A simple is something that lacks proper parts. An extended simple is a simple that occupies a region of space that is more than a point.
- If I am not simple, then I think with a proper part of me.
- I do not think with a proper part of me.
- So, I am a simple.
- I am extended.
- So, I am an extended simple.
- So, there is an extended simple.
While I am inclined to accept (6), I find the argument for (2) weak. I would find it stronger if one could conclude from the fact that I think with A that A thinks, but I don't see that that follows.
Maybe a better argument:
- No particle occupies just one point.
- All particles occupy space.
- Some particles are simple.
- Something that occupies space but does not occupy just one point is extended.
- So, there is an extended simple.
Here, I am actually not sure of (10).
2 comments:
[First: (3) Should be "I am a simple."]
The first argument seems to hinge on the claim that "thinking" is something done by a simple.
Compare: "If I am not a simple, then I swim with a proper part of me." Well, in one way yes and in one way no: I certainly use proper parts of me in swimming, but it is not like they could do the swimming in the absence of me, or the rest of me.
One might hold that "thinking" like "swimming" is something done by a non-simple but in such an organic way that no strictly proper part of me could do it.
I think swimming may be more holistic than thinking. If I were reduced to just a head-and-soul, I would continue to think. Moreover, as long as the sensory input through the neck was unchanged, my thinking wouldn't substantially change--I might not even notice the change.
Post a Comment