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.
Since quantum particles can fluctuate between states, this might be a very attractive route for the dualist.
Being a complete layman on the workings of quantum physics, all I feel I can say to this, is that wouldn't the change between the two states still be wthin the realm of the physical, not the metaphysical? Of course these thoughts are not physical, from the perspective of a scientist ie solid, liquid, gas, but aren't quantum particles just ridiculously tiny tiny particles, so still physical on some level, not metaphysical as would be required if dualism was true?
Or am I missing something here? Bearing in mind my lack of knowledge on quantum physics, I wouldn't be at all surprised if I was, but I thought I'd raise the question regardless.
Yeah, I really don't know anything at all about quantum physics beyond the very very basics. I don't know how tenable this position is though, although the idea has been posited by some contemporary philosophers. Actually I think it's Bill Lycan that suggests the idea, but I don't know how much he knows about quantum physics. But quantum particles do indeed do interesting things. There's only a very high probably that a quantum particle is in a particular location at a particular time. In fact, they fluctuate between locations and states - often exhibiting multiple (and mutually incompatible) states at one time. Once they're observed, these particles tend to "calm down" a little bit. There might be some interesting metaphysical implications as a result of this... but drawing them out would take some real work. I'm thinking of this more as just something fun to consider as opposed to a real argument - which I'm just not qualified to give. I think your points have been extremely well made, and this is honestly the corner I've been backed into. You've reduced my argument to something, well... ridiculous. But who knows? Maybe further investigations into these quantum particles might help explain parts of the mind. But then again, probably not
Well, here's my theory on this. First off, one of the reasons that people may believe in dualism more than monoism is that they simply are afraid of death and it is a comfort to think that when they die there will be something after. Secondly, even through all of the fallacies, you have to take into account the matter of religion. People have been taught and led since as long as they can remember that they were created by god, that god created everything, and that there is an afterlife. I can't think of a single major religion that does not have some sort of afterlife. Third, as for the state of existence in which the mind would be seperate from the physical brain, perhaps this is theoretically another dimension. Dualism is just another theory that cannot be proved unless you die or bring someone back from the dead. There's no physical way to prove anything, thus, you can argue however you like because there is no way to DISPROVE any theory that is not outright wrong.
But who knows? Maybe further investigations into these quantum particles might help explain parts of the mind. But then again, probably not
From what I've heard of quantum physics, it does sound fascinating. However, as of now, in light of the discussion, my stance is this: I reject dualism in favour of monoism, despite the problems with the latter. Until new evidence is gathered from quantum physics, as you have suggested there is potential for, I retain my belief in monoism over dualism.
I can't think of a single major religion that does not have some sort of afterlife.
Buddhism. They believe in reincarnation. When enlightenment is achieved their soul simply leaves the cycle of rebirth into nothingness.
First off, one of the reasons that people may believe in dualism more than monoism is that they simply are afraid of death and it is a comfort to think that when they die there will be something after.
Probably true, but the question here is more to do with the logical argument surrounding dualism, not why people support the theory.
Secondly, even through all of the fallacies, you have to take into account the matter of religion. People have been taught and led since as long as they can remember that they were created by god, that god created everything, and that there is an afterlife.
Again, probably very true, but it's not really addressing the real question, of whether dualism stands up as a theory with a logical basis.
Third, as for the state of existence in which the mind would be seperate from the physical brain, perhaps this is theoretically another dimension.
Even if we assume that the mind does exist in another dimension, there is still the matter of forging a connection betweenthis dimension and the one where the mind is located.
Dualism is just another theory that cannot be proved unless you die or bring someone back from the dead. There's no physical way to prove anything, thus, you can argue however you like because there is no way to DISPROVE any theory that is not outright wrong.
There is no way to empirically prove this theory as of yet, because of the nature of the mind as put forward by dualist theory and a resulting lack of evidence to draw from. But, from a logical stanpoint, I think we've had a pretty good go at doing so.
Unless you have a specific point you would like to address, I'm not going to bother trying to answer such an ambiguous accusation. I also recommed that you read the entire thread, as many refinements to my overall criticism of dualism are made.
