Again it's not about whether or not solipsism is true, only that if it is a metaphysical possibility, then it means there is at least one possible world where materialism is false.

Well, if solipsism isn't true, then that means it wouldn't be a possibility, meaning the argument falls apart. So, in a way, it kind of is related to it.


The issue is whether or not materialism MUST be a necessary truth. Is materialism MUST be a necessary truth, THEN materialism is false in all metaphysically possible worlds (including this one).

I haven't seen many arguments myself, but for metaphysical possibility just pointing out the fact it is not inherently contradictory, and is a conceivable possibility, that makes it seem metaphysically possible.


I'm not terribly convinced by this line of arguing, but I'm not too familiar with subjunctive logic so... I am very open to being corrected on the matter.

Eh, neither am I.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2014 1:55:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/28/2014 1:51:25 PM, PeacefulChaos wrote:
At 5/28/2014 1:48:36 PM, Envisage wrote:

Again it's not about whether or not solipsism is true, only that if it is a metaphysical possibility, then it means there is at least one possible world where materialism is false.

Well, if solipsism isn't true, then that means it wouldn't be a possibility, meaning the argument falls apart. So, in a way, it kind of is related to it.

There is a difference between ohysical possibility and metaohysical possibility.

Physical possibility - how the world is (the one we live in)
Metaphysical possibility - how the world could have been

Whether or not solipsism is true or false in the world we live in is irrelevant too the argument as you can see, all physical possibilities are a subset of what's metaphysically possible, but NOT vice versa.


The issue is whether or not materialism MUST be a necessary truth. Is materialism MUST be a necessary truth, THEN materialism is false in all metaphysically possible worlds (including this one).

I haven't seen many arguments myself, but for metaphysical possibility just pointing out the fact it is not inherently contradictory, and is a conceivable possibility, that makes it seem metaphysically possible.


I'm not terribly convinced by this line of arguing, but I'm not too familiar with subjunctive logic so... I am very open to being corrected on the matter.

Eh, neither am I.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2014 2:07:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
If mind is matter, then why is solipsism invalid exactly? Matter is not "something other than my mind" if it is a property of my own mind.
PeacefulChaos
Posts: 2,610
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2014 4:16:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/28/2014 1:55:22 PM, Envisage wrote:

There is a difference between ohysical possibility and metaohysical possibility.

Physical possibility - how the world is (the one we live in)
Metaphysical possibility - how the world could have been

Whether or not solipsism is true or false in the world we live in is irrelevant too the argument as you can see, all physical possibilities are a subset of what's metaphysically possible, but NOT vice versa.

If that's the case, then if mind is matter, that would only mean that solipsism isn't a physical possibility, but could still be a metaphysical possibility.

The first premise thus falls apart.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2014 5:35:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/28/2014 4:16:08 PM, PeacefulChaos wrote:
At 5/28/2014 1:55:22 PM, Envisage wrote:

There is a difference between ohysical possibility and metaohysical possibility.

Physical possibility - how the world is (the one we live in)
Metaphysical possibility - how the world could have been

Whether or not solipsism is true or false in the world we live in is irrelevant too the argument as you can see, all physical possibilities are a subset of what's metaphysically possible, but NOT vice versa.

If that's the case, then if mind is matter, that would only mean that solipsism isn't a physical possibility, but could still be a metaphysical possibility.

I'm not sure it couldn't be a physical possibility, but that is besides the point.

The first premise thus falls apart.

No, since the first premise only discusses metaphysical possibility. The key point I think is the third point I raised in the original post. Which basic is as follows:

If any one of materialism/idelism/dualism could be established to be true in any metaphysically possible world, then is it true it must be the case for ALL metaphysically possible worlds (including ours).

That is, if P then necessarily P (modal logic).

Right now I don't think it is necessarily true for all possible worlds, I don't see anything prima facie contradictory about these not being necessary truths, where they established to be true in one possible world.

But take the following example

1. It may be possible that the goldberg's conjecture is true
2. If the goldberg's conjecture is true in one metaphysically possible world, then it must be true in all metaphysically possible worlds (it would be logically contradictory otherwise).

Therefore, it could b established that the Goldberg conjecture was possible, then it would follow it is necessarily true.

It might be the case that materialism/dualism/idealism falls into a similar category... I am hoping someone can convince me either way.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2014 6:48:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/28/2014 12:21:26 PM, Envisage wrote:
Are materialism/idealism/dualism necessary mutually exclusive worldviews?

That is, if any one of them are true in one metaphysically possible world, then are they true in all possible worlds (akin to how 2+2=4 would be).

I say this because I am looking back over one of my old debates, where I ran into the following argument:

P1: IF mind is matter, THEN solipsism is impossible (exists in no possible worlds).
P2: Solipsism is possible (does exist in some possible world).
C: Mind is not matter.

Where in this case one could then dispute premise 1, stating that solipsism IS possible, but only in a metaphysically possible world where mind is not matter, in which case, the argument becomes:

1. If necessarily, mind is matter, THEN solipsism is impossible
2. Solipsism is possible
C. Then it is false that necessarily, mind is matter (is not true in all possible worlds)

To make mind not matter in any possible world, the following would have to be true:
3. If mind is matter then , necessarily mind is matter

Which seems to be the hidden premise. I'm not too familiar with the philosophy of this, so...

Thoughts?

Are materialism/idealism/dualism necessary mutually exclusive worldviews?

Materialism says even the mind is from matter.

Idealism says even matter is mind.

Solipsism says only your mind exists.

Dualism says matter and mind exist but have no common boundary.

I'll express my thoughts on these metaphysical possibilities.

In Dualism we only really know of the mind side. With no common medium between mind and matter we can not perceive (a mental activity) of matter. All evidence for matter is through a mental filter.

Idealism would say any evidence for matter is a perception of another mental construct. It is not a mental filter but all is of the same medium mind.

Solipsism would be all things perceived are through ones own mind and no evidence of another mind can be perceived with out going through one's own mind.

Materialism would say the mind is self reflecting matter reacting with itself.

I think the issue is perception. Perception is regressive to the point where it stops being capable to explain things in all cases to include materialism.

I'm not even sure which Occam's Razor favors.

I think Solipsism and Idealism are not mutually exclusive. Idealism could be a sub group of Solipsism where the greatest mind perceived is one's own. Solipsism could be a sub group of Idealism because the greatest mind perceptible is one's own mind.

A weaker case could be made for Dualism and Materialism not being mutually exclusive. That Materialism could be a subgroup of Dualism, matter unable to interact and therefore unable to perceive (or account for) mind. Dualism I think could not be a subgroup of Materialism.

So Idealism or Solipsism are not mutually exhaustive. Both are mutually exclusive to Dualism or Materialism.

All are possible in any metaphysical world. One can argue the explanatory power of one over the others. Does more explanatory power mean it is truer? Most Science says, yes. But logic shows this can be a non sequitur.

I hope that answers my thoughts on the question you pose.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2014 7:01:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/28/2014 4:16:08 PM, PeacefulChaos wrote:
At 5/28/2014 1:55:22 PM, Envisage wrote:

There is a difference between ohysical possibility and metaohysical possibility.

Physical possibility - how the world is (the one we live in)
Metaphysical possibility - how the world could have been

Whether or not solipsism is true or false in the world we live in is irrelevant too the argument as you can see, all physical possibilities are a subset of what's metaphysically possible, but NOT vice versa.

If that's the case, then if mind is matter, that would only mean that solipsism isn't a physical possibility, but could still be a metaphysical possibility.

The first premise thus falls apart.

I think metaphysical is something physical that we think could exist. And physical being something we know or have verified to exist.

Metaphysical does not have to be how the world could "have been". But could be the how the world is.

Metaphysical : Physical as Hypothesis : Conclusion
PeacefulChaos
Posts: 2,610
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2014 8:19:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/28/2014 5:35:54 PM, Envisage wrote:

I'm not sure it couldn't be a physical possibility, but that is besides the point.

Let's consider what the argument is.

P1: If mind is matter, solipsism is impossible.

That is to say, it would be physically impossible, for solipsism would not be true. As you stated earlier, if something is not true, it is clearly not physically possible, but could be metaphysically possible. You essentially argue that, if mind is matter, solipsism would no longer be true, meaning it would be physically impossible.

P2: Solipsism is possible.

This is referring to the metaphysical possibility of solipsism. It is not comparable to premise 1, which was referring to a physical possibility, and the conclusion then falls.


No, since the first premise only discusses metaphysical possibility. The key point I think is the third point I raised in the original post. Which basic is as follows:

How can the first premise discuss a metaphysical possibility?

I do not think I am understanding what a metaphysical possibility is. You stated that a metaphysical possibility is how the world could have been. Is there anything that could be metaphysical impossibility? By the way you described it, it doesn't sound like it, yet it seems there are plenty of them.


If any one of materialism/idelism/dualism could be established to be true in any metaphysically possible world, then is it true it must be the case for ALL metaphysically possible worlds (including ours)


That is, if P then necessarily P (modal logic).

I am not familiar with the term "modal logic." I think I'm venturing into unknown grounds, because what you just said didn't make much sense.
PeacefulChaos
Posts: 2,610
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2014 8:21:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/28/2014 7:01:48 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/28/2014 4:16:08 PM, PeacefulChaos wrote:
At 5/28/2014 1:55:22 PM, Envisage wrote:

There is a difference between ohysical possibility and metaohysical possibility.

Physical possibility - how the world is (the one we live in)
Metaphysical possibility - how the world could have been

Whether or not solipsism is true or false in the world we live in is irrelevant too the argument as you can see, all physical possibilities are a subset of what's metaphysically possible, but NOT vice versa.

If that's the case, then if mind is matter, that would only mean that solipsism isn't a physical possibility, but could still be a metaphysical possibility.

The first premise thus falls apart.

I think metaphysical is something physical that we think could exist. And physical being something we know or have verified to exist.

Solipsism isn't something that is verified or something that we know to exist. How, then, could it be a metaphysical possibility by the way you described it?


Metaphysical does not have to be how the world could "have been". But could be the how the world is.

Metaphysical : Physical as Hypothesis : Conclusion
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2014 8:31:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/28/2014 8:21:21 PM, PeacefulChaos wrote:
At 5/28/2014 7:01:48 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/28/2014 4:16:08 PM, PeacefulChaos wrote:
At 5/28/2014 1:55:22 PM, Envisage wrote:

There is a difference between ohysical possibility and metaohysical possibility.

Physical possibility - how the world is (the one we live in)
Metaphysical possibility - how the world could have been

Whether or not solipsism is true or false in the world we live in is irrelevant too the argument as you can see, all physical possibilities are a subset of what's metaphysically possible, but NOT vice versa.

If that's the case, then if mind is matter, that would only mean that solipsism isn't a physical possibility, but could still be a metaphysical possibility.

The first premise thus falls apart.

I think metaphysical is something physical that we think could exist. And physical being something we know or have verified to exist.

Solipsism isn't something that is verified or something that we know to exist. How, then, could it be a metaphysical possibility by the way you described it?

The fact that Solipism is not verified and is a thought about how things can be, is by definition metaphysical possibility.


Metaphysical does not have to be how the world could "have been". But could be the how the world is.

Metaphysical : Physical as Hypothesis : Conclusion
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2014 9:01:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
It's jumping to an unjustified conclusion based on faulty logic. If solipsism is possible then it is possible that materialism is false. Only if solipsism is known to be true do we then know materialism to be false.

Following the reasoning used in the OP's example, all unproven hypotheses are false because they could be false. However, according to that same reasoning, they are all true because they could be true, as the negative hypotheses must be judged by the same criteria.
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2014 7:37:21 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Because solipsism proposes that the external world is imagined, not the internal one. The internal one can be material, but for solipsism to be true there cannot be any material reality external to that mind. The claim of solipsism is, effectively, "I am god".
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2014 8:46:54 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/29/2014 7:37:21 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
Because solipsism proposes that the external world is imagined, not the internal one. The internal one can be material, but for solipsism to be true there cannot be any material reality external to that mind. The claim of solipsism is, effectively, "I am god".

Materalialism is the stance that everything is material. How is this incompatible with solipsism if solipsism is just the stance that 'my mind is everything'?
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2014 9:37:54 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/29/2014 8:46:54 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/29/2014 7:37:21 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
Because solipsism proposes that the external world is imagined, not the internal one. The internal one can be material, but for solipsism to be true there cannot be any material reality external to that mind. The claim of solipsism is, effectively, "I am god".

Materalialism is the stance that everything is material. How is this incompatible with solipsism if solipsism is just the stance that 'my mind is everything'?

Sorry, I see what you mean. It isn't.
PeacefulChaos
Posts: 2,610
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2014 9:58:05 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/29/2014 8:46:54 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/29/2014 7:37:21 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
Because solipsism proposes that the external world is imagined, not the internal one. The internal one can be material, but for solipsism to be true there cannot be any material reality external to that mind. The claim of solipsism is, effectively, "I am god".

Materalialism is the stance that everything is material. How is this incompatible with solipsism if solipsism is just the stance that 'my mind is everything'?

I think that the OP was coming from this stand point -

If you believe in solipsism, you believe everything else around you is just a figment of your imagination.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2014 10:02:59 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/29/2014 9:58:05 AM, PeacefulChaos wrote:
At 5/29/2014 8:46:54 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/29/2014 7:37:21 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
Because solipsism proposes that the external world is imagined, not the internal one. The internal one can be material, but for solipsism to be true there cannot be any material reality external to that mind. The claim of solipsism is, effectively, "I am god".

Materalialism is the stance that everything is material. How is this incompatible with solipsism if solipsism is just the stance that 'my mind is everything'?

I think that the OP was coming from this stand point -

If you believe in solipsism, you believe everything else around you is just a figment of your imagination.

And? That doesn't mean something isn't material not does it mean something isn't your mind.
PeacefulChaos
Posts: 2,610
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2014 10:07:25 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/29/2014 10:02:59 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/29/2014 9:58:05 AM, PeacefulChaos wrote:
At 5/29/2014 8:46:54 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/29/2014 7:37:21 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
Because solipsism proposes that the external world is imagined, not the internal one. The internal one can be material, but for solipsism to be true there cannot be any material reality external to that mind. The claim of solipsism is, effectively, "I am god".

Materalialism is the stance that everything is material. How is this incompatible with solipsism if solipsism is just the stance that 'my mind is everything'?

I think that the OP was coming from this stand point -

If you believe in solipsism, you believe everything else around you is just a figment of your imagination.

And? That doesn't mean something isn't material not does it mean something isn't your mind.

I believe there is a confusion here. The only physical thing is your mind; however, your mind produces figments of the imagination, that is to say, illusions. These illusions are not physical things, and thus materialism no longer applies.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2014 10:34:38 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/29/2014 10:07:25 AM, PeacefulChaos wrote:
At 5/29/2014 10:02:59 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/29/2014 9:58:05 AM, PeacefulChaos wrote:
At 5/29/2014 8:46:54 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/29/2014 7:37:21 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
Because solipsism proposes that the external world is imagined, not the internal one. The internal one can be material, but for solipsism to be true there cannot be any material reality external to that mind. The claim of solipsism is, effectively, "I am god".

Materalialism is the stance that everything is material. How is this incompatible with solipsism if solipsism is just the stance that 'my mind is everything'?

I think that the OP was coming from this stand point -

If you believe in solipsism, you believe everything else around you is just a figment of your imagination.

And? That doesn't mean something isn't material not does it mean something isn't your mind.

I believe there is a confusion here. The only physical thing is your mind; however, your mind produces figments of the imagination, that is to say, illusions. These illusions are not physical things, and thus materialism no longer applies.

"Illusions" exist, for if they didn't, you could not identify them to begin with. Materialism simply says that consciousness, and every figment thereof, is material.
tbhidc
Posts: 84
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2014 3:24:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/28/2014 12:21:26 PM, Envisage wrote:
Are materialism/idealism/dualism necessary mutually exclusive worldviews?

That is, if any one of them are true in one metaphysically possible world, then are they true in all possible worlds (akin to how 2+2=4 would be).

I say this because I am looking back over one of my old debates, where I ran into the following argument:

P1: IF mind is matter, THEN solipsism is impossible (exists in no possible worlds).
P2: Solipsism is possible (does exist in some possible world).
C: Mind is not matter.

Where in this case one could then dispute premise 1, stating that solipsism IS possible, but only in a metaphysically possible world where mind is not matter, in which case, the argument becomes:

1. If necessarily, mind is matter, THEN solipsism is impossible
2. Solipsism is possible
C. Then it is false that necessarily, mind is matter (is not true in all possible worlds)

To make mind not matter in any possible world, the following would have to be true:
3. If mind is matter then , necessarily mind is matter

Which seems to be the hidden premise. I'm not too familiar with the philosophy of this, so...

Thoughts?

Here's my two cents.

When we say "solipsism is possible" we don't mean any old mind. We mean *my* mind. There's an assumption that my mind in this world, and my mind in a solipsistic world are the *same* mind.

So, I'd say that the argument says that it's impossible for *this type of mind* to be explained by physical matter. So that means, in all possible worlds, *my* mind is not identical to physical matter.