Substance dualism, why is it still a thing?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
31-08-2015, 06:25 AM
RE: Substance dualism, why is it still a thing?
(30-08-2015 11:04 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(30-08-2015 09:00 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  For the same reason people think there's some sort of clear sense of thinking, referred to as rational thinking. A belief that we're able think in a state free of certain neurochemical responses that exist for those that we deem as not thinking clearly.

For the same reason folks are not inclined to believe we're not moist robots. That we're composed of stuff that makes us more than that.

Dualism has some deep intuitive qualities, that keep us from rejecting it fully, and accepting the scientific image.

Who is this 'us' of whom you speak?

Many of us here entirely and utterly reject substance dualism as incoherent.

And, yes, of course we are greater than the sum of our parts. Look up 'emergent properties'. Drinking Beverage

Well, us is definitely doesn't include you. You have your own separate category. Of folks who are just too confused to figure out whether they side with substance dualism or materialistic monism. You can't seem to bring in to you to believe in one or the other, to commit to any of these views at all.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-08-2015, 07:12 AM (This post was last modified: 31-08-2015 10:13 AM by Unbeliever.)
RE: Substance dualism, why is it still a thing?
(31-08-2015 06:25 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(30-08-2015 11:04 PM)Chas Wrote:  Who is this 'us' of whom you speak?

Many of us here entirely and utterly reject substance dualism as incoherent.

And, yes, of course we are greater than the sum of our parts. Look up 'emergent properties'. Drinking Beverage

Well, us is definitely doesn't include you. You have your own separate category.

"No. Not alone."

"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
[+] 1 user Likes Unbeliever's post
31-08-2015, 07:30 AM
RE: Substance dualism, why is it still a thing?
(31-08-2015 06:20 AM)epronovost Wrote:  I would ask you to go in greater detail on those point. Your pick-up lines on dualism failed to make me understand your strain of thought (I assume you believe in substance dualism).

Yes, like mostly all religious folks I do subscribe to some form of substance dualism. But I've only recently subscribed to that label. I've been pushed into that position of substance dualism not by theist, but folks who are still inclined to define themselves as atheists, like Thomas Nagel, and David Chalmers. And also because the alternative to it, Materialistic Monism/Physicalism, i.e embracing "physics as the whole truth about reality.” or as Jerry Coyne: "The view that all sciences are in principle reducible to the laws of physics, must be true unless you’re religious", tends to become a form of self-parody.

It's seems quite hard to find actual atheists here who subscribe to the Physicalist view of reality, such as the one illustrated by Alex Rosenberg, those who are familiar with his work are more prone to label his views as extremist, or as Leon Wieseltier put it, a "fool".

Quote:Rational thinking was amongst the easiest brain process to understand. We know what area of the brain controls it and even fight disease like dementia that affect it and discovered the case of individual that saw that particular portion of their brain damaged/destroyed yet survived, but now have no capacity for impulse control and insight.

So there's sets of neurons in the brain that correspond to rational thinking? That if we were to scan my brain, it would show that when I claim that God exists, that this is not derived by these same set of neurons? That this belief is derived by a process of irrational thinking?

If a belief in God is a irrational, and atheism is the only rational position, do you actually believe that one day we'd be able to prove this is the case by looking at brain scans? Do you think one day we'd be able to look at brain scans, and distinguish when biases are present in our thinking, and when they are not?

Quote:Maybe people should reconsider what robots are. When they describe people has moist robot, they most likely think to science-fiction robot not actual modern day robot. I guess they should watch or read the bicentennial man. I personally just watch the movie. It's a bit tacky but good and ask a pertinent question on what it is that makes us so human.

I think Ex-machina would be a far better movie example.

A better example of a moist robot is my dog. As much as I try and figure out a way that's he's not, I end up being stuck with a belief that he is.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-08-2015, 08:02 AM
RE: Substance dualism, why is it still a thing?
@Tomasia

We seemed to have located the section of the brain responsible for faith by studying a group of nuns back in 2006. It's indeed not linked to the «reason center» of the brain, but more with the one we use to create relationship and analyse emotion. This would explain why most proheminent theist apologist have faith due to personnal revelation/conviction of the truth of scripture (be it in a littereal or inspired fashion). I don't think any of them has faith because of the Kalam or Cosmological argument for the existence of God. Christian are not completly wrong when they say they have a relationship with Jesus/God. It is central to how human perceive faith in a deity. Has an atheist I simply think they have a relationship with an imaginary character in the same fashion I relate to characters of fiction.

Has for if one day we will be able to use neuroscience and brain scan to «read and analyse thoughts», I have absolutly no clue. The problem with our brain is that even though they are fonctionnaly and structurally pretty much all identical (provided you are healthy) it has evolved to become one of the most, if not the most, versatile tool in nature. There are thousands of ways to arrive to the same conclusion and millions of variances possible on a single theme. Our scanning device are far too imprecise for that kind of use. Since your faith is exclusive to you, it will have its own varience and follow and display in a unique way in your brain. Right now, neuroscience can only very broadly determine how you feel what you are trying to do, but not much else and still with some margin of error. We will have to patient on this perticular point.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes epronovost's post
31-08-2015, 08:12 AM
RE: Substance dualism, why is it still a thing?
(31-08-2015 06:25 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(30-08-2015 11:04 PM)Chas Wrote:  Who is this 'us' of whom you speak?

Many of us here entirely and utterly reject substance dualism as incoherent.

And, yes, of course we are greater than the sum of our parts. Look up 'emergent properties'. Drinking Beverage

Well, us is definitely doesn't include you. You have your own separate category. Of folks who are just too confused to figure out whether they side with substance dualism or materialistic monism. You can't seem to bring in to you to believe in one or the other, to commit to any of these views at all.

You seem to have a real problem with anyone who won't commit to any of your generally false dichotomies. Consider

You seem unable to be agnostic about anything at all.

I believe I have stated more than once, and certainly consistently take the position, that I am a materialist/physicalist who doesn't necessarily subscribe to anyone else's Physicalism or Materialism.

I don't see how you can possibly be confused about the position of someone who states unequivocally that substance dualism is incoherent.
In simple terms, it is crazy talk, magical thinking, unsupportable horseshit. Drinking Beverage

Clear enough for you? Consider

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
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
31-08-2015, 08:20 AM
RE: Substance dualism, why is it still a thing?
(31-08-2015 07:30 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(31-08-2015 06:20 AM)epronovost Wrote:  I would ask you to go in greater detail on those point. Your pick-up lines on dualism failed to make me understand your strain of thought (I assume you believe in substance dualism).

Yes, like mostly all religious folks I do subscribe to some form of substance dualism. But I've only recently subscribed to that label. I've been pushed into that position of substance dualism not by theist, but folks who are still inclined to define themselves as atheists, like Thomas Nagel, and David Chalmers. And also because the alternative to it, Materialistic Monism/Physicalism, i.e embracing "physics as the whole truth about reality.” or as Jerry Coyne: "The view that all sciences are in principle reducible to the laws of physics, must be true unless you’re religious", tends to become a form of self-parody.

Please demonstrate how this alleged self parody manifests itself.

Quote:It's seems quite hard to find actual atheists here who subscribe to the Physicalist view of reality, such as the one illustrated by Alex Rosenberg, those who are familiar with his work are more prone to label his views as extremist, or as Leon Wieseltier put it, a "fool".

I don't know what Alex Rosenberg believes, but that statement stinks of strawmanning.

Quote:
Quote:Rational thinking was amongst the easiest brain process to understand. We know what area of the brain controls it and even fight disease like dementia that affect it and discovered the case of individual that saw that particular portion of their brain damaged/destroyed yet survived, but now have no capacity for impulse control and insight.

So there's sets of neurons in the brain that correspond to rational thinking? That if we were to scan my brain, it would show that when I claim that God exists, that this is not derived by these same set of neurons? That this belief is derived by a process of irrational thinking?

You need to read a book. The mind is patterns of activity in the brain, not particular pieces of it. That still makes it a physical system.

Quote:If a belief in God is a irrational, and atheism is the only rational position, do you actually believe that one day we'd be able to prove this is the case by looking at brain scans? Do you think one day we'd be able to look at brain scans, and distinguish when biases are present in our thinking, and when they are not?

Another straw man? Are you even trying?

Quote:A better example of a moist robot is my dog. As much as I try and figure out a way that's he's not, I end up being stuck with a belief that he is.

The evidence is that your dog has most of the attributes that you would consider as human, lacking only higher cognition. It have emotions, memory, planning, the ability to understand language at some functional level, and so on.

If the dog is a moist robot, why do you think you are not?

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
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
31-08-2015, 08:33 AM
RE: Substance dualism, why is it still a thing?
(31-08-2015 08:02 AM)epronovost Wrote:  [quote]Has for if one day we will be able to use neuroscience and brain scan to «read and analyse thoughts», I have absolutly no clue.

I think you sort of have to have a clue here.

I’d argue there can be no such thing as rational thinking. But there’s likely some sensation, that corresponds with a neurochemical reaction, or a feeling of thinking rationally. That it’s very likely that when feel I’m being rational, and when you feel you’re being rational, that this corresponds to a similar neurochemical reaction here, that creates the same exact sensation for both of us.

If this is the case, perhaps you can see the problem, that there’s no reason to believe that the sensation, the feeling here, corresponds to actual rational beliefs. There’s no reason to believe that beliefs we’d deem as irrational wouldn’t be able to evoke that same sensation.

There wouldn’t be any conceivable brain scans to distinguish between the feeling of thinking rationally, with actually thinking rationally. And If you start to suggest that there is something that distinguishes that, you start bordering on dualism.

And it’s entirely conceivable that sensations creates it’s own sets of biases, etc… That you drawn to believe in things that provoke that sensation for you, even if those those things are wrong, or irrational.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-08-2015, 08:37 AM
RE: Substance dualism, why is it still a thing?
(31-08-2015 07:30 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  And also because the alternative to it, Materialistic Monism/Physicalism, i.e embracing "physics as the whole truth about reality.” or as Jerry Coyne: "The view that all sciences are in principle reducible to the laws of physics, must be true unless you’re religious", tends to become a form of self-parody.

You can say that, but it doesn't make materialism any less true.

(31-08-2015 07:30 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  So there's sets of neurons in the brain that correspond to rational thinking? That if we were to scan my brain, it would show that when I claim that God exists, that this is not derived by these same set of neurons? That this belief is derived by a process of irrational thinking?

Possibly. It is theoretically possible to distinguish between rational and irrational thought processes if you have a detailed enough knowledge of the brain and interpret the thoughts you examine using the rules of logical calculus - but that isn't really what was meant.

Conscious decision-making, problem-solving, and reasoning - the parts of consciousness that most people think of as consciousness - all take place in the frontal lobe of the brain. There is no guarantee that your reasoning will be correct, but it still takes place there.

(31-08-2015 07:30 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Do you think one day we'd be able to look at brain scans, and distinguish when biases are present in our thinking, and when they are not?

It's entirely possible, in theory, if you have a clear enough definition of "bias" and a detailed enough knowledge of the brain.

"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
31-08-2015, 08:39 AM
RE: Substance dualism, why is it still a thing?
(31-08-2015 08:37 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Possibly. It is theoretically possible to distinguish between rational and irrational thought processes if you have a detailed enough knowledge of the brain and interpret the thoughts you examine using the rules of logical calculus - but that isn't really what was meant.

Is it theoretically possible to distinguish at the level of the brain, between the feeling/sensation of thinking rationally, from actually thinking rationally? If you want to believe it is, than I'd suggest your bordering on dualism as well.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-08-2015, 09:08 AM
RE: Substance dualism, why is it still a thing?
@Tomasia

Before we delve any further, I would like to know how you define rational thinking, what its components are and how you think they should express themselves. Recently, I have noticed that you are trying to imply that rational thinking is mostly an illusion in an effort to undermine the rules of logic, sceptical analysis, methodological materialism most likely to put it on equal footing with intuition, faith/emotional based evidence to determine the reality of what surround us. AKA the strategy of: «If I am bullshit, then you are just as much bullshit then me if not more; you can't say I am wrong. ». Your reply to Unbeliever seems to betray an attempt at confusing the terms and blurring the line between substance dualism and materialism. Self-reflection/critique, introspection and insight are all capacity of our brain to allow us to solve problem more efficiently, faster, with lower risks and help us learn faster. It's literally the brain analysing its own process or a self-diagnostic. It's hard and we need training to do it properly, but we can and we do.

Maybe I should be also clearer on what I am talking with substance dualism when it comes to human to avoid further digression. I want to know why people believe they have souls. Why do they think souls allow them consciousness? Why are souls allowing our consciousness to survive the death of our body? Why do most believer believe souls are functionally immortal? Why do people believe in ethereal creatures like ghost, goblins, poltergeist, and astral projection? Why do animals are so rarely given a soul?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like epronovost's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: