Substance dualism, why is it still a thing?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
03-09-2015, 05:31 PM (This post was last modified: 03-09-2015 06:00 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: Substance dualism, why is it still a thing?
(03-09-2015 06:29 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(02-09-2015 04:36 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:   must resist must resist must resist ... do not try do not try do not try do not do try do

Sorry, we can produce the necessary changes in brain chemistry to invoke the sense of NDE's and out of body experiences. Indicating that they aren't actually anything other than alterations in brain chemistry and are not actually metaphysical in any way.

Better, Girly?

No no BeardedClam you misunderstand me. So let's say hypothetically that I have access to industrial strength magnets ranging from say 100 lbs. lift to 5000 lbs. What is the minimally effective NDE dose? And what is the LD50? And what kinda helmet should I attach them to?

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-09-2015, 05:33 PM (This post was last modified: 03-09-2015 05:44 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: Substance dualism, why is it still a thing?
(03-09-2015 06:09 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(02-09-2015 04:34 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  The only rational position for a skeptic is idealism. Immanuel Kant would be so disappointed.

I'm not familiar with idealism. But would the objection of a idealist be to a physicalist? Or a property dualist?

I don't understand how you can even be discussing this without ever having heard of idealism? And why would you even post that instead of just googling it? You want your credibility questioned?

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-09-2015, 05:47 PM
RE: Substance dualism, why is it still a thing?
(03-09-2015 05:31 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(03-09-2015 06:29 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Sorry, we can produce the necessary changes in brain chemistry to invoke the sense of NDE's and out of body experiences. Indicating that they aren't actually anything other than alterations in brain chemistry and are not actually metaphysical in any way.

Better, Girly?

No no BeardedClam you misunderstand me. So let's say hypothetically that I have access to industrial strength magnets ranging from say 100 lbs. lift to 5000 lbs. What dosage is optimal? Lacking that, what is the LD50? And what kinda helmet should I attach them to?

Don't make me call Manly. Angry

living word
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes houseofcantor's post
03-09-2015, 05:48 PM
RE: Substance dualism, why is it still a thing?
(03-09-2015 03:06 PM)epronovost Wrote:  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?

There is nothing to debate. Substance dualism is untenable. No plausible mechanism of interaction for the mind/body has ever been proposed (the pineal gland is not a plausible mechanism of interaction). Until one has, there is nothing to debate.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-09-2015, 07:17 PM
RE: Substance dualism, why is it still a thing?
Girly, Stanley Koren and Michael Persinger published their results, with reference to the strength of the fields used to induce these reactions via the "God Helmet".

Indeed, here it is: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.31...9009027758

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes RocketSurgeon76's post
03-09-2015, 07:19 PM
RE: Substance dualism, why is it still a thing?
(03-09-2015 07:17 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  Girly, Stanley Koren and Michael Persinger published their results, with reference to the strength of the fields used to induce these reactions via the "God Helmet".

Indeed, here it is: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.31...9009027758

Why are you encouraging him? When Manly comes here cause Girly's all vaporized in the garage, I'm gonna point her in your direction. Angel

living word
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like houseofcantor's post
03-09-2015, 10:17 PM
RE: Substance dualism, why is it still a thing?
[Image: th?id=JN.Zm%2b09y7XH%2bUl0pe9rHekJw&...;amp;h=300]

[Image: canvas11c-w484h484z1-45952-because-science.jpg]

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes RocketSurgeon76's post
04-09-2015, 06:06 AM (This post was last modified: 04-09-2015 06:10 AM by Tomasia.)
RE: Substance dualism, why is it still a thing?
(03-09-2015 03:06 PM)epronovost Wrote:  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.

I won't bother quibbling over whether he was as controversial as Jimmy Carter or not.

Quote: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».

It seems you'er describing eliminative materialism, not emergent. Emergent Materialism while not an entirely coherent concept, attempts to distinguish between the physical and the mental. It hold the mind as irreducible, though it emerged from physical properties. The emergence of the mind created new properties that cannot be reducible to the physical properties they emerged from. It sounds a lot like property dualism. It's functionally the same at least, though with some minor tweaks to it's foundational assumptions.

Eliminative Materialism, is when we're speaking of folks like Daniel Denett, and Rosenberg, or Jerry Coyne. in which it all can be reducible to physics. Here there is no distinction between the physical and the mental. That chemistry in the brain is governed by the laws of physics just like everything else. That it has no special property or quality that makes it anything less than other physical feature of the world, and are governed by the same laws that govern everything else.

Quote: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?

It does serve the purpose. It's just a direct route to your criticism. Because if it's all based on an endorsement of eliminativism, we can just cut to the chase, rather than taking the long route.

Because at the end of the day what we're left with here is the position, that non-cartesian substance dualism is false, because eliminativism is true. Where as I would be claiming that my non-cartesian substance dualism is true, because eliminativism is false.

"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
04-09-2015, 06:28 AM
RE: Substance dualism, why is it still a thing?
@Tomasia

Emergent materialism differs from eliminative materialism in its interest in macro intellectual structures AKA society, religion and culture while the other only interest itself on the individual. Eliminative materialism also infers that many experiences of the brain are mere illusions which isn't exactly something I would ascribe to. At least not explained in such a fashion. Being both materialist school, they have the same argument against substance dualism. But, if you wanted quick access to my critique of substance dualism, you didn't needed to know my own position on the subject. Just make a quick research on substance dualism itself. You will realised it has more than half a dozen critiques from various fields of science and school of philosophy. Even if I don't subscribe to idealism by personal preference, their critiques of substance dualism are extremely viable in my opinion so is the critique of existentialism. Aquinas work received extensive critiques from medieval, modern and contemporary era philosophers of pretty much every single school of thoughts all of which are rather pertinent. That would have cut the chase a lot. Then again, RocketSurgeon76, Unbeliever, GirlyMan, Chas and me presented a pretty a good portion of those opposition from post 1. I know it can help to have them in formal form, but I thought we did a pretty good job at representing them.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-09-2015, 07:22 AM
RE: Substance dualism, why is it still a thing?
(04-09-2015 06:28 AM)epronovost Wrote:  @Tomasia

Emergent materialism differs from eliminative materialism in its interest in macro intellectual structures AKA society, religion and culture while the other only interest itself on the individual.

The difference is not in interest. The difference between emergent and eliminative, is a belief in an imaginary line that separates the macro from the micro. It's functionally the same as property dualism. The only real difference in essence is that the parallel dualism of emergent beliefs, arose by the emergence of the mind, and that they wouldn't call it dualism.

Quote:Eliminative materialism also infers that many experiences of the brain are mere illusions which isn't exactly something I would ascribe to.

Yea, but the likely reason for why you don't ascribe to it, is primarily because you don't like it, rather than because eliminative position being inaccurate. If I'm going to reject non-cartesian substance dualism, I'm not going to settle for emergence, I'm gonna push past that line, follow it to it's logical ends, which is elimantivism. And that would requires me to see a variety of things like morality, free-will, etc.. as illusions, even though it seems you have trouble with that as well.

But if atheists such as yourself are reluctant to accept what I see as the only viable alternative here, than I don't see a reason why I should be any less reluctant to believe what they find unbelievable.

For you there likely exists a variety of other equally viable alternatives, for me there's only two, and that others are just sort of half thoughts, that are even less compelling than the others. You're not going to particularly convince me to reject non-cartesian substance dualism, and settle on some thing like emergent materialism. To me the only position that attempts to work out the Materialist frame work all the way to it's end is elimantivism.

I'm in agreement with Coyne here, that all the science in principle must to reducible to the laws of physics, unless you're religious.

Which I am. But you're not.

Quote:Aquinas work received extensive critiques from medieval, modern and contemporary era philosophers of pretty much every single school of thoughts all of which are rather pertinent. That would have cut the chase a lot.

If you're just stating the obvious that atheists philosophers reject Aquinas, than that's to be expected. Religious philosophers tend not to, in fact the two most significant philosopher of our time, like Alasdair Macintyre, and Charles Taylor are Thomsians themselves.

Descartes on the other hand has been rejected by both religious and secular philosophers and theologians. While Aquinas even among protestants is not that dismissible.

"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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: