Substance dualism, why is it still a thing?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
08-09-2015, 01:33 PM
RE: Substance dualism, why is it still a thing?
(08-09-2015 01:26 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  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.

Fallacious. False dichotomy, to be precise.

Aside from the fact that there are more than two options available - neutral monism, idealism, and so forth - "the other one is even more stupid" is just tu quoque. If both arguments are fallacious, then neither is acceptable. Arguments must stand on their own, not merely be less stupid than the alternative.

Substance dualism is both stupider than the alternative and fallacious, so it collapses on both fronts regardless.

(08-09-2015 01:26 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  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.

You have said this before. You also have yet to back it up with any reasoning whatsoever.

If materialism is fallacious and insufficient to explain reality, you can present an argument demonstrating why this is. Simply saying "you're stupid if you believe this is true" is not enough. It only serves to make you look rather silly.

"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
08-09-2015, 01:43 PM
RE: Substance dualism, why is it still a thing?
(08-09-2015 12:19 PM)epronovost Wrote:  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.


Sorry, I'm not entirely familiar with who Dennis Polis, I was just providing a variety of different sources that defined emergent materialism. I provided both the wikipedia entry, as well as the Britannic entry. I'm far more familiar with Eliminative Materialism position than the Emergent Materialism. So it wasn't particularly hard to see that you were describing an eliminativist view.

In fact it's quite hard to see what the meaningful distinction here is, that you take issue with being classified as some who subscribes to eliminative materialism? You seem to be under the false impression that eliminative materialism implies a political or pragmatic obligation, rather than a theoretical belief.

"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, 02:01 PM
RE: Substance dualism, why is it still a thing?
(08-09-2015 01:33 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Aside from the fact that there are more than two options available - neutral monism, idealism, and so forth -

Okay, I think in terms of which option is more compelling in relationship to it's alternatives. I think there's only two viable options here. But if a third arises I'll include that as well, but that besides the point.

Quote:"the other one is even more stupid" is just tu quoque. If both arguments are fallacious, then neither is acceptable. Arguments must stand on their own, not merely be less stupid than the alternative.

Yea, that's perhaps appealing for folks who prefer to lack a belief. I prefer to hold a belief whenever I reach some remote confidence in something. Perhaps you feel comfortable lacking a belief here. I prefer to believe in whichever I find more compelling, until I'm led to find something else more compelling.

I'll stop believing in non-cartesian substance dualism, the day I start believing in eliminativism, or something other alternative I find more compelling.

Quote:Substance dualism is both stupider than the alternative and fallacious, so it collapses on both fronts regardless.


Yea, if you think Aquina's view, and the position of a variety of folks who articulate that position such as Herbert Mccabe are more ridiculous than that of Rosenberg's, than I'm not sure what else to say.

Quote:If materialism is fallacious and insufficient to explain reality, you can present an argument demonstrating why this is. Simply saying "you're stupid if you believe this is true" is not enough. It only serves to make you look rather silly.

Eliminative materialism.

Am I suppose to be arguing this to folks who are reluctant to believe it as well? If you thought elimantivism was compelling and accurate, your worry shouldn't what are a theists objections to it, but rather how do I convince other atheists of this. Those folks in the corner who can't get past lacking a belief.

"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, 02:23 PM
RE: Substance dualism, why is it still a thing?
(08-09-2015 01:43 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(08-09-2015 12:19 PM)epronovost Wrote:  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.


Sorry, I'm not entirely familiar with who Dennis Polis, I was just providing a variety of different sources that defined emergent materialism. I provided both the wikipedia entry, as well as the Britannic entry. I'm far more familiar with Eliminative Materialism position than the Emergent Materialism. So it wasn't particularly hard to see that you were describing an eliminativist view.

In fact it's quite hard to see what the meaningful distinction here is, that you take issue with being classified as some who subscribes to eliminative materialism? You seem to be under the false impression that eliminative materialism implies a political or pragmatic obligation, rather than a theoretical belief.

You may want to read his book. It's called God, science and the mind. I thought you were a fan since you both make the exact same argument with the exact same weaknesses and fallacies. Maybe it's just a coincidence. I actually think this would be interesting. He is also a thomian. If I consider that eliminative materialism has some implication behind a purely theoretical belief it's because many form of eliminative materialism do have application outside of philosophy, much like all form of materialism.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-09-2015, 02:35 PM
RE: Substance dualism, why is it still a thing?
(08-09-2015 02:01 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Yea, that's perhaps appealing for folks who prefer to lack a belief.

This has nothing to do with "preferring to lack a belief". It is about the basic laws of logic.

Whether or not you "prefer" to have a belief is relevant. If you want to claim that the belief is at all rational, the argument for it must stand on its own.

(08-09-2015 02:01 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Yea, if you think Aquina's view, and the position of a variety of folks who articulate that position such as Herbert Mccabe are more ridiculous than that of Rosenberg's, than I'm not sure what else to say.

You could start by presenting any sort of actual argument.

"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
08-09-2015, 02:38 PM
RE: Substance dualism, why is it still a thing?
(08-09-2015 01:22 PM)houseofcantor Wrote:  
(08-09-2015 01:17 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  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

Excellent point. My bad. Blush

[Image: bearhugs.jpg]

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
12-01-2016, 09:26 PM
RE: Substance dualism, why is it still a thing?
(30-08-2015 08:22 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(30-08-2015 07:56 PM)epronovost Wrote:  So why is there still so much people believing in the concept of soul or mystic energy like ki?

Because the alternative frightens them.

Not necessarily.

A concept need not be technically true/real in order to have immense functionality in your life. All that need occur is for you to work it as if it were real. So it is with ki/chi. We don't know whether it exists (likely not). But applying the principles associated with it brings real benefit to many people.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-01-2016, 09:40 PM
RE: Substance dualism, why is it still a thing?
(12-01-2016 09:26 PM)coyote Wrote:  
(30-08-2015 08:22 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Because the alternative frightens them.

Not necessarily.

A concept need not be technically true/real in order to have immense functionality in your life. All that need occur is for you to work it as if it were real. So it is with ki/chi. We don't know whether it exists (likely not). But applying the principles associated with it brings real benefit to many people.

[Image: 1390269212824.png]

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
13-01-2016, 01:36 PM
RE: Substance dualism, why is it still a thing?
(12-01-2016 09:26 PM)coyote Wrote:  So it is with ki/chi. We don't know whether it exists

Yes, we do.

(12-01-2016 09:26 PM)coyote Wrote:  (likely not).

Definitely not.

(12-01-2016 09:26 PM)coyote Wrote:  But applying the principles associated with it brings real benefit to many people.

No, it doesn't. Perhaps the concepts traditionally associated with it do - meditation, for example, may have some beneficial effect - but ki itself? No. Because ki does not exist. The absolute most that it can do is apply the placebo effect.

Or it simply acts as some sort of comfort for them, which is what I said to begin with.

"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
13-01-2016, 08:55 PM
RE: Substance dualism, why is it still a thing?
(13-01-2016 01:36 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(12-01-2016 09:26 PM)coyote Wrote:  So it is with ki/chi. We don't know whether it exists

Yes, we do.

(12-01-2016 09:26 PM)coyote Wrote:  (likely not).

Definitely not.

(12-01-2016 09:26 PM)coyote Wrote:  But applying the principles associated with it brings real benefit to many people.

No, it doesn't. Perhaps the concepts traditionally associated with it do - meditation, for example, may have some beneficial effect - but ki itself? No. Because ki does not exist. The absolute most that it can do is apply the placebo effect.

Or it simply acts as some sort of comfort for them, which is what I said to begin with.
.

If you assume ki to be associated with the supernatural, then you are correct.
I don't make that assumption. I accept that the combination of thought, intention, and focus may indeed result in an energy flow (ki) within the body. Given that all matter is energy (according to quantum physics), ki becomes entirely possible within the realm of the natural. Given that the placebo effect you cite has demonstrable and predictable results, dismissing it as mere placebo effect almost borders on a denial of reality.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: