Substance dualism, why is it still a thing?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
31-08-2015, 10:11 AM
RE: Substance dualism, why is it still a thing?
(31-08-2015 10:06 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(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.

Your argument is crap. You have made an entirely unsupported assertion that rational thinking doesn't exist.

That thinking is brain-based chemistry does not mean it doesn't exist. That's just naive.

Once again, I suggest you look up "emergent properties".

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
31-08-2015, 10:17 AM
RE: Substance dualism, why is it still a thing?
(31-08-2015 10:05 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
Quote:Sensations and conscious thought are distinct neurochemical signals.

Read before responding.

I don't know what you mean by conscious thought. Because to me both rational and irrational thought can be conscious thoughts? Do you agree?

In fact I'm not sure what you mean by "conscious thought". Do dogs have conscious thoughts? Do ants? How about my aloe vera plant?

Quote: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.

I've already went over that a few times already, and I'm still waiting for a meaningful retort.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-08-2015, 10:20 AM
RE: Substance dualism, why is it still a thing?
(31-08-2015 10:17 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(31-08-2015 10:05 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Read before responding.

I don't know what you mean by conscious thought. Because to me both rational and irrational thought can be conscious thoughts? Do you agree?

In fact I'm not sure what you mean by "conscious thought". Do dogs have conscious thoughts? Do ants? How about my aloe vera plant?

Quote: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.

I've already went over that a few times already, and I'm still waiting for a meaningful retort.

Your unsupported assertion hardly merits a "meaningful retort", as it is not, itself, meaningful.

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
31-08-2015, 10:20 AM
RE: Substance dualism, why is it still a thing?
(31-08-2015 10:17 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  I don't know what you mean by conscious thought. Because to me both rational and irrational thought can be conscious thoughts? Do you agree?

In fact I'm not sure what you mean by "conscious thought". Do dogs have conscious thoughts? Do ants? How about my aloe vera plant?

Ah. So we're playing pointless games now, rather than addressing the points raised. Wonderful.

(31-08-2015 10:17 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
Quote: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.

I've already went over that a few times already, and I'm still waiting for a meaningful retort.

No, you haven't. You say you have, but you haven't. You've just stated that it doesn't exist because of something completely irrelevant involving whether or not the thinker feels as though they are being rational, which is both wrong and nonsensical.

Saying that you've already gone over something only works if no one has yet pointed out how much of a complete failure that argument 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
[+] 2 users Like Unbeliever's post
31-08-2015, 10:26 AM (This post was last modified: 31-08-2015 10:36 AM by Tomasia.)
RE: Substance dualism, why is it still a thing?
(31-08-2015 10:20 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
Quote:In fact I'm not sure what you mean by "conscious thought". Do dogs have conscious thoughts? Do ants? How about my aloe vera plant?

Ah. So we're playing pointless games now, rather than addressing the points raised. Wonderful.

You're the one the one that introduced in this discussion about rational thought, conscious thought.

I know what the term "conscious thought" mean to me, but I'm entirely lost as to what that might means to you, or even if we mean the same thing.

As I said for me conscious thought, can be irrational, or irrational. I don't even know if you'd agree. I don't even know as to whether you think dogs and ants have conscious thoughts or not.

The questions were not for the sake of playing a game, but a means to understand what you mean by "conscious thought"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-08-2015, 10:37 AM
RE: Substance dualism, why is it still a thing?
@Tomasia

Can you define what you consider rational thinking now, its component and expected behavior? You haven't answered the question yet, made a side glance to absolute knowledge and finally jumped materialism and its relation to free will and morality which is not very pertinent to the question.

Let me make another guess. You did not define rational thinking, its component and expected behaviors because that's how methodological naturalism investigate things. It require to define their terms, establish their key components and expected results which can then be investigated. By defining rational thinking and what you mean by this, you would have established a concept outside of your direct control on which we could have debated and provided answers, rebuttal and general opinion, potentially pointing attempt at strawmen and reduction to the absurd. By refusing to define it, you are completely self-serving your position by making a game of smoke and mirror that inevitably devolve any discussion in the realm of feelings and absolute truth/knowledge. In other terms, your strategy necessary leads to a fallacy of reduction to the absurd. You can then use that reduction to the absurd to suggest only two possible positions: nihilism or belief in a God. In other word, your refusal to set standards outside of your direct control forces you (and those who falls into your game) to discard any sense of reality and slave us to your imagination. I think that this tactic is slightly dishonest if not outright fraudulent.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes epronovost's post
31-08-2015, 10:40 AM
RE: Substance dualism, why is it still a thing?
(30-08-2015 10:03 PM)houseofcantor Wrote:  I have this problem with my brain.

[Image: JBPDvmB.jpg]

Bad brain, bad. Big Grin

I think visually, I reason emotionally, I consider the inconceivable. What if it ain't a matter of mind or body but rather that all is mind? That we do not interact with a disembodied mind for the simple reason that our mind is embodied? Why?

Because it is not testable, not provable, and essentially indistinguishable from its converse. Usually I reject it out of hand but my head's full of Gwynnies and my bed is full of hot and yuk. Blush






http://knockyourselfout.ca/

I like this one better! lol.


My hope is that since matter and energy cannot be destroyed that somehow before I kick the bucket, we will have found a way to transfer that "whatever consciousness is made of" into something else, like a robot! Or that it somehow exists in another form if I can't afford to do that lol. I know its silly but all life after death beliefs are basically just wishful thinking anyway. Just like Substance dualism, its just wishful thinking.

oh...speaking of KI! This kid proves its real! look! He transforms into a super saiyan and everything!





My Youtube channel if anyone is interested.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCEkRdbq...rLEz-0jEHQ
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-08-2015, 10:53 AM
RE: Substance dualism, why is it still a thing?
(31-08-2015 10:26 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  I know what the term "conscious thought" mean to me, but I'm entirely lost as to what that might means to you, or even if we mean the same thing.

Any sort of thought of which you are consciously aware. It's rather straightforward.

(31-08-2015 10:26 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  As I said for me conscious thought, can be irrational, or irrational. I don't even know if you'd agree.

I do - assuming that you meant to say "rational or irrational".

Where you go off the rails is in saying, quite incoherently, that because someone might feel that they are being rational when they are not, rational thought does not exist.

(31-08-2015 10:26 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  I don't even know as to whether you think dogs and ants have conscious thoughts or not.

They do. Their brains are primitive, but they are still conscious.

"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, 10:54 AM
RE: Substance dualism, why is it still a thing?
(31-08-2015 10:06 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(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.

Tu quoque presuppositionalism?

That is the best you can do?

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-08-2015, 11:15 AM
RE: Substance dualism, why is it still a thing?
There is no plausible mechanism of action for the mind to exist distinct from the body. Many have tried all have failed. It's no longer considered a tenable position.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like GirlyMan's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: