RESPONSE PAPER 5, PART 2 POSTINGS
FOR INSTRUCTIONS PLEASE SEE
 http://philosophy.kslinker.com/Response%20Paper%20Instructions%20PHIL%201301.html


A. When it comes to monism, everything is made up of matter. We know that everything in the universe is made up of atoms. Even the nature of our mental plane can be tracked through brain screening and seeing electricity movements throughout the brain. The very thoughts you are having now as you're reading this is just different material in motion inside of your brain. Atoms can not be created nor destroyed and there's no evidence to prove otherwise thus everything on a base level is truly made up of matter.



B. Philosopher Credo asserts: The boundless universe is difficult to analyze we are the only lives in existence. Materialism (another form of Monism) is only one kind of substance in the universe and only material substance exists. The Femi’s paradox is the apparent contradiction between high estimates of the probability of the existence of extraterrestrial civilization and humanity’s lack of contact with, or evidence for, such civilizations (wiki). This argument was made by physicists Enrico Fermi. Fermi argues that Earth should have already been visited by other civilians but no evidence has been made or signs of intelligence. He questions, “Where is everybody?”  Though, where did wecome from? If we were made of materials like atoms and particles that are just what make of the universe, how can we hypothesize that extraterrestrial is non-existing? There is evidence that we did not control when we first bloomed on Earth, therefore we cannot predict our future. It follows the uniformity of physical laws.   Femi is in denial that there is “intelligent” purpose and non-physical entities. If atoms and it’s particles (which we are made of) were spread around the universe and in the universe we have not yet discovered, there must be a form of life therefore, we cannot conclude this argument with illogical reasoning.



C. For the reasons being, we can argue the possibility for the mind to exist with or without the body does not mean we can jump to the conclusion and claim free will absolutely means that a soul does exist, we can prove it is true a soul must have free will to exist. Free will is the ability to deny, natural laws or physical laws that physical material is subject to, without the consent of our body. Since we have free will, and nothing that has determinism also has free will then it must be that since all physical systems are subject to determinism then we are not physical material. Even if we can in fact prove that free will does not exist thus it is only an illusion, we can still state free will and determinism cannot exist together, therefore it must be true that we are in fact physical material which also concludes the soul to be not plausible. In turn, we can argue what if it is true, free will does exist with deterministic laws and we look down into the macro level and identify that both do can in fact exist together, this still does not prove sufficient evidence of soul to exist because just because we can imagine something to exist separately does not mean that they actually can exist separately. So the argument goes, because our minds are separate from the body it goes to show we can’t be a physical entity because no physicals entity can have free will, but since we do have free will, we must be something more than a physical object. Hence, it is reasonable to say the mind is different from the body because we can surely examine our ability to make decisions that do not fall under a type of deterministic law. We can view an atom all the way down to the macro level and study it until we prove we are in fact deterministic, then that only proves we do not have a soul because since free will does not exist, neither does a soul. However since it is true that all physical objects are subject to deterministic or physical laws than it must be true we are not physical entities if we have free will. Yet, this only proves that our mind and body are different functions, this does not prove the existence of a soul. Stating we cannot prove something to exist or not to exist is not the same thing as stating it does indeed exists or not exists. In other words, because we can imagine one without the other then it must be true they are separate things. For instance, the mind can imagine itself without the body but just because the mind can imagine itself without the body does not mean the mind can exist without the body, this only means they are separate thoughts, functions or ideas. Descartes states, “the mind and the body must be two logically distinct things and they cannot be the same thing because we imagined our mind existing without a body,” however If A exist but B does not exist then it has to follow that they are separate entities but just because we can imagine something does not make it true. The fact that we can imagine dragons, or demons, or ghost does not make the ideas created to morph these images in our mind, does not make them dependable to claim as realistic. In order for a soul to exist as said before, it takes all the premises above made to conclude that the soul exist and since each one can be challenged then we have to consider just because a soul is not proven to be existent does not make it plausible of it to exist. Therefore, the idea that a soul exist based on everyday functions of the mind such as emotions or even so, unnatural things such as, encounters with the dead, seeing bright lights before you die, or super natural beings, can in fact be true however these premises will all have a scientific explanation in which weakens their argument so then, we then have a choice to decide which idea holds more reliability. The physical-ism view point, that we are just a body that can do a certain array of activities or the point of Dualism, a body and a soul exist. According to Credo, the physical stand point is most undeniably reasonable to agree with as true rather then the belief of a soul to exist with it's many uncertain explanations.