Substance dualism, why is it still a thing?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
31-08-2015, 02:58 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?

To make things short, Tomasia believes he has a soul, a consciousness that can exist outside of his body and a God. Neuroscience strongly implies that the concept of soul is useless, that what we refer to has consciousness is an emergent property of the brain not something outside of it and that our conceptualisation of what surround us and metathinking are simply a reflection of the structure of our brain not actual reality.

This demonstrate that Tomasia core beliefs are wrong in a certain way. Neuroscience, like all science, is based on methodological naturalism, which itself is based on the rules of logic. Since he doesn't have ground on science to dismiss neuroscience findings about our brain and our consciousness, he is currently attempting to dismiss the idea that rational thinking can exist. Thus that the rules of logic are fundamentally biased and aren't a more solid foundation to investigate the cosmos and our minds than faith and intuition. It's a classic case of: «You need faith too, perhaps even more! ». This way the foundation of his beliefs becomes untouchable and he can continue to believe in the existence of his soul without outside threat.

Of course in his attempt to escape those conclusion, he had to redefine rational thinking from: «Using reason or logic in thinking out a problem in accordance with the principles of logic or reason. » to: «State of mind in which you have achieve the certainty of truth. ». Now, he is attempting to convince Unbeliever that the rules of logic are just has much a produce of the brain than all other thoughts. In essence he is completely correct on this one. All thoughts are the produce of neuro-chemical interactions in various sections of the brain. What he will attempt to ignore or to dodge, is the fact that the rules of logic are clearly defined; that all their components are known and defined and that they can produce observable and predictable consequences and behaviors. In other way, these types of thoughts are analysable by other brains independently of one particular bias or emotional state; can be subjected to self-reflection, introspection and other self-diagnostic designed by our brain has a failsafe against its own faulty reasoning which could lead to its own demise. In other words the rules of logic are a product of our brain, but not of one particular brain, but of all the brains of people alive or dead (this is an old concept).

His probable next step if he is cornered and forced to admit the metaphysical existence of concepts and ideas like logic, will be to claim that this is in essence dualism and that he was right all along. Yet, this will be just another layer of smoke and mirror based on the equivocation of physical existence and metaphysical existence. Dualism claim that the mind and the body are two separate components and ultimately that the mind can survive in the form of a spirit unaltered or barely altered without a body. Metaphysical existence describe the existence of a thought or thought process outside of the brain from which it first originated through writings and/or oral tradition. It's basically a thought with a legacy like democracy, logic or the Tooth Fairy. Equivocating the two would be an error. Considering that metaphysical existence is completely dependent of physical existence to develop and perpetuate itself, this doesn’t qualify has dualism. It would be if one believed that ideas, concepts and minds could develop and perpetuate themselves without a physical process to support them.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like epronovost's post
31-08-2015, 03:07 PM
RE: Substance dualism, why is it still a thing?
(31-08-2015 02:58 PM)epronovost Wrote:  This demonstrate that Tomasia core beliefs are wrong in a certain way. Neuroscience, like all science, is based on methodological naturalism, which itself is based on the rules of logic. Since he doesn't have ground on science to dismiss neuroscience findings about our brain and our consciousness, he is currently attempting to dismiss the idea that rational thinking can exist. Thus that the rules of logic are fundamentally biased and aren't a more solid foundation to investigate the cosmos and our minds than faith and intuition. It's a classic case of: «You need faith too, perhaps even more! ». This way the foundation of his beliefs becomes untouchable and he can continue to believe in the existence of his soul without outside threat.

Are our thoughts already attuned to the rules of logic? Or is that something that we have to acquire, and get our thought to be governed by?

Let's play with this a bit. So we're not born with the capacity to think clearly, we acquire that ability by learning of the rules of logic, and getting our thoughts to correspond to these rules? Is that how it goes.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-08-2015, 03:18 PM
Substance dualism, why is it still a thing?
What I am looking for is a reconciliation between the neurochemistry of the brain, and rational thinking. So if you want to say anything about rational thinking, including the rules of logical etc...I'm hoping to see you establish a connection between that and it's interaction with the chemical makeup of our brains. Our neurochemistry is not governed by the rules of logic, but the laws of physics.

"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
31-08-2015, 03:25 PM
RE: Substance dualism, why is it still a thing?
(31-08-2015 03:18 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  What I am looking for is a reconciliation between the neurochemistry of the brain, and rational thinking.

You say that, but...

(31-08-2015 03:18 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  So if you want to say anything about rational thinking, including the rules of logical etc...I'm hoping to see you establish a connection between that and it's interaction with the chemical makeup of our brains. Our neurochemistry is not governed by the rules of logic, but the laws of physics.

...this indicates that you don't actually understand what form that would take.

The fact that you think the rules of logical calculus must be somehow hard-wired into our thought processes in order for any thought to be rational only further underlines your lack of comprehension.

Rational thinking is any thought process that complies with the rules of logical calculus. It is not a thought process directly wired to follow the rules of logical calculus.

Everyone else here seems to understand this.

"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, 03:37 PM
Substance dualism, why is it still a thing?
(31-08-2015 03:25 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(31-08-2015 03:18 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  What I am looking for is a reconciliation between the neurochemistry of the brain, and rational thinking.

You say that, but...

(31-08-2015 03:18 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  So if you want to say anything about rational thinking, including the rules of logical etc...I'm hoping to see you establish a connection between that and it's interaction with the chemical makeup of our brains. Our neurochemistry is not governed by the rules of logic, but the laws of physics.

...this indicates that you don't actually understand what form that would take.

The fact that you think the rules of logical calculus must be somehow hard-wired into our thought processes in order for any thought to be rational only further underlines your lack of comprehension.

Rational thinking is any thought process that complies with the rules of logical calculus. It is not a thought process directly wired to follow the rules of logical calculus.

Everyone else here seems to understand this.

How do you get a thought process to align with the rules of logical calculus?

Is your thought process already aligned in such a way?

"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
31-08-2015, 03:44 PM
RE: Substance dualism, why is it still a thing?
(31-08-2015 03:37 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  How do you get a thought process to align with the rules of logical calculus?

The same way you get one to align with the rules of mathematics.

If you think "two plus two equals five", that's wrong. In the same way, if you think "A equals not-A", that is also wrong.

I am not being metaphorical when I say "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, 04:22 PM
RE: Substance dualism, why is it still a thing?
(31-08-2015 03:07 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(31-08-2015 02:58 PM)epronovost Wrote:  This demonstrate that Tomasia core beliefs are wrong in a certain way. Neuroscience, like all science, is based on methodological naturalism, which itself is based on the rules of logic. Since he doesn't have ground on science to dismiss neuroscience findings about our brain and our consciousness, he is currently attempting to dismiss the idea that rational thinking can exist. Thus that the rules of logic are fundamentally biased and aren't a more solid foundation to investigate the cosmos and our minds than faith and intuition. It's a classic case of: «You need faith too, perhaps even more! ». This way the foundation of his beliefs becomes untouchable and he can continue to believe in the existence of his soul without outside threat.

Are our thoughts already attuned to the rules of logic? Or is that something that we have to acquire, and get our thought to be governed by?

Let's play with this a bit. So we're not born with the capacity to think clearly, we acquire that ability by learning of the rules of logic, and getting our thoughts to correspond to these rules? Is that how it goes.

I would say it's a little bit of both. We are born with a brain still in development. Technically, we are born without the ability to have simple coordination of our movements for example. If by «born with» you mean that we would normally develop rational thinking without specific and formal education on that specific subject than I would say that we are «born» with a primitive ability for rational thinking because our brain possess and needs a mechanism for insight and introspection to improve its own thought process mechanism and avoid mistakes which could cost its demise in a competitive environment. Human have no special quality and are very weak compared to all other animal of their size and type. Our brain was pretty much our only tool and our only edge on other species. We were selected by natural process on the basis of which one could learn the fastest with the least amount of risk to its own body to a point where we became so performant we kind of «broke the system». But, has with all thing human, we need formal and specific training on that aspect to develop our natural aptitude to their fullest. It's a bit like fighting. We instinctively possess a primitive knowledge of combat and basic natural aptitude for it, but we need formal education and training in that domain to truly be good at it. Just like fighting, it took century of experimentation to build what the rules of logic are today. Does that sounds clear?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-08-2015, 04:31 PM
RE: Substance dualism, why is it still a thing?
(31-08-2015 03:44 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  The same way you get one to align with the rules of mathematics.

If you think "two plus two equals five", that's wrong. In the same way, if you think "A equals not-A", that is also wrong.

I am not being metaphorical when I say "logical calculus".

Doesn't that presuppose that all truth is reducible to mathematics, and that we have capacity to align ourselves in such a way as to perceive it.

If I aligned my thoughts to the rules of mathematics, would I conclude that God does not exist?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-08-2015, 04:54 PM
RE: Substance dualism, why is it still a thing?
(31-08-2015 04:31 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Doesn't that presuppose that all truth is reducible to mathematics

No.

(31-08-2015 04:31 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  If I aligned my thoughts to the rules of mathematics, would I conclude that God does not exist?

Category error.

I really don't know what it is that you think you are arguing 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
[+] 1 user Likes Unbeliever's post
31-08-2015, 05:21 PM (This post was last modified: 31-08-2015 05:42 PM by Tomasia.)
RE: Substance dualism, why is it still a thing?
(31-08-2015 04:22 PM)epronovost Wrote:  I would say it's a little bit of both. We are born with a brain still in development. Technically, we are born without the ability to have simple coordination of our movements for example. If by «born with» you mean that we would normally develop rational thinking without specific and formal education on that specific subject than I would say that we are «born» with a primitive ability for rational thinking because our brain possess and needs a mechanism for insight and introspection to improve its own thought process mechanism and avoid mistakes which could cost its demise in a competitive environment. Human have no special quality and are very weak compared to all other animal of their size and type. Our brain was pretty much our only tool and our only edge on other species. We were selected by natural process on the basis of which one could learn the fastest with the least amount of risk to its own body to a point where we became so performant we kind of «broke the system». But, has with all thing human, we need formal and specific training on that aspect to develop our natural aptitude to their fullest. It's a bit like fighting. We instinctively possess a primitive knowledge of combat and basic natural aptitude for it, but we need formal education and training in that domain to truly be good at it. Just like fighting, it took century of experimentation to build what the rules of logic are today. Does that sounds clear?

While the narrative here is clear, it’s also a myth.

Evolution isn’t interested in truth, or brains capable of deciphering it. It’s interested in brains capable of finding means to survive, and procreate. Our propensity for delusions, confirmation biases, fantasy, self-justifications, and false beliefs have all been selected for, and have served this purpose. Our brains are far from finely tuned to be rational, if anything it’s stacked against it. If you develop an emotional attachment to some set of beliefs, it’s almost impossible to let it go.

Two people with strongly held competing beliefs, no matter how many discussions or arguments they have between them, will find very little movement between them. And are more likely to leave with their strongly held beliefs intact, perhaps even reaffirmed, then be led to abandon them. Two entirely contradictory positions may find respective adherents, who all define themselves as thinking rationally, critically, etc…And likely feel they are.

Let’s offer a competing narrative to yours:

If anything, evolution selected for a particular sensation, lets call it truthiness. That sort of sensation we get when we feel we figured out the answer to a problem, the feeling of satisfaction that ensues. That’s satisfying feeling we get when we feel we put our finger on something, that settles our unease and anxiety. If there’s something that I believe is true, I constantly seek things that evoke that sensation of truthiness for me, like a dopefiend. Everytime I encounter something that reinforces what I believe, that satisfying sensation appears again, and subsides, then I go and seek something to evoke it again. Perhaps this form feeds my craving as well. Very often this sensation corresponds to things that are true, but it doesn’t have to. I may encounter something that is true, but believe it to be false because it doesn’t evoke that feeling of truthiness, like that man who can’t recognize the woman in front of him his mother, because that feeling is not being evoked in him.

The reason you're incline not to accept this narrative, and will continue to believes your is true, is not because yours is more reasonable, more attuned to the factual observations, but because my narrative doesn’t evoke that feeling of truthiness in you. And the reasons that I reject yours is because it doesn’t evoke that sensation in me. It doesn't have that ring of truth to it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: