Substance dualism, why is it still a thing?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
08-09-2015, 06:35 AM
RE: Substance dualism, why is it still a thing?
(07-09-2015 09:38 AM)epronovost Wrote:  @Tomasia

So basically you are going to use the strawman of someone else (Dennis Polis) to describe what we believe in rather than listenning to what we actually believe in. That's not very fair I would say.

I don't take issue with what you believe, I'm just pointing that the label you used to describe those beliefs are incorrect. It's not emergence you're describing, but elimantivism.

"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
08-09-2015, 06:39 AM
RE: Substance dualism, why is it still a thing?
(07-09-2015 09:59 AM)Chas Wrote:  
Quote:It doesn't really matter, other than you're using an inappropriate label to describe your position and epronovost, but for accuracy I will treat you both as elimantivist,

Don't; it always gets you in trouble to assume someone's beliefs or position.
Just stop doing that.

He stated his beliefs. He believes it can all in theory be reduced to physics, though he holds that there are some pragmatic concerns as to why we shouldn't. That's not emergent materialism, that's elimanitivism.

The questions is his misuse and misunderstanding regarding the distinction between the two, leading him to inappropriately label himself.

"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
08-09-2015, 06:46 AM
RE: Substance dualism, why is it still a thing?
(07-09-2015 09:51 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Tomasia came into the discussion with a preconceived notion of what the word "emergent" means, and does not particularly care if other people don't use it that way. And that is fair enough; certainly the type of emergent materialism he describes is a valid form. It is not, however, the only form - but he doesn't particularly care.

I didn't have a preconceived notion of emergent materialism, I did have a preconceived notion of elimantivist position, since I've read a variety of folks who subscribe to this you. I had to look up what emergent materialism was, in particular it's distinction with elimantivism. None of the definitions claim that distinction was a semantical one, all of em, stated that emergence is a position that holds that mind as irreducible. It's a position that has far more parallels with property dualism, that elimantivism.

Quote:And, once again, it's all irrelevant regardless, since it's just him shifting the spotlight from substance dualism to another, unrelated philosophy in order to keep himself from having to defend his position.

A defense of a position requires a position to defend oneself against. In this case that position would be elimantivism. I subscribe to non-cartesian substance dualism, because I find elimantivism far from compelling. And if your criticism don't break down to arguments in favor of elimantivism, that I fail to see them as meaningful ones.

"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
08-09-2015, 06:51 AM (This post was last modified: 08-09-2015 06:55 AM by Tomasia.)
RE: Substance dualism, why is it still a thing?
(07-09-2015 10:37 AM)GirlyMan Wrote:  I've got an even better idea, why don't YOU take the course instead of spamming us with your same patronizing blather over and over. It's good. You'll like it. Assuming the "hurdle" isn't too high for you, that is.

Soul Beliefs: Cause and Consequences - Unit 1: Historical Foundations

Thanks for that.

"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
[+] 1 user Likes Tomasia's post
08-09-2015, 11:52 AM
RE: Substance dualism, why is it still a thing?
(02-09-2015 06:12 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  The questions is his misuse and misunderstanding regarding the distinction between the two, leading him to inappropriately label himself.

No. The question is, and always has been, what compelling arguments for substance dualism can be presented?

It would seem that the answer is "none, but I can sure derail a thread."

"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
[+] 4 users Like Unbeliever's post
08-09-2015, 12:19 PM
RE: Substance dualism, why is it still a thing?
(08-09-2015 06:35 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(07-09-2015 09:38 AM)epronovost Wrote:  @Tomasia

So basically you are going to use the strawman of someone else (Dennis Polis) to describe what we believe in rather than listenning to what we actually believe in. That's not very fair I would say.

I don't take issue with what you believe, I'm just pointing that the label you used to describe those beliefs are incorrect. It's not emergence you're describing, but elimantivism.

I don't take issue with what you believe either since it has no impact on reality in that specific case. I take issue that you use Dennis Polis work to learn about emergent materialism, eliminative materialism or any other version of physicalism. It would be like reading Mein Kampf to learn about European Jewish culture and German culture. It's a very bad idea since both Hitler and Polis weren't interested at all in explaining in depth and nuance their oposition. Of course, Hitler idiocy lead to tragedy while Polis's only lead to misunderstanding.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-09-2015, 12:50 PM
RE: Substance dualism, why is it still a thing?
(08-09-2015 12:19 PM)epronovost Wrote:  
(08-09-2015 06:35 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  I don't take issue with what you believe, I'm just pointing that the label you used to describe those beliefs are incorrect. It's not emergence you're describing, but elimantivism.

I don't take issue with what you believe either since it has no impact on reality in that specific case. I take issue that you use Dennis Polis work to learn about emergent materialism, eliminative materialism or any other version of physicalism. It would be like reading Mein Kampf to learn about European Jewish culture and German culture. It's a very bad idea since both Hitler and Polis weren't interested at all in explaining in depth and nuance their oposition. Of course, Hitler idiocy lead to tragedy while Polis's only lead to misunderstanding.

[Image: 51029628.jpg]

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
08-09-2015, 01:17 PM
RE: Substance dualism, why is it still a thing?
(08-09-2015 06:51 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(07-09-2015 10:37 AM)GirlyMan Wrote:  I've got an even better idea, why don't YOU take the course instead of spamming us with your same patronizing blather over and over. It's good. You'll like it. Assuming the "hurdle" isn't too high for you, that is.

Soul Beliefs: Cause and Consequences - Unit 1: Historical Foundations

Thanks for that.

No problem, brotherman. Unlike other hypocritical assholes around here, you at least try to be genuine. Until you start acting like a condescending patronizing asshole. .. I love you man. Big Grin

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-09-2015, 01:22 PM
RE: Substance dualism, why is it still a thing?
(08-09-2015 01:17 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(08-09-2015 06:51 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Thanks for that.

No problem, brotherman. Unlike other hypocritical assholes around here, you at least try to be genuine. Until you start acting like a condescending patronizing asshole. .. I love you man. Big Grin

You forgot the pedo-bear hug. Tongue

[Image: ZF1ZJ4M.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-09-2015, 01:26 PM
RE: Substance dualism, why is it still a thing?
(08-09-2015 11:52 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  No. The question is, and always has been, what compelling arguments for substance dualism can be presented?

It would seem that the answer is "none, but I can sure derail a thread."

I don't know.

Because I personally don't think in terms of a single compelling argument, I think in terms of which arguments is more compelling between two. One argument may not be compelling in and of itself, but might be in lieu of it's alternative. I think in terms of what's the best explanation we have, that accounts for our moral perceptions, our sense or moral responsibility and agency, our abilities to recognize what's true, our desire for meaning and purpose. Which view encompasses a great deal of accounting, which doesn't betray our everyday perception of reality. And if you think that's elimantivism, I think you're sadly mistaken, and haven't really though too much about it.

I subscribe to non-cartesian substance dualism, because I find the arguments for it's most viable alternative eliminativism, far from convincing, and it's not just theists who find it far from convincing, but other atheists as well. One only has to consider all the backlash Rosenberg received in arguing for elimanativism in his work, to recognize this.

"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: