Substance dualism, why is it still a thing?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
31-08-2015, 01:50 PM
RE: Substance dualism, why is it still a thing?
(31-08-2015 01:36 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(31-08-2015 01:31 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  No, I fully understand what you are trying to say.

It's just rather silly.


Which is a nonsensical question.

The brain does not determine rationality. The rules of logical calculus do.

How did we get from dualism to rationality?

It all started with post 6.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-08-2015, 02:02 PM
RE: Substance dualism, why is it still a thing?
(31-08-2015 01:48 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  And if you think at any point I was disagreeing with this, than you've been confused for awhile.

Ah... no. Not really.

I have been saying this same, quite straightforward thing since the beginning of the discussion. It is you who keeps coming up with nonsensical definitions to terms and asking incoherent questions.

If there is no disagreement, fine, but it's perfectly obvious to everyone here which one of us was confused.

"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, 02:05 PM
RE: Substance dualism, why is it still a thing?
(31-08-2015 01:50 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(31-08-2015 01:36 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  How did we get from dualism to rationality?
It all started with post 6.

Ah, I see.

(30-08-2015 09:00 PM)Tomasia 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?
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.

I have no idea what a thought free of neurochemistry could possibly look like. Please help. And why bring rationality into the picture? Are you suggesting that logic exists independent those who invented logic? You're saying logic was discovered and not invented is evidence of dualism? Don't see why.

(30-08-2015 09:00 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  For the same reason folks are not inclined to believe we're not moist robots.

Are you saying folks are inclined to believe we are moist robots? You might have one too many "not"s there.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-08-2015, 02:11 PM
RE: Substance dualism, why is it still a thing?
(31-08-2015 02:02 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(31-08-2015 01:48 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  And if you think at any point I was disagreeing with this, than you've been confused for awhile.

Ah... no. Not really.

I have been saying this same, quite straightforward thing since the beginning of the discussion. It is you who keeps coming up with nonsensical definitions to terms and asking incoherent questions.

If there is no disagreement, fine, but it's perfectly obvious to everyone here which one of us was confused.

You're right, I was confused, because I was too busy trying to interpret your point in light of the point of mine that you were responding to. It took a minute for me to step back, to figure out that you were making an entirely seperate point all together.

I apologize for naively assuming that when a person responds to a point I'm making, that they're actually responding to the point I'm making.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-08-2015, 02:16 PM
RE: Substance dualism, why is it still a thing?
(31-08-2015 02:11 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  You're right, I was confused, because I was too busy trying to interpret your point in light of the point of mine that you were responding to. It took a minute for me to step back, to figure out that you were making an entirely seperate point all together.

I apologize for naively assuming that when a person responds to a point I'm making, that they're actually responding to the point I'm making.

I was.

Again, you fail to understand what is said to you. You were asking an incoherent question about something unrelated to the point that you were, presumably, attempting to make - a point which, as it turns out, is also based on nonsensical redefinitions of the term "rational thinking" - and I responded by pointing out that you were going off in the wrong direction.

But it isn't really important at this point.

"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, 02:19 PM
RE: Substance dualism, why is it still a thing?
(31-08-2015 02:05 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  I have no idea what a thought free of neurochemistry could possibly look like.

And I have no idea what free thinking, or rational thinking that’s reducible to neurochemistry could possibly look like. Or a neurochemical distinction between feeling I’m thinking rationally, and actually thinking rationally.

Quote:Please help. And why bring rationality into the picture? Are you suggesting that logic exists independent those who invented logic? You're saying logic was discovered and not invented is evidence of dualism? Don't see why.

Because I don’t see how to salvage free thinking, anymore so than free-will, without presupposing or suggesting some spooky substance not reducible to the neuorchemical level that makes it possible.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-08-2015, 02:22 PM
RE: Substance dualism, why is it still a thing?
(31-08-2015 02:19 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  And I have no idea what free thinking, or rational thinking that’s reducible to neurochemistry could possibly look like.

This is what I was saying. You are going off in the wrong direction again.

Rational thinking looks exactly like any other thinking until you compare it to the rules of logical calculus.

"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, 02:28 PM
RE: Substance dualism, why is it still a thing?
(31-08-2015 02:19 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(31-08-2015 02:05 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  I have no idea what a thought free of neurochemistry could possibly look like.

And I have no idea what free thinking, or rational thinking that’s reducible to neurochemistry could possibly look like. Or a neurochemical distinction between feeling I’m thinking rationally, and actually thinking rationally.

We're pretty damn close to that actually.

(31-08-2015 02:19 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Because I don’t see how to salvage free thinking, anymore so than free-will, without presupposing or suggesting some spooky substance not reducible to the neuorchemical level that makes it possible.

Why should they be worth salvaging?

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
31-08-2015, 02:49 PM
RE: Substance dualism, why is it still a thing?
(31-08-2015 02:28 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(31-08-2015 02:19 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  And I have no idea what free thinking, or rational thinking that’s reducible to neurochemistry could possibly look like. Or a neurochemical distinction between feeling I’m thinking rationally, and actually thinking rationally.

We're pretty damn close to that actually.

Yea, I don't think that article addresses the point. While there's likely to be a neurological distinction between when I lie, and when I tell the truth. There's no reason to believe there's a neurological distinction between when you believe a lie, and when you believe a truth. Believing that there's a neurochemical distinction between the feeling/sensation of thinking rationally, and actually thinking rationality, is just fantasy.

And I thought you were a factual relativist?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-08-2015, 02:51 PM
RE: Substance dualism, why is it still a thing?
(31-08-2015 02:28 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  Why should they be worth salvaging?

They don't have to. I think there's far stronger case for them being unsalvageable, than the attempts by folks here to salvage it. (in regards to rational/free thinking)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: