Take the case of a box sitting on a table. In an introductory physics course, we'd say that there are two forces acting on the box: the force of gravity, pulling it down; and a normal force of precisely equal magnitude, pushing it up. Is there any real difference, though, between saying that there is no net force acting on a body, and saying that no forces are acting on it at all?
Cartesian dualism relies upon two substances, body and mind, which are totally distinguished by their properties. While the characteristic nature of body is Extendedness, the mind is known with its capability of thinking.
So, Cartesian Dualism is founded on these two basic propositions:
1. All bodies are extended.
2. All minds are thinkable.
Abandoning the latter, the former (1) seems acceptable to all physicalists. But if so, then its contraposition might be true equally. In other words, physicalists should be agreed with this proposition too:
3. All non-extended are non-body
The question is how physicalists justify this proposition?
In other hand, the unavoidable consequence of this proposition (and its truth) is existence of a non-extended (entity) which isn't body, which isn't justifiable in reductive physicalism approach. So, considering this proposition that in reductive physicalism approach:
4. everything has identify with physics.
But, isn’t paradoxical acceptance of (3) and (4)...
Do the developments in quantum mechanics (i.e. the best we can do on a very micro level is give probability distributions), really have anything to say about free will? It might mean that determinism isn't true (although there could be a weaker "probabilistic determinism" that gives the likelihood of different possible events), but introducing chance into the equation isn't helpful to free will either.
Is 20°C twice as hot as 10°C?
Now, I know that the phenomenon (heat) described by 20°C is by no means twice as intense as is that described by 10°C. Yet 20 is also undoubtedly twice the size of 10, no more and no less. So we have two seemingly opposing ways of looking at the situation. Which one is correct, and what standards do we use to judge that correctness? Or is there no correct answer?
- Read more about Is 20°C twice as hot as 10°C?
- 1 comment
- Log in to post comments