Forums → WEPR → Dualism

69	10052

offline

FireflyIV

3,224 posts

Nomad

Posted October 19, '09 1:09pm UTC

The idea to create this topic came from reading the OP of this thread.

After reading it, I find it amazing that people take for granted, that humans have ''souls'', without actually delving deeper into it:

The idea that man is made of both matter and something insubstantial has been around for thousands of years. Since the advent of religion, and the concept of an afterlife, people have held the belief that there is a physical and non physical aspect to each and every person - dualism. Despite the fact that it is riddled with fallacies, more people seem to believe in dualism than monoism, despite the fact that the latter is more supported by logic.

The first problem with dualism is the interface between the two forms of existence (physical and non physical.)

Dualism presupposes that a connection exists between the non physical mind and the physical brain and body. It does not, however explain in any way how this connection exists, or in which state this connection exists.

The idea that there is a connection between the physical and non physical relies on one of two fallacies.

Firstly, that there is a third state of being, somewhere in between physical and non physical which obviously moves away from the idea of dualism by creating a third state of being. Logically however, we must then create more states of being to connect the new state of being to the original states, andthen continue this pattern ad infinitum for the infinite amount of states that will eventually occur.

This idea falls prey to the second fallacy of the dualistic connection, being that if there is a connection between these two states of existence, it must be either physical or non physical, which then fails to accomplish any sort of connection, (or a non physical connection) to connect the physical existence to the non physical existence, nothing is being accomplished, and no connection is being established. Once we accept this second fallacy we require a new connection between this physical connection and non physical existence, and the fallacy comes full circle, returning to the original goal. The idea that any connection can exist between the physical and non physical presupposes either a third form of existence, or a non existent connection, and therefore, the idea of a connection between the physical and non physical fails.

Now that it is apparent that there can be no connection between the physical and the non physical existences, and we are limited to our physical experiences for our data and input, how can we have any knowledge or data about this non physical existence? It is obvious, of course, that we are limited to our physical experiences for our data and input, as all of our senses are physically based. If we have no real knowledge of the non physical existence, we cannot justify anything about such an existence. Because we have no true knowledge about a non physical existence, dualism is shown again to be intrinsically flawed.

A common argument for dualism consists of the idea that the mind and body, an admittedly physical entity, can continue to exist without the ''life'' of the mind, and therefore they are two different types of existence. Unfortunately, because we have no real way to know about the non physical existence, we have no way to truly tell if the mind has died. Aside from this, brain death does not necessarily constitute mind death either, in the dualistic view. Because of this, the argument, that the body can exist without the mind is not necessarily true, as we have no way to know when the mind has died, and brain death does not necessarily equate to mind death. Therefore the argument that dualism is logically consistent because the body can live without the mind and thus they are two separate things, fails.

Any questions?

The idea to create this topic came from reading the OP of [url=http://armorgames.com/community/thread/4585208/what-is-a-spirit]this[/url] thread.\r\n\r\nAfter reading it, I find it amazing that people take for granted, that humans have ''souls'', without actually delving deeper into it:\r\n\r\nThe idea that man is made of both matter and something insubstantial has been around for thousands of years. Since the advent of religion, and the concept of an afterlife, people have held the belief that there is a physical and non physical aspect to each and every person - dualism. Despite the fact that it is riddled with fallacies, more people seem to believe in dualism than monoism, despite the fact that the latter is more supported by logic.\r\n\r\nThe first problem with dualism is the interface between the two forms of existence (physical and non physical.)\r\n\r\nDualism presupposes that a connection exists between the non physical mind and the physical brain and body. It does not, however explain in any way how this connection exists, or in which state this connection exists. \r\n\r\nThe idea that there is a connection between the physical and non physical relies on one of two fallacies.\r\n\r\nFirstly, that there is a third state of being, somewhere in between physical and non physical which obviously moves away from the idea of dualism by creating a third state of being. Logically however, we must then create more states of being to connect the new state of being to the original states, andthen continue this pattern [i]ad infinitum[/i] for the infinite amount of states that will eventually occur.\r\n\r\nThis idea falls prey to the second fallacy of the dualistic connection, being that if there is a connection between these two states of existence, it must be either physical or non physical, which then fails to accomplish any sort of connection, (or a non physical connection) to connect the physical existence to the non physical existence, nothing is being accomplished, and no connection is being established. Once we accept this second fallacy we require a new connection between this physical connection and non physical existence, and the fallacy comes full circle, returning to the original goal. The idea that any connection can exist between the physical and non physical presupposes either a third form of existence, or a non existent connection, and therefore, the idea of a connection between the physical and non physical fails.\r\n\r\nNow that it is apparent that there can be no connection between the physical and the non physical existences, and we are limited to our physical experiences for our data and input, how can we have any knowledge or data about this non physical existence? It is obvious, of course, that we are limited to our physical experiences for our data and input, as all of our senses are physically based. If we have no real knowledge of the non physical existence, we cannot justify anything about such an existence. Because we have no true knowledge about a non physical existence, dualism is shown again to be intrinsically flawed. \r\n\r\nA common argument for dualism consists of the idea that the mind and body, an admittedly physical entity, can continue to exist without the ''life'' of the mind, and therefore they are two different types of existence. Unfortunately, because we have no real way to know about the non physical existence, we have no way to truly tell if the mind has died. Aside from this, brain death does not necessarily constitute mind death either, in the dualistic view. Because of this, the argument, that the body can exist without the mind is not necessarily true, as we have no way to know when the mind has died, and brain death does not necessarily equate to mind death. Therefore the argument that dualism is logically consistent because the body can live without the mind and thus they are two separate things, fails.\r\n\r\nAny questions?

69 Replies

offline

yielee

618 posts

Shepherd

Posted October 19, '09 10:32pm UTC

In music there is a concept called Harmonics. You can look at a sheet of music and see all the notes, but when its played, a new melody may emerge from the harmonics, a tune that doesn't exist on paper. So music has a dual nature. It's the same with DNA. If you just concentrate on the notes that are being incorporated in the physical protein of DNA then you won't know what's going on in the spirit when all the notes are played. Maybe that's your soul? It's not there until you start living. But the question is why is it there? Maybe fate has some do do with it?

offline

thisISanalt

72 posts

Nomad

Posted October 19, '09 10:50pm UTC

In music there is a concept called Harmonics. You can look at a sheet of music and see all the notes, but when its played, a new melody may emerge from the harmonics, a tune that doesn't exist on paper.

. . . so if we're going by this exact analogy, our souls are just certain parts of our physical existence that harmonize? I don't think that's really congruent to the idea of dualism overall.

It's the same with DNA. If you just concentrate on the notes that are being incorporated in the physical protein of DNA then you won't know what's going on in the spirit when all the notes are played. Maybe that's your soul? It's not there until you start living. But the question is why is it there? Maybe fate has some do do with it?

. . . we'd all like some evidence towards the presence of these 'harmonics' in DNA. You can see the harmonics on the sheet of music - is it the same with dnA? You need to elaborate.

(Also, sorry if there are capitalization errors. My shift key is not cooperating with me very well.)

[quote]In music there is a concept called Harmonics. You can look at a sheet of music and see all the notes, but when its played, a new melody may emerge from the harmonics, a tune that doesn't exist on paper.[/quote]\r\n\r\n . . . so if we're going by this exact analogy, our souls are just certain parts of our physical existence that harmonize?  I don't think that's really congruent to the idea of dualism overall.\r\n\r\n[quote]It's the same with DNA. If you just concentrate on the notes that are being incorporated in the physical protein of DNA then you won't know what's going on in the spirit when all the notes are played. Maybe that's your soul? It's not there until you start living. But the question is why is it there? Maybe fate has some do do with it?[/quote]\r\n\r\n . . . we'd all like some evidence towards the presence of these 'harmonics' in DNA.  You can see the harmonics on the sheet of music - is it the same with dnA?  You need to elaborate.\r\n\r\n(Also, sorry if there are capitalization errors.  My shift key is not cooperating with me very well.)

offline

Drace

3,880 posts

Nomad

Posted October 19, '09 11:03pm UTC

You make a lot of assumptions.

Dualism presupposes that a connection exists between the non physical mind and the physical brain and body. It does not, however explain in any way how this connection exists, or in which state this connection exists.

Believing in a spirit is of total faith. How can you explain the link scientifically?

Firstly, that there is a third state of being, somewhere in between physical and non physical which obviously moves away from the idea of dualism by creating a third state of being. Logically however, we must then create more states of being to connect the new state of being to the original states, andthen continue this pattern ad infinitum for the infinite amount of states that will eventually occur.

You assume that there must be a connection between the soul and the body, and that it must be tied together with a whole new entity. But why? If I get a rope and tie it around a pole, where is the third entity that comes into play?

Though, this again takes a scientific attack on the idea of a soul. When you believe in a soul, the link between the soul and the body can be faith just as well.

it must be either physical or non physical,

This is again assumed. Why?

If we have no real knowledge of the non physical existence, we cannot justify anything about such an existence. Because we have no true knowledge about a non physical existence, dualism is shown again to be intrinsically flawed.

I do agree with you here, but its a useless statement here.
believing in a soul is complete faith. No one tried to think of it scientifically.

You make a lot of assumptions.\r\n[quote]\r\nDualism presupposes that a connection exists between the non physical mind and the physical brain and body. It does not, however explain in any way how this connection exists, or in which state this connection exists.[/quote]\r\n\r\nBelieving in a spirit is of total faith. How can you explain the link scientifically?\r\n\r\n[quote]Firstly, that there is a third state of being, somewhere in between physical and non physical which obviously moves away from the idea of dualism by creating a third state of being. Logically however, we must then create more states of being to connect the new state of being to the original states, andthen continue this pattern ad infinitum for the infinite amount of states that will eventually occur.[/quote]\r\n\r\nYou assume that there must be a connection between the soul and the body, and that it must be tied together with a whole new entity. But why? If I get a rope and tie it around a pole, where is the third entity that comes into play?\r\n\r\nThough, this again takes a scientific attack on the idea of a soul. When you believe in a soul, the link between the soul and the body can be faith just as well.\r\n[quote]\r\nit must be either physical or non physical,[/quote]\r\n\r\nThis is again assumed. Why?\r\n[quote]\r\nIf we have no real knowledge of the non physical existence, we cannot justify anything about such an existence. Because we have no true knowledge about a non physical existence, dualism is shown again to be intrinsically flawed.[/quote]\r\n\r\nI do agree with you here, but its a useless statement here.\r\nbelieving in a soul is complete faith. No one tried to think of it scientifically.

offline

FireflyIV

3,224 posts

Nomad

Posted October 20, '09 9:48pm UTC

Believing in a spirit is of total faith. How can you explain the link scientifically?

I am not trying to explain the link scientifically, due to a lack of empirical evidence on the subject, I am attempting to apply common logic to the idea of dualism.

You assume that there must be a connection between the soul and the body, and that it must be tied together with a whole new entity. But why? If I get a rope and tie it around a pole, where is the third entity that comes into play?

Dualism presupposes the existence of a link between the body and soul. The physical entity of the body cannot just connect to the unphysical entity of the soul. They exist in different incompatible states. That's why they must be connected. Therefore we can assume that there needs to be a connection between the two realms of existence. However, as explained in my original post, this carries inherent difficulties. Your analogy is false because it misinterprets the argument. A more appropriate analogy would be two poles which are meant to be linked, but do not have a rope.

Though, this again takes a scientific attack on the idea of a soul. When you believe in a soul, the link between the soul and the body can be faith just as well.

Do not try to make this out as an attack on faith. My argument has nothing to do with epistemology. It does however, have everything to do with common logic, which dictates that monoism is probably more likely.

This is again assumed. Why?

Dualism assumes that the body, a physical entity, is connected to the soul, a non physical entity. It defines these parameters as states of being. Therefore the connection that supposedly exists between these two states of being has to be either of the two. It cannot be a mix.

believing in a soul is complete faith. No one tried to think of it scientifically

Again I am not trying to think of it scientifically, but from a logical standpoint. Even without proof of the non-existence of a soul, common logic dictates, that the very idea of dualism is flawed.

[quote]Believing in a spirit is of total faith. How can you explain the link scientifically?[/quote]\r\n\r\nI am not trying to explain the link scientifically, due to a lack of empirical evidence on the subject, I am attempting to apply common logic to the idea of dualism.\r\n\r\n[quote]You assume that there must be a connection between the soul and the body, and that it must be tied together with a whole new entity. But why? If I get a rope and tie it around a pole, where is the third entity that comes into play?[/quote]\r\n\r\nDualism presupposes the existence of a link between the body and soul. The physical entity of the body cannot just connect to the unphysical entity of the soul. They exist in different incompatible states. That's why they must be connected. Therefore we can assume that there needs to be a connection between the two realms of existence. However, as explained in my original post, this carries inherent difficulties. Your analogy is false because it misinterprets the argument. A more appropriate analogy would be two poles which are meant to be linked, but do not have a rope.\r\n\r\n[quote]Though, this again takes a scientific attack on the idea of a soul. When you believe in a soul, the link between the soul and the body can be faith just as well.[/quote]\r\n\r\nDo not try to make this out as an attack on faith. My argument has nothing to do with epistemology. It does however, have everything to do with common logic, which dictates that monoism is probably more likely.\r\n\r\n[quote]This is again assumed. Why?[/quote]\r\n\r\nDualism assumes that the body, a physical entity, is connected to the soul, a non physical entity. It defines these parameters as states of being. Therefore the connection that supposedly exists between these two states of being has to be either of the two. It cannot be a mix.\r\n\r\n[quote]believing in a soul is complete faith. No one tried to think of it scientifically[/quote]\r\n\r\nAgain I am not trying to think of it scientifically, but from a logical standpoint. Even without proof of the non-existence of a soul, common logic dictates, that the very idea of dualism is flawed.

offline

Drace

3,880 posts

Nomad

Posted October 21, '09 4:43am UTC

By scientific, really I meant logically.
But the problem of thinking this logically is that its quite irrelevant to faith.

The physical entity of the body cannot just connect to the unphysical entity of the soul.

Why not?

A more appropriate analogy would be two poles which are meant to be linked, but do not have a rope.

What if the poles are inside each other? Or so close that their touching? Lol

Really, I think your idea of an existing state of connection has no logical basis and is belief in itself. I don't see your reasoning behind it. Your just saying that there are two different states of being and they require a third state to connect them.

Faith can pre-assume things and go against any reasoning. Such things are really even attributes that have us group something within faith and not logic.

Faith really does not have to and does not try to explain the unexplained.

offline

Moegreche

3,826 posts

Duke

Posted October 21, '09 6:16am UTC

Dualism presupposes the existence of a link between the body and soul.

First, there are two kinds of dualism - substance dualism and property dualism. Interestingly, neither of them entail interaction between the substances. Some even posit a type of pre-established harmony between mind and body.

The physical entity of the body cannot just connect to the unphysical entity of the soul. They exist in different incompatible states.

The Interaction Problem your discussion here might have been a real problem for Descartes, but contemporary dualists have some very elegant solutions. One move I really like is a clarification of what we mean by non-physical. It's conceivable that something might not take up physical space, but still reside in a physical location. The mind, while not spacial, clearly does exist somewhere in the brain.

You also made a point about some entity that is in the middle of physical and non-physical. I've never heard of such a theory. Something is either physical or it's not. Unless you want to adopt a logical system that doesn't include the Law of Excluded Middle, I think we should ignore these types of entities.

My major gripe, though, is the exact opposite of what you're saying: you can't dismiss dualism on logical grounds alone. Period. You might find the arguments to be hard to swallow, but they're not unsound. The interaction problem, perhaps dualism's biggest hurdle, has several sound explanations. But I do want to focus on some strengths of dualism:

The Conceivability Argument:
1) If I can clearly and distinctly conceive of x as separate from y, then x is a separate entity from y.
2) I can clearly and distinctly conceive of my mind as distinct from my body.
/ Therefore, my mind is a separate entity from my body.

Illumination:
There are many problems with non-dualistic accounts of the mind.
How is it that we know our minds better than anything else?
How can our thoughts be "about" things - even things that don't exist?
We can doubt the content of our beliefs (I can doubt that I'm sitting here typing) but we can't doubt the "aboutness" of a belief (that my belief is about me typing).
Why do we have privileged access to our minds but not anyone else's?
If all there is are physical structures and interactions within systems, why can't I directly influence someone else's mind?

A final note, please no one rail on me for these arguments. They're not mine, just standard sort of problems in the Philosophy of Mind. I don't wish to agree with or refute any of them at this point, merely try give some fuel to what looks like an excellent conversation.

So, with (some of) the strengths of dualism a little more apparent, what can we say about the theory?

Also, as FireFly pointed out, let's restrict this to mind/body. No talk of God or souls that doesn't relate directly to a specific argument.

I'm super excited to see some discussion on the Philosophy. This is sort of my field of study, so I would like to get things out a little bit more clearly. I'm going to preface all this with simply saying that your characterization of dualism is unfair. I'll just bring up a few points.\r\n\r\n[quote]Dualism presupposes the existence of a link between the body and soul.[/quote] \r\nFirst, there are two kinds of dualism - substance dualism and property dualism. Interestingly, neither of them entail interaction between the substances. Some even posit a type of pre-established harmony between mind and body.\r\n\r\n[quote]The physical entity of the body cannot just connect to the unphysical entity of the soul. They exist in different incompatible states.[/quote] \r\nThe Interaction Problem your discussion here might have been a real problem for Descartes, but contemporary dualists have some very elegant solutions. One move I really like is a clarification of what we mean by non-physical. It's conceivable that something might not take up physical space, but still reside in a physical location. The mind, while not spacial, clearly does exist somewhere in the brain.\r\n\r\nYou also made a point about some entity that is in the middle of physical and non-physical. I've never heard of such a theory. Something is either physical or it's not. Unless you want to adopt a logical system that doesn't include the Law of Excluded Middle, I think we should ignore these types of entities.\r\n\r\nMy major gripe, though, is the exact opposite of what you're saying: you can't dismiss dualism on logical grounds alone. Period. You might find the arguments to be hard to swallow, but they're not unsound. The interaction problem, perhaps dualism's biggest hurdle, has several sound explanations. But I do want to focus on some strengths of dualism:\r\n\r\nThe Conceivability Argument:\r\n1) If I can clearly and distinctly conceive of x as separate from y, then x is a separate entity from y.\r\n2) I can clearly and distinctly conceive of my mind as distinct from my body.\r\n/ Therefore, my mind is a separate entity from my body.\r\n\r\nIllumination:\r\nThere are many problems with non-dualistic accounts of the mind. \r\nHow is it that we know our minds better than anything else? \r\nHow can our thoughts be "about" things - even things that don't exist?\r\nWe can doubt the content of our beliefs (I can doubt that I'm sitting here typing) but we can't doubt the "aboutness" of a belief (that my belief is about me typing).\r\nWhy do we have privileged access to our minds but not anyone else's?\r\nIf all there is are physical structures and interactions within systems, why can't I directly influence someone else's mind?\r\n\r\nA final note, please no one rail on me for these arguments. They're not mine, just standard sort of problems in the Philosophy of Mind. I don't wish to agree with or refute any of them at this point, merely try give some fuel to what looks like an excellent conversation.\r\n\r\nSo, with (some of) the strengths of dualism a little more apparent, what can we say about the theory?\r\n\r\nAlso, as FireFly pointed out, let's restrict this to mind/body. No talk of God or souls that doesn't relate directly to a specific argument.

offline

FireflyIV

3,224 posts

Nomad

Posted October 21, '09 7:36am UTC

Unfortunately, I am going on a trip, so I will not be able to reply for a few days. That will give me time to gather my thoughts though.

offline

yielee

618 posts

Shepherd

Posted October 22, '09 1:47am UTC

gather my thoughts

offline

Pau11Wa11

527 posts

Nomad

Posted October 22, '09 4:25am UTC

there are barely any comments on this thread becuz you started out with such a long explanation of the thread. you should try not to make so long. Just trying to help!

offline

Moegreche

3,826 posts

Duke

Posted October 22, '09 6:46pm UTC

Maybe. Put long opening posts to tend to discourage people who don't have much to say on the topic.
I don't think Firefly was hoping for large numbers of comments, but just substantial and intelligent ones.

offline

communist09

259 posts

Nomad

Posted October 23, '09 1:34am UTC

This is the 21st Century, people don't have time to read a decent post

offline

FireflyIV

3,224 posts

Nomad

Posted October 24, '09 11:08pm UTC

Maybe. Put long opening posts to tend to discourage people who don't have much to say on the topic.
I don't think Firefly was hoping for large numbers of comments, but just substantial and intelligent ones.

Indeed. I would like to clarify, that I did not create this thread with the intention of alienating people from the discussion, rather to provoke some. A long OP, whilst it may discourage some users, is also often necessary to present a structured argument.

No talk of God or souls that doesn't relate directly to a specific argument.

Agreed, although I'd just like to say, before I begin, that I shall refer to the non physical aspect of dualism as a 'soul' purely for the sake of ease.

First, there are two kinds of dualism - substance dualism and property dualism. Interestingly, neither of them entail interaction between the substances. Some even posit a type of pre-established harmony between mind and body.

Firstly, I do not believe I implied that there was interaction between the body and soul, just that a connection exists, such as a pre-established connection. It is with this assumption that I take issue with. Interaction or no interaction, however, the logical flaws with regards to a connection itself still stand.

One move I really like is a clarification of what we mean by non-physical. It's conceivable that something might not take up physical space, but still reside in a physical location. The mind, while not spacial, clearly does exist somewhere in the brain.

I think it's important to clarify what is meant by the term 'mind'. Some cognitive psychologists would argue, (and on this count I agree), that the 'mind' is nothing more than a 'central executive'. Of course there are hundreds of psychological theories on what the 'mind' is. However, for the purpose of this argument, I think it is important to point out that, when philosophers refer to the mind as a sort of soul, that there is no evidence for this, and that there is more evidence in existence, which indicates that the mind is merely the activity of different parts of the physical brain. For example, in various studies, different areas of the brain light up when participants were performing different tasks, however the segments lighting up often did not correspond to that of other participants. In short, we do not know what the 'mind' is, and it is just as likely there is a perfectly reasonable biological explanation for it, than to assume it is your 'soul'.

You also made a point about some entity that is in the middle of physical and non-physical. I've never heard of such a theory. Something is either physical or it's not. Unless you want to adopt a logical system that doesn't include the Law of Excluded Middle, I think we should ignore these types of entities.

To the contrary, I am using this very flaw to point out the flaw in dualism itself. My point about a 'third state of being', demontrates that because the body and soul exist in different states, the connection between them has to be one that exists in a state that transcends the two. This is of course, in itself unsound, as you pointed out. I was not advocating the existence of such a state, rather exploring how dualism would have to work, the result being, it wouldn't.

A final note, please no one rail on me for these arguments. They're not mine, just standard sort of problems in the Philosophy of Mind. I don't wish to agree with or refute any of them at this point, merely try give some fuel to what looks like an excellent conversation.

I will attempt to argue from an anti-dualistic point of view, the arguments you presented, note I am not railing you personally, I am attempting to break them down some more.

The Conceivability Argument:
1) If I can clearly and distinctly conceive of x as separate from y, then x is a separate entity from y.
2) I can clearly and distinctly conceive of my mind as distinct from my body.
/ Therefore, my mind is a separate entity from my body.

That's assuming that the mind is indeed a separate entity from the body, not just part of our biology, a point I addressed earlier in this post.

How is it that we know our minds better than anything else?

Can I ask you to clarify what relevance this has to the argument for dualism itself?

How can our thoughts be "about" things - even things that don't exist?

Embarrassingly, I cannot remember which philosopher said this (I'm fairly certain he was Greek), or indeed the exact quote, but I'll just explain it instead for the purpose of this argument. Essentially he claimed that the imagination we humans seem to laud so, is not really that special. It seems that the human mind is very much like copy and paste. Instead of creating totally new ideas or images, we just take different things from different locations and stick them together to create something seemingly new.

An example of this would be to attempt to think of a completely new type of animal or life form. The result would ultimately be one that resembles, in some form, something you already have seen before.

Thus we humans do not really conceive things that don't exist, we just take existing things and stick them together.

We can doubt the content of our beliefs (I can doubt that I'm sitting here typing) but we can't doubt the "aboutness" of a belief (that my belief is about me typing).

I see what you are saying, but I fail to see why that belittles monoism.

Why do we have privileged access to our minds but not anyone else's?

If all there is are physical structures and interactions within systems, why can't I directly influence someone else's mind?

If we assume my biological take on the 'mind', to the first question, simply because we do not, at present understand where the mind resides exactly in the brain, or which cortex controls it. Thus, until we know more of the mind itself and how it operates, it would be impossible to do so.

To the second question, surely we can influence someone's mind through the power of persuasion and subliminal messaging? Various studies have shown that visual and audio prompts of the right nature within a controlled environment can indeed directly influence behaviour.

So, with (some of) the strengths of dualism a little more apparent, what can we say about the theory?

Personally, I would still accept dualism over monoism as a theory. Really, it's the use of Occam's Razor to believe in the possibility that makes fewest assumptions, which is in my opinion, monoism.

[quote]Maybe. Put long opening posts to tend to discourage people who don't have much to say on the topic.\r\nI don't think Firefly was hoping for large numbers of comments, but just substantial and intelligent ones.[/quote]\r\n\r\nIndeed. I would like to clarify, that I did not create this thread with the intention of alienating people from the discussion, rather to provoke some. A long OP, whilst it may discourage some users, is also often necessary to present a structured argument.\r\n\r\n[quote]No talk of God or souls that doesn't relate directly to a specific argument.[/quote]\r\n\r\nAgreed, although I'd just like to say, before I begin, that I shall refer to the non physical aspect of dualism as a 'soul' purely for the sake of ease.\r\n\r\n[quote]First, there are two kinds of dualism - substance dualism and property dualism. Interestingly, neither of them entail interaction between the substances. Some even posit a type of pre-established harmony between mind and body.[/quote]\r\n\r\nFirstly, I do not believe I implied that there was interaction between the body and soul, just that a connection exists, such as a pre-established connection. It is with this assumption that I take issue with. Interaction or no interaction, however, the logical flaws with regards to a connection itself still stand.\r\n\r\n[quote]One move I really like is a clarification of what we mean by non-physical. It's conceivable that something might not take up physical space, but still reside in a physical location. The mind, while not spacial, clearly does exist somewhere in the brain.[/quote]\r\n\r\nI think it's important to clarify what is meant by the term 'mind'. Some cognitive psychologists would argue, (and on this count I agree), that the 'mind' is nothing more than a '[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_memory#The_Baddeley_and_Hitch_model]central executive[/url]'. Of course there are hundreds of psychological theories on what the 'mind' is. However, for the purpose of this argument, I think it is important to point out that, when philosophers refer to the mind as a sort of soul, that there is no evidence for this, and that there is more evidence in existence, which indicates that the mind is merely the activity of different parts of the physical brain. For example, in various studies, different areas of the brain light up when participants were performing different tasks, however the segments lighting up often did not correspond to that of other participants. In short, we do not know what the 'mind' is, and it is just as likely there is a perfectly reasonable biological explanation for it, than to assume it is your 'soul'.\r\n\r\n[quote]You also made a point about some entity that is in the middle of physical and non-physical. I've never heard of such a theory. Something is either physical or it's not. Unless you want to adopt a logical system that doesn't include the Law of Excluded Middle, I think we should ignore these types of entities.[/quote]\r\n\r\nTo the contrary, I am using this very flaw to point out the flaw in dualism itself. My point about a 'third state of being', demontrates that because the body and soul exist in different states, the connection between them has to be one that exists in a state that transcends the two. This is of course, in itself unsound, as you pointed out. I was not advocating the existence of such a state, rather exploring how dualism would have to work, the result being, it wouldn't.\r\n\r\n[quote]A final note, please no one rail on me for these arguments. They're not mine, just standard sort of problems in the Philosophy of Mind. I don't wish to agree with or refute any of them at this point, merely try give some fuel to what looks like an excellent conversation.[/quote]\r\n\r\nI will attempt to argue from an anti-dualistic point of view, the arguments you presented, note I am not railing you personally, I am attempting to break them down some more.\r\n\r\n[quote]The Conceivability Argument:\r\n1) If I can clearly and distinctly conceive of x as separate from y, then x is a separate entity from y.\r\n2) I can clearly and distinctly conceive of my mind as distinct from my body.\r\n/ Therefore, my mind is a separate entity from my body.[/quote]\r\n\r\nThat's assuming that the mind is indeed a separate entity from the body, not just part of our biology, a point I addressed earlier in this post.\r\n\r\n[quote]How is it that we know our minds better than anything else?[/quote]\r\n\r\nCan I ask you to clarify what relevance this has to the argument for dualism itself?\r\n\r\n[quote]How can our thoughts be "about" things - even things that don't exist?[/quote]\r\n\r\nEmbarrassingly, I cannot remember which philosopher said this (I'm fairly certain he was Greek), or indeed the exact quote, but I'll just explain it instead for the purpose of this argument. Essentially he claimed that the imagination we humans seem to laud so, is not really that special. It seems that the human mind is very much like copy and paste. Instead of creating totally new ideas or images, we just take different things from different locations and stick them together to create something seemingly new.\r\n\r\nAn example of this would be to attempt to think of a completely new type of animal or life form. The result would ultimately be one that resembles, in some form, something you already have seen before. \r\n\r\nThus we humans do not really conceive things that don't exist, we just take existing things and stick them together.\r\n\r\n[quote]We can doubt the content of our beliefs (I can doubt that I'm sitting here typing) but we can't doubt the "aboutness" of a belief (that my belief is about me typing).[/quote]\r\n\r\nI see what you are saying, but I fail to see why that belittles monoism.\r\n\r\n[quote]Why do we have privileged access to our minds but not anyone else's?[/quote]\r\n\r\n[quote]If all there is are physical structures and interactions within systems, why can't I directly influence someone else's mind?[/quote]\r\n\r\nIf we assume my biological take on the 'mind', to the first question, simply because we do not, at present understand where the mind resides exactly in the brain, or which cortex controls it. Thus, until we know more of the mind itself and how it operates, it would be impossible to do so.\r\n\r\nTo the second question, surely we can influence someone's mind through the power of persuasion and subliminal messaging? Various studies have shown that visual and audio prompts of the right nature within a controlled environment can indeed directly influence behaviour.\r\n\r\n[quote]So, with (some of) the strengths of dualism a little more apparent, what can we say about the theory?[/quote]\r\n\r\nPersonally, I would still accept dualism over monoism as a theory. Really, it's the use of Occam's Razor to believe in the possibility that makes fewest assumptions, which is in my opinion, monoism.

offline

Moegreche

3,826 posts

Duke

Posted October 25, '09 4:01am UTC

How is it that we know our minds better than anything else?

and
(2)

We can doubt the content of our beliefs (I can doubt that I'm sitting here typing) but we can't doubt the "aboutness" of a belief (that my belief is about me typing).

I didn't explain the problem for physicalism for either of these, and I'm just not sure why. It's actually not that easy to see, but I'll try my best to explain clearly.
Both of these problems are meant to show there is something distinctly non-physical about the mind. The first quote from earlier (1) is meant to show there's something unique to the mind. We have privileged access to our mind in a way that is distinctly different from anything physical. This might just be due to a veil of perception that separates us from the external world, but sense mental thoughts of the external world are mostly perceptual, this still seems puzzling. I can be mistaken in perceiving a chair, but I can't be mistaken in believing that I perceived a chair. There's a context here that's just lacking in the physical world.
This brings me to (2), which also shows a problematic asymmetry with all things physical. In the chair example from above, my belief in that case was false (don't mistake this with the thought that I believed I was seeing a chair - that is still true). I believed I saw a chair, but I was wrong. The physical world does not share this property of bipolarity. "Chairs" themselves cannot be true or false, only our beliefs about them. I think this shows a strong and potentially problematic disconnect between the physical world and the mind.
More to the point of(2)... (I got distracted), is that there is something regarding my thoughts that I can't doubt - the intention of the thought. I might be wrong about my belief in a chair, but I can't be wrong that my belief is about a chair. This is also a disconnect with the physical world - physical things or structures cannot be "about" anything. A chair just is what it is, but again there's this context that seems unique to the mind.

To the contrary, I am using this very flaw to point out the flaw in dualism itself.

My bad, I misunderstood what you were saying. I would like to point out here that a preestablished harmony between mind and body, while not exactly a convincing solution, does avoid the interaction problem. While I think this is the biggest problem for dualism, it's not as bad as we might think.
Bill Lycan just finished up a paper titled "Giving Dualism Its Due" in which he brings up some interesting points about the interaction problem. Notably, if the dualism given up non-spatiality while still keeping the rest of the "spooky" stuff, he's in a stronger position.
Also, as Lycan points out, we just don't have a good model for Cartesian dualism. This is a hindrance to the theory, but not a fatal flaw. Hell, we hardly have a decent model for physical causation.
My point here is that I think calling dualism logically flawed or unsound isn't very fair. Dualism is certainly implausible, but I don't think it can be dismissed on logical grounds alone.

Personally, I would still accept dualism over monoism as a theory. Really, it's the use of Occam's Razor to believe in the possibility that makes fewest assumptions, which is in my opinion, monoism.

Here, I absolutely agree. But I'm not going to let that get in the way of a very enjoyable conversation

I see a few of the points I made need explicating; specifically on how they might be a problem for physicalism (this is the general term for an entirely physical account of the mind. monism is generally a metaphysical term rather than philosophy of mind term).\r\nLet me quote the problem areas:\r\n(1) [quote]How is it that we know our minds better than anything else?[/quote] \r\nand\r\n(2) [quote]We can doubt the content of our beliefs (I can doubt that I'm sitting here typing) but we can't doubt the "aboutness" of a belief (that my belief is about me typing).[/quote] \r\n\r\nI didn't explain the problem for physicalism for either of these, and I'm just not sure why. It's actually not that easy to see, but I'll try my best to explain clearly.\r\nBoth of these problems are meant to show there is something distinctly non-physical about the mind. The first quote from earlier (1) is meant to show there's something unique to the mind. We have privileged access to our mind in a way that is distinctly different from anything physical. This might just be due to a veil of perception that separates us from the external world, but sense mental thoughts of the external world are mostly perceptual, this still seems puzzling. I can be mistaken in perceiving a chair, but I can't be mistaken in believing that I perceived a chair. There's a context here that's just lacking in the physical world.\r\nThis brings me to (2), which also shows a problematic asymmetry with all things physical. In the chair example from above, my belief in that case was false (don't mistake this with the thought that I believed I was seeing a chair - that is still true). I believed I saw a chair, but I was wrong. The physical world does not share this property of bipolarity. "Chairs" themselves cannot be true or false, only our beliefs about them. I think this shows a strong and potentially problematic disconnect between the physical world and the mind.\r\nMore to the point of(2)... (I got distracted), is that there is something regarding my thoughts that I can't doubt - the intention of the thought. I might be wrong about my belief in a chair, but I can't be wrong that my belief is about a chair. This is also a disconnect with the physical world - physical things or structures cannot be "about" anything. A chair just is what it is, but again there's this context that seems unique to the mind.\r\n\r\n[quote]To the contrary, I am using this very flaw to point out the flaw in dualism itself.[/quote] \r\nMy bad, I misunderstood what you were saying. I would like to point out here that a preestablished harmony between mind and body, while not exactly a convincing solution, does avoid the interaction problem. While I think this is the biggest problem for dualism, it's not as bad as we might think.\r\nBill Lycan just finished up a paper titled "Giving Dualism Its Due" in which he brings up some interesting points about the interaction problem. Notably, if the dualism given up non-spatiality while still keeping the rest of the "spooky" stuff, he's in a stronger position.\r\nAlso, as Lycan points out, we just don't have a good model for Cartesian dualism. This is a hindrance to the theory, but not a fatal flaw. Hell, we hardly have a decent model for physical causation.\r\nMy point here is that I think calling dualism logically flawed or unsound isn't very fair. Dualism is certainly implausible, but I don't think it can be dismissed on logical grounds alone.\r\n\r\n[quote]Personally, I would still accept dualism over monoism as a theory. Really, it's the use of Occam's Razor to believe in the possibility that makes fewest assumptions, which is in my opinion, monoism.[/quote] \r\nHere, I absolutely agree. But I'm not going to let that get in the way of a very enjoyable conversation :)

offline

Drace

3,880 posts

Nomad

Posted October 25, '09 4:50am UTC

Just to say...
I think Occam's Razor is completely ridiculous. It does not base itself on any logical interpretation.

I would be just as right to say that the correct theory is the one that is the most complex.

offline

Moegreche

3,826 posts

Duke

Posted October 25, '09 4:52am UTC

Really, it's the use of Occam's Razor ...

Now that I'm thinking about it, I'm not so sure of this. Physicalism has a pretty big problem - how can physical structures be "about" something. This is the problem of intentionality, which isn't a problem for the dualist. Is it a bigger problem? I dunno. But it's certainly analogous to the interaction problem.
So, with the problem of intentionality for physicalism and the interaction problem for dualism, I'm not sure we could apply Occam's Razor. Even though physicalism seems to be the most intuitively plausible solution to me, that might just be my disinclination for the "spooky stuff" of dualism.
At any rate, I think the solution rests in the arguments alone, and not by applying the Razor to the problem.

Showing 16-30 of 69

Categories

Quests

Community

Forums → WEPR → Dualism