Substance dualism, why is it still a thing?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
31-08-2015, 09:22 AM
RE: Substance dualism, why is it still a thing?
(31-08-2015 08:39 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Is it theoretically possible to distinguish at the level of the brain, between the feeling/sensation of thinking rationally, from actually thinking rationally?

That depends on what you mean when you say "at the level of the brain".

You're not communicating particularly clearly.

(31-08-2015 08:39 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  If you want to believe it is, than I'd suggest your bordering on dualism as well.

You could suggest that.

You would be entirely wrong, but you could.

"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, 09:30 AM
RE: Substance dualism, why is it still a thing?
(31-08-2015 09:22 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(31-08-2015 08:39 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  If you want to believe it is, than I'd suggest your bordering on dualism as well.

You could suggest that.

You would be entirely wrong, but you could.

In his defense, it's a lot easier to respond to people if you just make up their statements for them.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
31-08-2015, 09:37 AM (This post was last modified: 31-08-2015 09:45 AM by Tomasia.)
RE: Substance dualism, why is it still a thing?
(31-08-2015 09:08 AM)epronovost Wrote:  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.

As I previously stated there is no such thing as rational thinking, at best you just have a neurochemical sensation/feeling of thinking rationally.

In fact, I’d suggest that what I said is true, and the only reason you cannot acknowledge that is because, it’s not evoking that neurochemical sensation in you. If it could find away to evoke that sensation in you, you'd acknowledge it as true as well.

That your tendency to believe this or that, is not necessarily because it’s true, but because it evokes the feeling of it be true for you.

There’s a fairly well known case, of man who suffered a brain injury. When he hears his mother on the phone, he can recognize the person who he’s talking to is his mother, but when he sees his mother in person, he believes it to be an imposter. Even though he recognizes that this woman looks and talks like his mother, he believes it is not his mother. Or in other words when he hears his mother on the phone it evokes in him that sensation of it truly being his mother, and that same sensation is not being evoked when he actually sees her in person.

Quote: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, skeptical 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.

That’s not exactly right, I’m not trying to undermine methodological naturalism, but ontological naturalism, and in particular materialistic monism.

Quote: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?

The answer to that question is implied in the series of questions posed to you. People believe in substance dualism, because it’s intuitive. There's a common sense aura about it, where it’s alternative is counter-intuitive. Your reluctance to accept what I said regarding rationality, is based on the same reason, because it defies views that appears as common sense to you, that there is such as thing as thinking rationally.

There’s a Dilbert cartoon the extends that sort of intuitive dualism, to the question of free-will:

[Image: dilbert-free-will.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-08-2015, 09:41 AM
RE: Substance dualism, why is it still a thing?
(31-08-2015 09:22 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(31-08-2015 08:39 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Is it theoretically possible to distinguish at the level of the brain, between the feeling/sensation of thinking rationally, from actually thinking rationally?

That depends on what you mean when you say "at the level of the brain".

You're not communicating particularly clearly.

Neurochemical responses.

It is theoretically possible to distinguish between the neurochemical responses associated with the feeling of thinking rationally, with actually thinking rationally?


Quote:You could suggest that.

You would be entirely wrong, but you could.

Yea, I'd like to see you showing that I'm wrong, without ending up as the victim at the end of that Dilbert cartoon.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-08-2015, 09:52 AM
RE: Substance dualism, why is it still a thing?
(31-08-2015 09:37 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  As I previously stated there is no such thing as rational thinking

Yes, there is: conscious reasoning which follows the laws of logical calculus.

(31-08-2015 09:41 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(31-08-2015 09:22 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  That depends on what you mean when you say "at the level of the brain".

You're not communicating particularly clearly.

Neurochemical responses.

It is theoretically possible to distinguish between the neurochemical responses associated with the feeling of thinking rationally, with actually thinking rationally?

Yes.

Sensations and conscious thought are distinct neurochemical signals. Assuming that you have a detailed-enough knowledge of the brain, you could theoretically map out the thoughts of a person attempting to think rationally and see whether or not it actually measures up against the laws of logical calculus.

(31-08-2015 09:41 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Yea, I'd like to see you showing that I'm wrong, without ending up as the victim at the end of that Dilbert cartoon.

You assume I believe in free will.

You really ought to stop doing that.

"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, 09:56 AM
RE: Substance dualism, why is it still a thing?
(31-08-2015 09:37 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  That’s not exactly right, I’m not trying to undermine methodological naturalism, but ontological naturalism, and in particular materialistic monism.

Quite - thus maintaining the gap to shove God into.

(31-08-2015 09:37 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  People believe in substance dualism, because it’s intuitive. There's a common sense aura about it, where it’s alternative is counter-intuitive.

And God forbid naive human intuition could be wrong!

That's how we know that the Earth is flat, the sun goes around it, and objects only move when a force is applied. What could be more intuitive than that?

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like cjlr's post
31-08-2015, 09:59 AM (This post was last modified: 31-08-2015 10:03 AM by Tomasia.)
RE: Substance dualism, why is it still a thing?
(31-08-2015 09:52 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Sensations and conscious thought are distinct neurochemical signals. Assuming that you have a detailed-enough knowledge of the brain, you could theoretically map out the thoughts of a person attempting to think rationally and see whether or not it actually measures up against the laws of logical calculus.

So there's some neurochemical reactions that occurs when we thinking rationally, that doesn't correspond to a neurochemical sensation, or feeling in the person?

That when you believe you're thinking rationally, there's no corresponding feeling or sensation?

Quote:You assume I believe in free will.

No, you believe in the other ghost in the room, "rational thinking".
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-08-2015, 10:05 AM
RE: Substance dualism, why is it still a thing?
(31-08-2015 09:59 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(31-08-2015 09:52 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Sensations and conscious thought are distinct neurochemical signals. Assuming that you have a detailed-enough knowledge of the brain, you could theoretically map out the thoughts of a person attempting to think rationally and see whether or not it actually measures up against the laws of logical calculus.

So there's some neurochemical reactions that occurs when we thinking rationally, that doesn't correspond to a neurochemical sensation, or feeling in the person?

That when you believe your thinking rationally, there's no corresponding feeling or sensation?

(31-08-2015 09:52 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Sensations and conscious thought are distinct neurochemical signals.

Read before responding.

The thought process and the sensation are related, but they are not the same thing.

(31-08-2015 09:59 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
Quote:You assume I believe in free will.

No, you believe in the other ghost in the room, "rational thinking".

That would be a witty retort if you had presented any actual reason to think that there is no such thing as rational thought. Instead, you seem to be getting caught up in a pointless, tangential quibble about whether or not the thinker necessarily feels as though they are being rational, which is not relevant in the slightest.

"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, 10:06 AM
RE: Substance dualism, why is it still a thing?
(31-08-2015 09:56 AM)cjlr Wrote:  And God forbid naive human intuition could be wrong!

That's how we know that the Earth is flat, the sun goes around it, and objects only move when a force is applied. What could be more intuitive than that?

Of course naive human intuition could be wrong. It's naive human intuition that leads folks to believe in "free thinking", in "rational thinking", why folks here are so reluctant to let go of this belief, like beliefs in free-will, and souls.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-08-2015, 10:10 AM
RE: Substance dualism, why is it still a thing?
(31-08-2015 10:06 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Of course naive human intuition could be wrong. It's naive human intuition that leads folks to believe in "free thinking", in "rational thinking", why folks here are so reluctant to let go of this belief, like beliefs in free-will, and souls.

What, exactly, do you think rational thought is?

"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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: