Nagel's "Framework" Argument Explained

Which of the following is neither a premise nor the conclusion of Nagel's "framework" argument?

a. We can understand how physicalism might be true only if we have a theoretical framework that explains how phenomenal properties, which seem subjective, might really be objective, physical properties.

b. My mind and body are distinct.

c. We have no theoretical framework that explains how phenomenal properties, which seem subjective, might really be objective, physical properties.

d. We cannot understand how physicalism might be true.

Final Answer: b. My mind and body are distinct.

Option b introduces dualism, which is unrelated to Nagel's framework argument focused on reconciling physicalism with phenomenal properties.

In Nagel's "framework" argument, the central point revolves around the need for a theoretical framework to reconcile phenomenal properties with physicalism. The argument's premises and conclusion are as follows:

a. We can understand how physicalism might be true only if we have a theoretical framework that explains how phenomenal properties, which seem subjective, might really be objective, physical properties.

c. We have no theoretical framework that explains how phenomenal properties, which seem subjective, might really be objective, physical properties.

d. We cannot understand how physicalism might be true.

The elements presented in options a, c, and d are either premises or integral components of the argument's conclusion. Option b, however, stands apart from the argument's core theme as it introduces the notion that "My mind and body are distinct." This is a dualism concept rather than a component of Nagel's framework argument. It's essential to recognize that the argument doesn't focus on the nature of the mind-body relationship but rather on the framework required to reconcile physicalism with phenomenal properties. Therefore, option b does not serve as either a premise or a conclusion in Nagel's "framework" argument.