Substance dualism, why is it still a thing?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
03-09-2015, 10:27 AM
RE: Substance dualism, why is it still a thing?
(03-09-2015 09:23 AM)epronovost Wrote:  That's why the critique isn't on their ignorance of biology, but on the fact that your usage of their philosophy commits the fallacy of stolen concept.

(03-09-2015 10:08 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  I don’t think Aquinas was in the business of solving issues with substance dualism, since the issues didn’t really exist for him at the time.

Huh

fucking philosophy. Big Grin

living word
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-09-2015, 10:48 AM
RE: Substance dualism, why is it still a thing?
@Tomasia

Actually, yes, Aquinas was trying to solve issues with substance dualism raised by people of his time. For example, the argument from simplicity frequently associate with William of Ockham, who lived half a century after Aquinas, but who was still inspired by the work of earlier theologian and philosophers who raised similar issues if not in such a systematic and precise fashion.

Our understanding of what it means to be humans is indeed superior to what it was in the past simply because we came into contact and have more dialogue between people and civilisations in a single day of 2015 than in a century a few centuries ago. Exchanging more ideas, having more debate and challenging our perceptions forces to expand our knowledge and revoke cultural bias (that thing you don't believe I know). We also learned a lot about nature and our place in it. Since I started this thread we exchanged about 30 posts between one another in three days or so. That much exchange would have taken about two years by post mail 50 years ago.

Property dualism isn't substance dualism. Property dualism doesn't support substance dualism it denies it. Cartesian dualism is a form of substance dualism which isn't property dualism either. The subject of the debate here is substance dualism and more importantly the existence of a soul that can survive after the death of the body. What Aquinas supported was a primitive form of Property dualism for which he was chastise by the Church. Even more modern Property dualism has a fatal flaw. It recognise that everything is material, but everything material can be separated in mental propriety and physical propriety. In the case of the human mind, this is false. It's impossible to tell the difference between a mental propriety and a physical propriety because the brain chemistry and interactions has been demonstrated to produce everything that happen in there. Thus the mental propriety are in fact physical by nature. They emerge from the material propriety and are undistinguishable from it. You could redefine a bit mental and physical propriety to salvage Property dualism from that flaw, but doing so would bring you further and further away from substance dualism and further and further away from Aquinas, Aristotle and the idea of a soul.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes epronovost's post
03-09-2015, 12:55 PM
RE: Substance dualism, why is it still a thing?
(03-09-2015 10:48 AM)epronovost Wrote:  @Tomasia

Actually, yes, Aquinas was trying to solve issues with substance dualism raised by people of his time. For example, the argument from simplicity frequently associate with William of Ockham, who lived half a century after Aquinas, but who was still inspired by the work of earlier theologian and philosophers who raised similar issues if not in such a systematic and precise fashion.

Our understanding of what it means to be humans is indeed superior to what it was in the past simply because we came into contact and have more dialogue between people and civilisations in a single day of 2015 than in a century a few centuries ago. Exchanging more ideas, having more debate and challenging our perceptions forces to expand our knowledge and revoke cultural bias (that thing you don't believe I know). We also learned a lot about nature and our place in it. Since I started this thread we exchanged about 30 posts between one another in three days or so. That much exchange would have taken about two years by post mail 50 years ago.

Property dualism isn't substance dualism. Property dualism doesn't support substance dualism it denies it. Cartesian dualism is a form of substance dualism which isn't property dualism either. The subject of the debate here is substance dualism and more importantly the existence of a soul that can survive after the death of the body. What Aquinas supported was a primitive form of Property dualism for which he was chastise by the Church. Even more modern Property dualism has a fatal flaw. It recognise that everything is material, but everything material can be separated in mental propriety and physical propriety. In the case of the human mind, this is false. It's impossible to tell the difference between a mental propriety and a physical propriety because the brain chemistry and interactions has been demonstrated to produce everything that happen in there. Thus the mental propriety are in fact physical by nature. They emerge from the material propriety and are undistinguishable from it. You could redefine a bit mental and physical propriety to salvage Property dualism from that flaw, but doing so would bring you further and further away from substance dualism and further and further away from Aquinas, Aristotle and the idea of a soul.

I think Property Dualism is even less coherent than Substance Dualism.

These proposed "mental properties" are merely Platonism dressed up in a modern clown suit.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
03-09-2015, 01:31 PM
RE: Substance dualism, why is it still a thing?
(03-09-2015 10:48 AM)epronovost Wrote:  What Aquinas supported was a primitive form of Property dualism for which he was chastise by the Church.

Aquinas was condemned by an over zealous Bishop of Paris, which was over turned a less than a century later, and deemed as a saint by Pope John XII about 50 years after his death.

The church didn’t have a problem with Aquinos, prior to his condemnation by the bishop of Paris, he was already n revered Catholic theologian. He was requested to serve as the Papal theologian by Pope Clement IV. And was asked by Pope Gregory X to attend the Second Council of Lyon, this was all after the publication as Summa Theologiae , and prior to his condemnation by the bishop of Paris.

Aquinas wasn’t condemned by the Church, he was condemned by the Bishop of Paris, and redeemed by Pope John XII shorty afterwords, as a saint. And in fact it was oppositions to the philosophical movement Descrates inspired, that Church turned to Aquinas as the counter perspective, and the foundation of Catholic theology. It was Descartes whose work was placed by the Pope’s Index of Prohibited Books.

Descartes influence was primarily on Western Philosophy, in fact enlightenment thought, and not a representation of Christian thought on the subject. So I think your history might be a bit off here.

Quote:subject of the debate here is substance dualism and more importantly the existence of a soul that can survive after the death of the body. …..You could redefine a bit mental and physical propriety to salvage Property dualism from that flaw, but doing so would bring you further and further away from substance dualism and further and further away from Aquinas, Aristotle and the idea of a soul.

It should be noted that Aristotle’s view of the soul was that it was mortal, while Aquinas view was that’s immoral. But he also believed that our souls in heaven don’t exist disembodied, but acquiring a new body, like St. Paul wrote: “In our present bodies, and we long to put on our heavenly bodies like new clothing. 3 For we will put on heavenly bodies; we will not be spirits without bodies.[a] 4 While we live in these earthly bodies, we groan and sigh, but it’s not that we want to die and get rid of these bodies that clothe us. Rather, we want to put on our new bodies so that these dying bodies will be swallowed up by life (2 Cor 5).”


This isn’t Property Dualism, but it isn’t Cartesian Dualism either. The only thing being rejected here is the treatment of Cartesian Dualism, as synonymous with Substance Dualism. In relationship to Cartesian Dualism, the Catholic view, would be more closely resembles property dualism (this doesn’t mean that’s it a version of property dualism either).

It’s also should be note that Aquinas view is faithful to Pauline perspective as well.

Quote:It's impossible to tell the difference between a mental propriety and a physical propriety because the brain chemistry and interactions has been demonstrated to produce everything that happen in there. Thus the mental propriety are in fact physical by nature.

It’s not very clear to me which position you’re arguing from. Are you discrediting both property and substance dualism here with physicalist perspectives? Are you physicalist yourself?

If not i’m too sure how am I’m suppose to respond to a criticism, if you’re not compelled to believe in the perspective in which your criticizing mine from? I’m suppose to responding to a hypothetical physicalist?

If you’re arguing that mental properties and in fact physical properties, than that’s not property dualism, but physicalism. And in the end you would not be merely suggesting that it all reduces to neurochemistry in the brain, but that it all reduces to physics, that physics is the whole truth of reality.

If you don’t believe that, and if your criticism breaks down to the the fact that it ‘incompatible with the view that physics is whole truth of reality. Than so what? If you’re not compelled to believe this, than why should I be bothered by this?

Quote:Our understanding of what it means to be humans is indeed superior to what it was in the past simply because we came into contact and have more dialogue between people and civilisations in a single day of 2015 than in a century a few centuries ago. Exchanging more ideas, having more debate and challenging our perceptions forces to expand our knowledge and revoke cultural bias (that thing you don't believe I know). We also learned a lot about nature and our place in it. Since I started this thread we exchanged about 30 posts between one another in three days or so. That much exchange would have taken about two years by post mail 50 years ago.


Even these dialogues which could go on endlessly reveals almost next to nothing about you as a person. We’re still going to exist as strangers by the end of it. And even though we have the capacity to communicate with an endless amount of people all over, these communications, these connections are almost entirely superficial.

A real and concrete understanding of humanity isn’t acquired by reading a book about them, it’s by living in intimate relationship among them. We haven’t become a more deeply rich communities, if anything the trend is to become more isolated. Communal structures have eroded, we haven’t replaced every empty church, with the humanist gathering to take its place. We don’t get all dirty to aid the orphans and the widows, we differ to those state for those interactions.

If you think that any modern thinker, or scientist, has acquired a greater understanding of humanity than someone like Dostoevsky, than you’re kidding yourself. When a philosopher like Alex Rosenberg takes the variety of observations made by neuroscience, and biology to compose his view of humanity, he’s rightfully deemed a fool, and not a man with a deep insight into what it means to be human, but a man who has no clue as to what that means.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-09-2015, 01:48 PM
RE: Substance dualism, why is it still a thing?
@Tomasia

On Aquinas life, it's pretty clear that he was a controversial figure for many at sat at the center of a power struggle between various theologians of the Church. He ultimately was vindicated and is now considered central to the doctrine of the Catholic Church and a major philosopher of his time especially for his position on dualism which was indeed designed to counter some argument made against.

How come you don't understand the position from which I am arguing from? I stated four or five times already that on this issue I am an emergent materialist which makes me a de facto physcalist. Are you reading, trying to understand me, or trying to escape me? No wonder you think our interactions in millions of other similar to that don't enrich our experience and vision of humanity. If you don't learn anything about me in those exchanges, I would say you have poor social skills. Food for thought, while you read people like Aquinas, Plato, Aristotle and others, remember they considered half of humanity to be subhuman. It seems we have learned better since then.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-09-2015, 01:51 PM
RE: Substance dualism, why is it still a thing?
(03-09-2015 01:48 PM)epronovost Wrote:  I am an emergent materialist which makes me a de facto physcalist.

I apologized I may have missed that part, and perhaps confused your with Unbeliever.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-09-2015, 02:02 PM
RE: Substance dualism, why is it still a thing?
@Tomasia

Possible, there has been some exchanges between the three of us at some point. I don't to what kind of physicalism he adhere though.

PS: We are sidetracking again with the debate around Aquinas reputation and Dostoevsky vision of humanity compared to let say Albert Camus or Hermin Zola (two atheist french writters in the same vein). This constitute a appeal to emotion and to what we consider humanity. Let's get back on track. Substance dualism has no support in the real world and hold itself mearly through faith in its existance motivated by the idea of an afterlife.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-09-2015, 02:03 PM
RE: Substance dualism, why is it still a thing?
(02-09-2015 06:12 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(03-09-2015 01:51 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  [quote='epronovost' pid='847345' dateline='1441309721']
I am an emergent materialist which makes me a de facto physcalist.

I apologized I may have missed that part, and perhaps confused your with Unbeliever.

I am also an emergent materialist, so no, you didn't.

It isn't really relevant, though, since the discussion is about substance dualism and whether or not there is any rational basis for supporting it.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-09-2015, 02:37 PM
RE: Substance dualism, why is it still a thing?
(03-09-2015 01:48 PM)epronovost Wrote:  @Tomasia

On Aquinas life, it's pretty clear that he was a controversial figure for many at sat at the center of a power struggle between various theologians of the Church. He ultimately was vindicated and is now considered central to the doctrine of the Catholic Church and a major philosopher of his time especially for his position on dualism which was indeed designed to counter some argument made against.

Not, really, he had some issues with some of his colleagues when he was the Administrative Head at the University of Paris, and was a victim of Bishop of Paris attempt to weed out Averroism (which Aquinas also strongly opposed). But I think it would difficult to classify a guy who was placed as the head of a Catholic University, asked by the Pope himself to the be the Papal Theologian, and attend the Ecumenical Council, deemed a saint by the Church 50 years after his death, and has his master work, Summa Theological placed on alter alongside the Bible, was all that controversial.

He’s always been a highly regarded individual within the catholic church during his life, and particularly after his death.

Quote:How come you don't understand the position from which I am arguing from? I stated four or five times already that on this issue I am an emergent materialist which makes me a de facto physcalist. Are you reading, trying to understand me, or trying to escape me?

Can you distinguish for me what makes your emergent materialism distinct from property dualism, as well as eliminative materialism? In regards to the mind body problem, I’m curious.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-09-2015, 03:06 PM
RE: Substance dualism, why is it still a thing?
@Tomasia

Last bit about Aquinas, in the context of the power struggle between the papacy and his bishops at the time, the sectarianism that boiled under the surface of the Catholic Church and the importance and influence of Aquinas during his lifetime and after, he was controversial. He was controversial like Jimmy Carter was controversial, not the crazy lunatic kind of controversial.

For the benefit of your education and general curiosity, I would explain briefly the difference between emergent materialism vs property dualism in this way. Property dualism explain that the human mind is physical in nature, but that nature can be separated in physical property and mind property. Each are distinct part of the physical brain. It's thus very close to materialism, but still linked to dualism because of the notion that both property can be distinguished. Emergent materialism explain that the human mind is physical in nature and that there is no separation between mind and physical property. It states that what Property dualism would refer to has mind property arise from physical property which makes the two fundamentally indistinguishable.

It's easier to picture in a graphic form, but I am too incompetent to link you one now (sorry). But imagine property dualism has circle representing physical nature splitting in two equal circles named physical property and mind property. Emergent materialism would have a single circle representing physical nature linked by a single line to physical property which is in turn linked to mind property. That's if they were using the same concepts to describe each other’s (it's not the case). The difference is at the level of subordination of what property dualism refers to as mind property. Property dualism makes a clear cut difference between thoughts, emotions, dreams etc. and the brain physical structure. Emergent materialism state that thoughts, emotions, dreams, etc. are part of the brain physical structure in the form neuro-chemical interactions and thus arise naturally from a living brain. As for eliminative materialism and emergent materialism I don't see them having a big clash. It's mostly down to what process eliminative materialism wishes to «eliminate».

All this is quite interesting, but serves no purpose when we are debating substance dualism and its utter lack of any support outside of the musing of our minds. Can we return to the core of the subject now?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: