Dualism?

So what's really going on?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 2076
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Dualism?

Post by bahman » Thu Aug 11, 2016 10:14 am

I was thinking about dualism recently and I find it problematic. Lets start with definition of dualism. Dualism is a system of belief which claims that both mind/soul and matter are real. Mind however is not material hence it does not have any location. The problem I am facing is how one can related one mind to one body.

Dalek Prime
Posts: 4923
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2015 4:48 am
Location: Living in a tree with Polly.

Just say 'no' to dualism.

Post by Dalek Prime » Thu Aug 11, 2016 12:58 pm

I'm not certain what the issue is Bahman, so I'll reiterate what I believe. Mind is created within our wetwork matrix. Just as the software I write has no use without being run on a computer, so to thought without a brain. Recall our last conversation, where I stated pretty much the same thing regarding a thought. There is no thought floating around, looking for a synapse to complete it; it IS the synapse.

Now, some will argue that phenomena such as astral projection proves dualism. It does not. It's merely an error in perception.

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 2076
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Just say 'no' to dualism.

Post by bahman » Thu Aug 11, 2016 2:20 pm

Dalek Prime wrote: I'm not certain what the issue is Bahman, so I'll reiterate what I believe.
Consider a bunch of people. They have bodies and minds. Mind however is immaterial meaning that it cannot be located. The problem that I have is how one can related a body to a mind knowing the fact the minds have no location.
Dalek Prime wrote: Mind is created within our wetwork matrix. Just as the software I write has no use without being run on a computer, so to thought without a brain. Recall our last conversation, where I stated pretty much the same thing regarding a thought. There is no thought floating around, looking for a synapse to complete it; it IS the synapse.

Now, some will argue that phenomena such as astral projection proves dualism. It does not. It's merely an error in perception.
So you think that electromagnetic field creates mind? Are you materialist? Materialism or any sort monism which claim that mind is emergent leads to epiphenomenalism.

Dalek Prime
Posts: 4923
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2015 4:48 am
Location: Living in a tree with Polly.

Re: Just say 'no' to dualism.

Post by Dalek Prime » Thu Aug 11, 2016 2:32 pm

bahman wrote:
Dalek Prime wrote: I'm not certain what the issue is Bahman, so I'll reiterate what I believe.
Consider a bunch of people. They have bodies and minds. Mind however is immaterial meaning that it cannot be located. The problem that I have is how one can related a body to a mind knowing the fact the minds have no location.
Dalek Prime wrote: Mind is created within our wetwork matrix. Just as the software I write has no use without being run on a computer, so to thought without a brain. Recall our last conversation, where I stated pretty much the same thing regarding a thought. There is no thought floating around, looking for a synapse to complete it; it IS the synapse.

Now, some will argue that phenomena such as astral projection proves dualism. It does not. It's merely an error in perception.
So you think that electromagnetic field creates mind? Are you materialist? Materialism or any sort monism which claim that mind is emergent leads to epiphenomenalism.
Synapses are chemical signals. Call me what you will, the consciousness is inextricable from the brain. If you deny this, we have nothing more to discuss.

User avatar
Noax
Posts: 667
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 3:25 am

Re: Dualism?

Post by Noax » Thu Aug 11, 2016 2:36 pm

bahman wrote:I was thinking about dualism recently and I find it problematic. Lets start with definition of dualism. Dualism is a system of belief which claims that both mind/soul and matter are real. Mind however is not material hence it does not have any location. The problem I am facing is how one can related one mind to one body.
There is no single definition of dualism. Only in your final question do you express mind to be a countable thing that is one per person. There could be just one mind, or an uncountable mind-sauce that gives experience to anything equipped for it, and crappy experience to anything not so equipped.

So you question the one-per-person views, which include substance dualism, sometimes property dualism, and possibly epiphenomenalism. The last one doesn't always have 1-1 correspondence to people. Substance dualism provides identity and I'm not sure about the others. With epiphenomenalism for instance, memory is still physical, but not the qualia and such. Apologies to others that I've probably gotten this wrong. I'm hardly a dualism expert but I've done some fairly deep exploration of epiphenomenalism before rejecting it. It can effect change, except such a model makes predictions, and the predictions turned out false.

So bahman, what is the question? Given a view with mind-to-body correspondence, how is that correspondence set up? I have no clue. When does the pairing get set up? What all forms of life get one and why does non-life not get one? I think answers to these question vary from one dualist to the next, so there is no right answer to your question. You ask how, not when. Again, I don't think there is a consistent answer.

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 2076
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Just say 'no' to dualism.

Post by bahman » Thu Aug 11, 2016 2:43 pm

Dalek Prime wrote:
bahman wrote:
Dalek Prime wrote: I'm not certain what the issue is Bahman, so I'll reiterate what I believe.
Consider a bunch of people. They have bodies and minds. Mind however is immaterial meaning that it cannot be located. The problem that I have is how one can related a body to a mind knowing the fact the minds have no location.
Dalek Prime wrote: Mind is created within our wetwork matrix. Just as the software I write has no use without being run on a computer, so to thought without a brain. Recall our last conversation, where I stated pretty much the same thing regarding a thought. There is no thought floating around, looking for a synapse to complete it; it IS the synapse.

Now, some will argue that phenomena such as astral projection proves dualism. It does not. It's merely an error in perception.
So you think that electromagnetic field creates mind? Are you materialist? Materialism or any sort monism which claim that mind is emergent leads to epiphenomenalism.
Synapses are chemical signals. Call me what you will, the consciousness is inextricable from the brain. If you deny this, we have nothing more to discuss.
As I said I can agree that consciousness can emerge from brain activity but that lead to epiphenomalism: Epiphenomalism is a mind–body philosophy marked by the belief that basic physical events (sense organs, neural impulses, and muscle contractions) are causal with respect to mental events (thought, consciousness, and cognition).

gurugeorge
Posts: 15
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 2:42 pm

Re: Dualism?

Post by gurugeorge » Thu Aug 11, 2016 2:57 pm

bahman wrote:I was thinking about dualism recently and I find it problematic. Lets start with definition of dualism. Dualism is a system of belief which claims that both mind/soul and matter are real. Mind however is not material hence it does not have any location. The problem I am facing is how one can related one mind to one body.
As always with philosophy, it depends on what you mean by ...

It's possible that both mind and matter are real, but not of different substance, but more like two vastly different possible ways that substance can behave, two different styles of matter/energy behaviour.

If matter can be conscious, there's no problem.

But here it's interesting because there's a natural revulsion to thinking that matter might be conscious, because it seems like there's a different world "in here" than "out there", and that having "in-here-ness" is a vastly different sort of thing from existing physically, as a particular bundle of matter/energy.

Seems like - but is it?

Consider that we ordinarily use "consciousness" broadly in two distinct ways (at least, but let's focus on these two, as they are the senses that seem to be involved in these sorts of discussions).

In a public, third-person sense, we have no problem observing two physical objects, one of which is conscious of the other in the sense that it can avoid it or cleave to it, circle it circumspectly, bark at it, etc.

The other sense of "consciousness" is a private, first-person sense. Here it seems like being conscious is having phenomena.

In a wooly sort of way, we tie the two together - we think, vaguely, that avoiding things and cleaving to them in the public, third-person sense, just involves having an "inner life", that having an "inner life" is the means by which publicly observable things cleave to and avoid other publicly-observable things, and without an "inner life", a thing isn't properly conscious, even if it happens to cleave to and avoid things (that must be "programming", which is different from being conscious in the "inner" sense).

But what if we don't have an "inner life"? What if our having an "inner life" is an illusion to us, a mistake, in the same sense that a publicly-observable dog might mistake a publicly-observable stick for a publicly-observable bone? If all that's left is the publicly-observable cleaving to/avoiding behaviour, then the problem is in a sense solved, because there's no problem, there's only the one sense of consciousness that effectively refers to anything, the sense that refers to a type of behaviour of matter.

However, even if we say that inner life is an illusion, there must be some sort of basis for the illusory nature of it, and that basis must be physical, must be matter/energy.

Yes, the basis is physical, it is the physical interactions that cause and form the substance of sensory events, understood from a particular perspective. The illusion of inner life arises when objects causally interact with sensory organs and the brain systems relevant thereunto. At that moment of interaction, a physical thing exists that doesn't exist up until that moment of interaction and disappears with its ceasing, abstractly speaking, like the kind of "interference pattern" that appears when two waves interact on the water's surface.

One's "inner life", then, is just the existence of sequences of those unique matter/energy interactions. From the first-person perspective, they are not observed by anyone or anything (unless we slip back to third-person public language, in which case they are observed by you in an inoffensive, ordinary sense); they are not observed by anything "inside one's head", they don't appear to a point of view, they aren't contained in any sort of space-like container called "awareness", they just sheerly exist. And that is enough.

The illusion (remember, an illusion on a par with the kind of illusion we might observe when a dog mistakes a stick for a bone) is precisely that there is an inner haver of these events, which makes the experiences seem of a different order of being to those events we normally think of as external to us, matter/energy, physical, etc., when actually they are of the same order.

If it were not so, if they weren't of the same order, they couldn't be part of the same consciousness. If you introspect, you notice that both external, physical events and thoughts appear on the same level, or in the same "conscious space" (I use the metaphor here because it's convenient) - thoughts are vague, like echoes of sounds, you have itches, images, etc., all appearing quite alongside external physical objects.

Idealists think that's because external objects are mental, but it's the other way round, it's because internal objects are also physical, just like the external objects.

Dalek Prime
Posts: 4923
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2015 4:48 am
Location: Living in a tree with Polly.

Re: Just say 'no' to dualism.

Post by Dalek Prime » Thu Aug 11, 2016 2:59 pm

bahman wrote:
Dalek Prime wrote:
bahman wrote:
Consider a bunch of people. They have bodies and minds. Mind however is immaterial meaning that it cannot be located. The problem that I have is how one can related a body to a mind knowing the fact the minds have no location.

So you think that electromagnetic field creates mind? Are you materialist? Materialism or any sort monism which claim that mind is emergent leads to epiphenomenalism.
Synapses are chemical signals. Call me what you will, the consciousness is inextricable from the brain. If you deny this, we have nothing more to discuss.
As I said I can agree that consciousness can emerge from brain activity but that lead to epiphenomalism: Epiphenomalism is a mind–body philosophy marked by the belief that basic physical events (sense organs, neural impulses, and muscle contractions) are causal with respect to mental events (thought, consciousness, and cognition).
Consiousness is inseparable from the brain. I shoot you in the head, your consciousness will be no more. Do you disagree? Let's not pigeonhole through labels, as I may not fit completely into a label, without my further reading on it. So I can't confirm or deny.

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 2076
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Dualism?

Post by bahman » Thu Aug 11, 2016 3:55 pm

gurugeorge wrote:
bahman wrote: I was thinking about dualism recently and I find it problematic. Lets start with definition of dualism. Dualism is a system of belief which claims that both mind/soul and matter are real. Mind however is not material hence it does not have any location. The problem I am facing is how one can related one mind to one body.
As always with philosophy, it depends on what you mean by ...

It's possible that both mind and matter are real, but not of different substance, but more like two vastly different possible ways that substance can behave, two different styles of matter/energy behaviour.

If matter can be conscious, there's no problem.

But here it's interesting because there's a natural revulsion to thinking that matter might be conscious, because it seems like there's a different world "in here" than "out there", and that having "in-here-ness" is a vastly different sort of thing from existing physically, as a particular bundle of matter/energy.

Seems like - but is it?

Consider that we ordinarily use "consciousness" broadly in two distinct ways (at least, but let's focus on these two, as they are the senses that seem to be involved in these sorts of discussions).

In a public, third-person sense, we have no problem observing two physical objects, one of which is conscious of the other in the sense that it can avoid it or cleave to it, circle it circumspectly, bark at it, etc.

The other sense of "consciousness" is a private, first-person sense. Here it seems like being conscious is having phenomena.

In a wooly sort of way, we tie the two together - we think, vaguely, that avoiding things and cleaving to them in the public, third-person sense, just involves having an "inner life", that having an "inner life" is the means by which publicly observable things cleave to and avoid other publicly-observable things, and without an "inner life", a thing isn't properly conscious, even if it happens to cleave to and avoid things (that must be "programming", which is different from being conscious in the "inner" sense).

But what if we don't have an "inner life"? What if our having an "inner life" is an illusion to us, a mistake, in the same sense that a publicly-observable dog might mistake a publicly-observable stick for a publicly-observable bone? If all that's left is the publicly-observable cleaving to/avoiding behaviour, then the problem is in a sense solved, because there's no problem, there's only the one sense of consciousness that effectively refers to anything, the sense that refers to a type of behaviour of matter.

However, even if we say that inner life is an illusion, there must be some sort of basis for the illusory nature of it, and that basis must be physical, must be matter/energy.

Yes, the basis is physical, it is the physical interactions that cause and form the substance of sensory events, understood from a particular perspective. The illusion of inner life arises when objects causally interact with sensory organs and the brain systems relevant thereunto. At that moment of interaction, a physical thing exists that doesn't exist up until that moment of interaction and disappears with its ceasing, abstractly speaking, like the kind of "interference pattern" that appears when two waves interact on the water's surface.

One's "inner life", then, is just the existence of sequences of those unique matter/energy interactions. From the first-person perspective, they are not observed by anyone or anything (unless we slip back to third-person public language, in which case they are observed by you in an inoffensive, ordinary sense); they are not observed by anything "inside one's head", they don't appear to a point of view, they aren't contained in any sort of space-like container called "awareness", they just sheerly exist. And that is enough.

The illusion (remember, an illusion on a par with the kind of illusion we might observe when a dog mistakes a stick for a bone) is precisely that there is an inner haver of these events, which makes the experiences seem of a different order of being to those events we normally think of as external to us, matter/energy, physical, etc., when actually they are of the same order.

If it were not so, if they weren't of the same order, they couldn't be part of the same consciousness. If you introspect, you notice that both external, physical events and thoughts appear on the same level, or in the same "conscious space" (I use the metaphor here because it's convenient) - thoughts are vague, like echoes of sounds, you have itches, images, etc., all appearing quite alongside external physical objects.

Idealists think that's because external objects are mental, but it's the other way round, it's because internal objects are also physical, just like the external objects.
I am sorry but my problem is another thing: Consider a punch of people where each has a body and a mind. These means that we are dealing with a set of bodies and minds. There is however a problem heer: Accepting the fact that mind is not material then it has not location then how we can related a mind to very specific body?

Needless to say that I have problem with monism too. The problem is that mind in this system of belief mind emerges from biochemical and electromagnetical activities. This is problematic since it leads to epiphenomalism.

So I am here left in a situation that neither dualism nor monism can answer the question of what we really are.

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 2076
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Just say 'no' to dualism.

Post by bahman » Thu Aug 11, 2016 3:57 pm

Dalek Prime wrote: Consiousness is inseparable from the brain. I shoot you in the head, your consciousness will be no more. Do you disagree? Let's not pigeonhole through labels, as I may not fit completely into a label, without my further reading on it. So I can't confirm or deny.
I agree with what you stated. I however was raising a point that consciousness is an illusion under materialism ([urlhttp://www.iep.utm.edu/epipheno/]epiphenomalism[/url]).

Dalek Prime
Posts: 4923
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2015 4:48 am
Location: Living in a tree with Polly.

Re: Just say 'no' to dualism.

Post by Dalek Prime » Thu Aug 11, 2016 4:03 pm

bahman wrote:
Dalek Prime wrote: Consiousness is inseparable from the brain. I shoot you in the head, your consciousness will be no more. Do you disagree? Let's not pigeonhole through labels, as I may not fit completely into a label, without my further reading on it. So I can't confirm or deny.
I agree with what you stated. I however was raising a point that consciousness is an illusion under materialism ([urlhttp://www.iep.utm.edu/epipheno/]epiphenomalism[/url]).
I'd have to look up materialism proper, though I have a feeling I don't fit in that category of thought. Actually, I just read what you said again, and I definitely don't, ad consciousness is the only thing I can be certain of, whether what registers is true or not.

User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 1488
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: Dualism?

Post by Terrapin Station » Thu Aug 11, 2016 4:14 pm

bahman wrote:I was thinking about dualism recently and I find it problematic. Lets start with definition of dualism. Dualism is a system of belief which claims that both mind/soul and matter are real. Mind however is not material hence it does not have any location. The problem I am facing is how one can related one mind to one body.
There's a ton of literature on this--there's probably just about as much literature on this as there is about anything, with all sort of different ideas just what the connection, if any, might be between mind and body from a dualist perspective.

It's easy to find stuff about this online--just Google things like "dualism mind body connection" or "dualism mind body interaction" or "dualism mind body causality" etc.

As for me, I'm not a dualist, and I disagree with "Mind is not material." Mind is material. It has a location. Namely, it's a brain phenomenon.

User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 1488
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: Just say 'no' to dualism.

Post by Terrapin Station » Thu Aug 11, 2016 4:15 pm

bahman wrote:
Dalek Prime wrote: I'm not certain what the issue is Bahman, so I'll reiterate what I believe.
Consider a bunch of people. They have bodies and minds. Mind however is immaterial meaning that it cannot be located. The problem that I have is how one can related a body to a mind knowing the fact the minds have no location.
The problem you have is rather "Mind is immaterial." It isn't. Mind is material.

User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 1488
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: Just say 'no' to dualism.

Post by Terrapin Station » Thu Aug 11, 2016 4:17 pm

bahman wrote:Materialism or any sort monism which claim that mind is emergent leads to epiphenomenalism.
<sigh> No it doesn't. I'm a physicalist (aka "materialist") and I'm not at all an epiphenomenalist.

Dalek Prime
Posts: 4923
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2015 4:48 am
Location: Living in a tree with Polly.

Re: Dualism?

Post by Dalek Prime » Thu Aug 11, 2016 4:17 pm

Terrapin Station wrote:
bahman wrote:I was thinking about dualism recently and I find it problematic. Lets start with definition of dualism. Dualism is a system of belief which claims that both mind/soul and matter are real. Mind however is not material hence it does not have any location. The problem I am facing is how one can related one mind to one body.
There's a ton of literature on this--there's probably just about as much literature on this as there is about anything, with all sort of different ideas just what the connection, if any, might be between mind and body from a dualist perspective.

It's easy to find stuff about this online--just Google things like "dualism mind body connection" or "dualism mind body interaction" or "dualism mind body causality" etc.

As for me, I'm not a dualist, and I disagree with "Mind is not material." Mind is material. It has a location. Namely, it's a brain phenomenon.
Agreed.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: surreptitious57 and 1 guest