What does the conceivability argument 'at least' prove?

Question

Dualists have used the conceivability argument to back up their position but what does it prove to be necessarilly true
rather that what is possible?

Answer 1

Let me define my terms for a second, so we know we're all talking about the same thing:

One common argument for the idea of mind-body dualism is sometimes called the 'conceivability argument'. This suggests that even though our ideas of the world tend to correspond to real-world phenomenon, we might imagine an identical real-world populated by people whose ideas do NOT correspond... or perhaps who have no ideas whatsoever. Because we can imagine this situation, it is suggested, this means that our ideas of 'mind' are intrinsically separate from our ideas of 'reality', and perhaps that the two things ARE separate.

Having said all that, the very minimum that the 'conceivability argument' really MUST prove is that people THINK that they can imagine these hypothetical situations. It does NOT prove that their imagination is accurate nor that such a situation can possibly exist.

One way I like to use to demonstrate this is the idea of a perfect sphere. It's not hard to imagine a craftsman fashioning a set of metallic spheres that were so exacting that one could not tell the difference between that and a mathematically perfect sphere. Yet we all KNOW that no metallic sphere can really be mathematically perfect... it is made up of atoms and not infinitesimal points.

Thus we can demonstrate that even though something may SEEM to correlate exactly with an idea, that doesn't mean it really DOES. Some ideas (like perfect spheres) seem IMPOSSIBLE to translate into the real world.

To make matters worse, it is quite possible that our own conceptions of new ideas are completely false. Probably every one of us has imagined some event we were about to attend, and found the real thing to be quite different from our imaginings. Just because I can image the city of Paris with elephants freely roaming the streets, and it's even physically possible to construct such a scenario, it hardly means that my imagining is even vaguly an accurate picture of Paris (even without the elephants).

So even if we can conceive of a body without a mind, it doesn't mean that such a thing can be. It doesn't even mean our conception is an accurate depiction of what we're trying to imagine. All it means is that we THINK we can imagine it. Which isn't much meaning at all.

Answer 2

At least implies a minimal condition. If that condition is attained then it must exist. That is to say, if the condition exists, the truth is verifiable.

Answer 3

Ever notice how people say "I'm sorry" alot, after stating a harsh, but not necessarily unrealistic or true opinion?

I think it's awful.

Atleast proves that when it comes to arguing, if you do it properly, you are never wrong.