Substance dualism, why is it still a thing?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
31-08-2015, 05:28 PM
RE: Substance dualism, why is it still a thing?
(31-08-2015 04:54 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(31-08-2015 04:31 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Doesn't that presuppose that all truth is reducible to mathematics

No.

Analogous to the rules of mathematics?

Quote:
(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.

If I aligned my thoughts to logical calculus would I conclude that God doesn't exist?

Is that better?

Right now, I'm more interested in hearing your perspective, it's not all that clear to me, but its piqued my interest.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-08-2015, 05:33 PM
RE: Substance dualism, why is it still a thing?
(31-08-2015 05:28 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Analogous to the rules of mathematics?

That depends entirely on what you mean by "all truth" and how loose you are willing to get with your analogies.

You really need to spend more time thinking about these questions before posing them. They are largely incoherent and no meaningful answer can be given.

(31-08-2015 05:28 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  If I aligned my thoughts to logical calculus would I conclude that God doesn't exist?

As it is the rational conclusion, yes.

There are some finer details depending on what specific type of god you are asking for, but the rational conclusion is that the Christian god, at least, and most other specific instances, do not exist, and that it is highly unlikely that any others do. There is a side-discussion which could also be had regarding the concept of gods as a whole, as opposed to Sufficiently Advanced Aliens, but this is, again, just fine detail.

"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, 05:39 PM
RE: Substance dualism, why is it still a thing?
(31-08-2015 05:33 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(31-08-2015 05:28 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Analogous to the rules of mathematics?

That depends entirely on what you mean by "all truth" and how loose you are willing to get with your analogies.

You really need to spend more time thinking about these questions before posing them. They are largely incoherent and no meaningful answer can be given.


The seeming incoherence, is based on the fact that I know very little about what is you believe here. Let's ask the question differently are there some truths that are not analogous to mathematics?


Quote:
(31-08-2015 05:28 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  If I aligned my thoughts to logical calculus would I conclude that God doesn't exist?

As it is the rational conclusion, yes.

I'm guessing if we went down the lines of pretty much everything you yourself believe is true, it would correspond to the conclusions drawn by logical calculus? While those beliefs that you reject don't?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-08-2015, 05:42 PM
RE: Substance dualism, why is it still a thing?
(31-08-2015 05:39 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  The seeming incoherence, is based on the fact that I know very little about what is you believe here.

No. It's due to you making use of nonsense phrases like "all truths" that are so broad as to mean essentially nothing.

(31-08-2015 05:39 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Let's ask the question differently are there some truths that are not analogous to mathematics?

Again, this depends entirely on what you mean by "all truths" and how loose you are willing to go with your analogies. The question is incoherent.

(31-08-2015 05:39 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  I'm guessing if we went down the lines of pretty much everything you yourself believe is true, it would correspond to the conclusions drawn by logical calculus? While those beliefs that you reject don't?

I would hope so.

"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, 05:46 PM (This post was last modified: 31-08-2015 05:50 PM by Tomasia.)
RE: Substance dualism, why is it still a thing?
(31-08-2015 05:42 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(31-08-2015 05:39 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  I'm guessing if we went down the lines of pretty much everything you yourself believe is true, it would correspond to the conclusions drawn by logical calculus? While those beliefs that you reject don't?

I would hope so.

Hope doesn't sound all that confident to me.

Are you not able to accurately tell when your beliefs correspond to the conclusions that would be drawn by logical calculus? Can you align your conclusion that your beliefs are aligned with logical calculus with logical calculus, to verify that's the case?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-08-2015, 05:58 PM
RE: Substance dualism, why is it still a thing?
(31-08-2015 05:21 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(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 brain 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, than be led to abandon them. Two entirely contradictory positions, may find respective adherents of it, 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.

The fact that you are using a non-defined term that is central to your narrative seems to be a big problem. So is the fact that, while your narrative is correct, it is incomplete and deceiving. The pleasant sensation of accomplishment doesn't appear from nowhere but from the accomplishment of something. In that case the resolution of a problem. The solution has to be true in the general sense of the term to be of use and thus give us a sense of accomplishment which is pleasant. At the core of this, what we need is a resolution to a problem not comfort. Comfort is the reward we give ourselves for succeeding and our endgame a motivator if you prefer, but the only way we can have it is by solving the problem for real. That's why people are frequently pissed off when they found out they were wrong or deceived. They realise they actually haven't solve the problem and need to work again on it.

While this may lead us to seek things that confirm our bias, it can just as much lead us away from pre-conceived notion because they are later found false and thus fail to provide us with a sense of resolution. Pleasure is a reinforcement, but just like we can do thing that displease us in expectation to reap a greater reward later, so can we fight off the impulse to confirm our bias to explore new concept and ideas. Those who could do this were more likely to prosper in a competitive environment then those who were less apt and it still might be the case in our society. That's why, sometime, we change mind on a given subject. If you found out something to be true, but don't accept, its sign of delusion or extreme fear. The man who could not identify his mother wasn't searching for «truthiness» he was incapable of processing information. His brain was broken and could not apply certain process like identifying important people by their appearances. It’s not a very good exemple.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like epronovost's post
31-08-2015, 06:07 PM
RE: Substance dualism, why is it still a thing?
(31-08-2015 05:46 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Hope doesn't sound all that confident to me.

As you say.

(31-08-2015 05:46 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Are you not able to accurately tell when your beliefs correspond to the conclusions that would be drawn by logical calculus?

I could, if I cared to sit down and file every single thing I believe to be true, then examine each and every one from the ground up to see whether or not they comply.

I don't. I know that the beliefs that I consider most important are rational. I am confident that the majority of the rest are, but I am not so anal as to spend three years of my life cataloging them to make certain.

And all of this is rather irrelevant in any case.

"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, 07:17 PM (This post was last modified: 31-08-2015 07:46 PM by Tomasia.)
RE: Substance dualism, why is it still a thing?
(31-08-2015 05:58 PM)epronovost Wrote:  The man who could not identify his mother wasn't searching for «truthiness» he was incapable of processing information. His brain was broken and could not apply certain process like identifying important people by their appearances. It’s not a very good exemple.

The man felt that it truly was his mother when he talked to her on the phone. And didn’t feel it truly was his mother when he saw her in person. It’s not about searching for truth, but feeling that it was true, a true representation of his mother. What’s absent from his interaction with her on the phone, and with his interaction with her in person, was a sensation/feeling that it truly is his mother.

Quote:The fact that you are using a non-defined term that is central to your narrative seems to be a big problem.

You mean truthiness? I’m just putting a label on a particular sensation I feel, perhaps there's an official word for it, but I don’t know it. The remainder of your response seems to indicate that you recognize the sensation I’m referring to, calling it “the pleasant sensation of accomplishment”, though I don’t think accomplishment is the most suitable term, but I guess it can be workable. It’s a sensation that can arise when solving a puzzle, even it has no corresponding utility, or functional value.

The sensation arises from believing I’ve solved a puzzle. It’s the same sensation regardless if I actually solved the puzzle correctly or not. If solved incorrectly, I jeopardize the satisfaction, where as if i solved it correctly than I don’t, that satisfaction can be perpetually sustained. But the thing is it's not inevitable that a person who solved the puzzle incorrectly will lose his satisfaction. He may go all the way to the grave believing he solved the puzzle correctly. His sensation would be the same as the man who actually solved the puzzle correctly. The sensation doesn’t have to correspond to what in fact is true; you just run the risk of not being able to sustain it if it’s false. Think of the plethora of religious folks who likely died just as strong, if not stronger in their satisfaction that the things they believe in were true, even if in fact they were false.

I’m a Christian. But as a dopefiend, I’m constantly trying to evoke that sensation of truthiness. I read both for and against my religious views, even surround myself in places like this by folks that don’t, and I find myself constantly being reinforced, feeling that sensation more and more, as the picture becomes fuller for me. The truth of things that I believe in feel more evident as I grow older, the more I contemplate it, a deeper sense that this solution to the puzzle is a correct one. Every time that sensation is a evoked, the more confident I feel that it’s true. In fact the alternative pictures fail to evoke that sensation, they all lack the ring of truth to it.

But assuming my picture is false, as you of course will feel it is, what would that say about the sensation of truth? That false beliefs can sustain that sensation quite effectively, even impenetrably regardless of exposures.

"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, 07:40 PM
RE: Substance dualism, why is it still a thing?
(31-08-2015 06:07 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  I know that the beliefs that I consider most important are rational. I am confident that the majority of the rest are, but I am not so anal as to spend three years of my life cataloging them to make certain.

And I know that the beliefs that I consider most important are rational. I am confident that the majority of the rest are as well. Where as you determined this by attempting to filter these beliefs through "logical calculus", I determine this by thinking of my beliefs from the ground up to see whether they not they hold together from the root. It's a confidence afford to me from abilities to be introspective, to foster alternative possibilities, to be to contemplate my beliefs from one end to the other.

And I see no compelling reason to believe that your methodology of filtering your beliefs through "logical calculus" is any more reliable than mine. In fact you're methodology sounds a bit funny to me.

"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, 07:46 PM
RE: Substance dualism, why is it still a thing?
(31-08-2015 07:40 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  And I know that the beliefs that I consider most important are rational. I am confident that the majority of the rest are as well. Where as you determined this by attempting to filter these beliefs through "logical calculus", I determine this by thinking of my beliefs from the ground up to see whether they not they hold together from the root.

Which is essentially the same thing, yes.

Prepositional calculus is just the formal-notation form of basic logic.

(31-08-2015 07:40 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  And I see no compelling reason to believe that your methodology of filtering your beliefs through "logical calculus" is any more reliable than mine. In fact you're methodology sounds a bit funny to me.

If you say so - though I will point out that rational skepticism is the only epistemology which can be proven to reliably get results.

Beyond that, I have no idea what your beliefs are, so I really can't comment. I will say, however, that you have already made several assumptions about me that you have no basis for, and it has never worked out in your favor.

"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: