The Argument of Dualism

In my opinion, thinking - when thinking about brain problems, dualism is a more attractive point of view. The idea that the mind is an independent entity and independent of the body is the central point of dualism. One of the reasons that fascinated me was due to my Catholic religious belief. Interior view is another reason why dualism is more logical to me than materialism. I will logically explain why thinking and brain are separate. Furthermore, discussion of separability creates several advantages that make dualism more attractive to my eyes.

Another argument of dualism is that dualism is necessary for free will. If dualism is wrong it may be materialism and the assertion that mankind is a completely material life is true. (We do not think idealism - just discuss ideas and ideas.) If materialism is true, every movement of the body should be determined by the laws of physics that determine all behavior and reactions of the universe. However, being strong free will assume not only acting exactly as we wanted, but also being free. Natural law can not solve why this is necessary for us. According to a dualist, heart is not important, so you do not need to think that it is bound by the physical law governing the body. Therefore, a strong free will is compatible with dualism, but it is incompatible with materialism. (See Taylor, 1983, p 11; Rey, 1997, pp. 52-53)

One type of dualism argument consists of standard opposition to physicalism. The main example is based on the existence of qualia, the most important being the so-called "discussion of knowledge". Since this parameter has its own entry (see entry qualia: see knowledge parameter), it is handled relatively easily here. But all discussions on physi- calism are also irreducible and non-critical arguments of the mind, and considering the existence of the material world, do not forget that it is a dualist argument.

Philosophers and scientists such as Victor Reppert, William Hasker and Alvin Plantinga have proposed dualism arguments called "rational arguments". They believe in C. S. Lewis and first argue in his "miracle" book; Lewis calls it "difficulty of naturalist", this is the title of the third chapter of the miracle. The argument assumes that there is no reason to believe that if all our thoughts are affected by physical reasons, it is the result of a reasonable basis, as naturalism requires. However, inference from the ground to the result can understand the knowledge. So if naturalism is the truth, there is no way to know it other than luck.