Substance Dualism

[Shirtless Crackhead]

 

That is all.

[Shirtless Crackhead]

Part 2

 

[poopscootsMcgee]

interesting. thought experiments ftw

[exogen]

There was actually some dude who responded to those videos:

 

Part 1 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7hpE4fOJ2k

 

Part 2 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LI2r7kjBkME

 

Part 3 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCQnjXzI9q0

[Shirtless Crackhead]

Yeah, well he's also pretty dumb. He's had long running back and forth series of vids with another favorite youtuber of mine SisyphusRedeemed aka Gregory Bock, Asst. Prof of Philosophy, Walters State Community College.

 

In among the many errors was making the claim that the universe is contingent.

[exogen]

Wait, I'm confused. The dude in the vid you just posted is talking about epistemology, not metaphysics. Did you post the wrong video?

[Shirtless Crackhead]

No, just the vid that included him responding to migkillertwo's claim that the universe is contingent, among other things.

 

I was making a general point that migkillertwo isn't a very reliable source on philosophy.

[exogen]

Oh, yeah I wouldn't know man, I don't follow any of those dudes. I just remembered running into those vids a while ago.

 

Edit: In terms of reliable sources of philosophy, in my opinion, you can't go wrong if you just stick with canonical origional sources first and then go up to the contemporary accademic discussion. If its dualism were talking about, start with The Meditations and go forward from there would be how I would go. Youtube is for fun.

 

Edit: One more thing Roar. Maybe that dude is dumb like you say, but what does that have to do with the points he made against the the guy's points in the vids you posted at the start of this thread?

Edited May 10, 2013 by exogen

[Shirtless Crackhead]

I'm just willing to say meh, a half hour of stuff from a guy who likes to try and make responses to people with popular channels to get views who makes lots and lots of errors and mistakes, is probably not worth the time.

 

I think people under appreciate the levels of batshit in people who are often the supporters of Substance Dualism.

 

We have the physical side of things, which both parties basically agree is there and important. Nobody with functioning minds say that brain injury has no effect on the metaphysical concept of the "mind".

 

But then you have the other side that claims there's a wholly incorporeal half of "reality" in which the mind, among other things like God, Souls, etc.. exists. Then they often tie conceptual ideas like morality, mathematics, etc.. as supportive evidence for the contingency of the "metaphysical" things they want to claim are there an contingent.

 

I remember you making the point that you think that a physical "material" brain cannot fully explain the totality of "metaphysical" conscious experience. I make the point what we take as "metaphysical" in the realm of conscious experience isn't really "metaphysical" it's just a lot easier to say it is such, versus saying we don't know anywhere near enough about neurology to make any accurate stab at the physical explanation. I also make the point that all the evidence points to my side. Even if you took the White James approach on matters, the usefulness of neurological explanations and the understandings gotten threw it, totally eclipse the same for the "metaphysical" mind explanations. Richard Rorty would also probably agree with me, that while having lock on platonic truth on the matter is impossible, it isn't necessary either.

 

But feel free to believe what you will about reality, just remember what Oscar Gamble said.

 

http://douglemoine.com/wp-content/uploads/_oscar_gamble_indians.jpg

 

They don't think it be like it is, but it do.

[exogen]

I'm just willing to say meh, a half hour of stuff from a guy who likes to try and make responses to people with popular channels to get views who makes lots and lots of errors and mistakes, is probably not worth the time.

 

Well if that is what he is doing, then I see how you can take that is being kind of lame. My only point is that maybe the guy has some valid points (hence why we shouldn't necessarily judge him by his lameness elsewhere or overall), although I never really looked at either of those guys vids to judgde for myself.

 

 

I think people under appreciate the levels of batshit in people who are often the supporters of Substance Dualism.

 

Certainty this can be, and I have seen plenty of what I believe you to be refering to, but can't the same be said for any other point of view?

 

We have the physical side of things, which both parties basically agree is there and important. Nobody with functioning minds say that brain injury has no effect on the metaphysical concept of the "mind".

 

I think I know what your saying. If I may paraphrase, I think your saying that within the debate of substance dualists vs. the materialists, everyone agrees that brain injury has an effect on the mind. It's like drugs also, when you take them your mental life is effected.

 

 

But then you have the other side that claims there's a wholly incorporeal half of "reality" in which the mind, among other things like God, Souls, etc.. exists. Then they often tie conceptual ideas like morality, mathematics, etc.. as supportive evidence for the contingency of the "metaphysical" things they want to claim are there an contingent.

 

Are you sure they are all claiming these non-physical entities to be contingent? A Platonist for instance, which isn't necessarily a dualist in the Cartician sense, would say that numbers and ultimately forms, are outside of time (being) as opposed to the world we experience which is contingent (becoming).

 

But ok, pushing that question the side I get that there is the side which wants to claim the mind is imaterial and some of the evidence they use will be Platonic sorts of arguments.

 

I remember you making the point that you think that a physical "material" brain cannot fully explain the totality of "metaphysical" conscious experience. I make the point what we take as "metaphysical" in the realm of conscious experience isn't really "metaphysical" it's just a lot easier to say it is such, versus saying we don't know anywhere near enough about neurology to make any accurate stab at the physical explanation.

 

I do understand what your saying Roar when you say, basically, that saying that consciousness is imaterial is a kind of copout because we just haven't had enough time for neuroscience to explain it in phystical terms yet. I am not blind to that. The idea would be like the God of the Gaps idea where just because one doesn't, as of yet, have a physical explaination for say, some sort of rock formation, or the big bag (say because there is a singularity) that it must mean that "god did it." The thing is, I don't disagree with you on that.

I also make the point that all the evidence points to my side. Even if you took the White James approach on matters, the usefulness of neurological explanations and the understandings gotten threw it, totally eclipse the same for the "metaphysical" mind explanations. Richard Rorty would also probably agree with me, that while having lock on platonic truth on the matter is impossible, it isn't necessary either.

 

 

But that's just it Roar, I'm not on the side you think I am on. Honsetly. I would join you in refuting substance dualism. Property dualism is interesting, but I'm not even a property dualist. I'm just not a dualist of any stripe. I also don't hold an aboslutist perspective on truth either. That is really what I want to clearify most, is that I really am not on the side you are arguing against. Its not that I'm on your side of the debate either, (although as I said above I agree with you in many regards on the specifics of certain issues), its just that my position is non of the above. I mean I could argue either side for fun and to learn and grow, but currently my viewpoint is that both sides of the debate are mistaken. Perhaps I was not clear enough when we talked/yelled at each other, before

[Shirtless Crackhead]

Well if that is what he is doing, then I see how you can take that is being kind of lame. My only point is that maybe the guy has some valid points (hence why we shouldn't necessarily judge him by his lameness elsewhere or overall), although I never really looked at either of those guys vids to judgde for myself.

 

Please, atleast watch the vids you're going to post. I've seen those vids before I just don't remember them; which further pushes me to dismiss them. Now that I know you haven't watched them, I really have no reason to.

 

Certainty this can be, and I have seen plenty of what I believe you to be refering to, but can't the same be said for any other point of view?

 

I'll grant you that in principal, but you know as well as I do the abnormal level of bullshit in that realm.

 

I think I know what your saying. If I may paraphrase, I think your saying that within the debate of substance dualists vs. the materialists, everyone agrees that brain injury has an effect on the mind. It's like drugs also, when you take them your mental life is effected.

 

I thought that was generally accepted, but it does pervade things more or less outside of philosophy. There's lots of I guess you could say "dualists" (new age spiritualists, eastern spiritualists, etc..) who pose themselves as scientific/philosophic intellectuals, mostly to dupe dumb folks out of their money. Good examples are asshats like Deepak Chopra.

 

Are you sure they are all claiming these non-physical entities to be contingent? A Platonist for instance, which isn't necessarily a dualist in the Cartician sense, would say that numbers and ultimately forms, are outside of time (being) as opposed to the world we experience which is contingent (becoming).

 

But ok, pushing that question the side I get that there is the side which wants to claim the mind is imaterial and some of the evidence they use will be Platonic sorts of arguments.

 

Am I sure they're all saying that non-physical things are contingent? No, but if they're not, their arguments are more or less trying to make personal fantasy a subject of philosophical debate and pseudo-scientific conjecture. I think the whole dichotamy of material vs. immaterial is a bit lacking for things that are known and metaphysical like the concepts of mathematics, or morality, and the more classically metaphysicals of God, conscousness, etc..

 

I do understand what your saying Roar when you say, basically, that saying that consciousness is imaterial is a kind of copout because we just haven't had enough time for neuroscience to explain it in phystical terms yet. I am not blind to that. The idea would be like the God of the Gaps idea where just because one doesn't, as of yet, have a physical explaination for say, some sort of rock formation, or the big bag (say because there is a singularity) that it must mean that "god did it." The thing is, I don't disagree with you on that.

 

Gravity isn't material yet it's very real and corporeal; is saying that Gravity is immaterial a cop-out? I don't know why we're arguing semantics here, as we pretty much agree on these paragraphs, but yeah.

 

But that's just it Roar, I'm not on the side you think I am on. Honsetly. I would join you in refuting substance dualism. Property dualism is interesting, but I'm not even a property dualist. I'm just not a dualist of any stripe. I also don't hold an aboslutist perspective on truth either. That is really what I want to clearify most, is that I really am not on the side you are arguing against. Its not that I'm on your side of the debate either, (although as I said above I agree with you in many regards on the specifics of certain issues), its just that my position is non of the above. I mean I could argue either side for fun and to learn and grow, but currently my viewpoint is that both sides of the debate are mistaken. Perhaps I was not clear enough when we talked/yelled at each other, before

 

You certainly were not all that clear at times, but it's whatever.

[exogen]

Please, atleast watch the vids you're going to post. I've seen those vids before I just don't remember them; which further pushes me to dismiss them. Now that I know you haven't watched them, I really have no reason to.

 

No no, its not that I haven't watch the vids. I like yourself, haven't seen them in a while, but I have watched the guy you posted and the response vids I posted some time back. What I was saying was that I don't follow any of those guys. I just saw their vids a while back.

 

 

I'll grant you that in principal, but you know as well as I do the abnormal level of bullshit in that realm.

 

By bullshit I think you mean generally, irrational, unfounded and unclear beliefs. I think that the movement that they call the new atheism is basically a cultural backlash against the failures of religion and the appropriate counter is the idea of truth for the sake of truth, i.e. a kind of Socratic value, just manifested in a more scientific context because science and social progress are viewed as linked, whereas religion, especially in regards to the fundamentalists and those like them, is anti-science. Another dimension is of course, political but you know all this anyway.

 

 

 

I thought that was generally accepted, but it does pervade things more or less outside of philosophy. There's lots of I guess you could say "dualists" (new age spiritualists, eastern spiritualists, etc..) who pose themselves as scientific/philosophic intellectuals, mostly to dupe dumb folks out of their money. Good examples are asshats like Deepak Chopra.

 

Yeah there are alot of snake-oil salesmen out there that take certain information and hype it to the public. Chopra is basically just repackaging certain aspects of Hindu/indian philosophy (which is just as elaborate as the western tradition) and market them to the west. He is selling alot of books though lol!!!

 

Am I sure they're all saying that non-physical things are contingent? No, but if they're not, their arguments are more or less trying to make personal fantasy a subject of philosophical debate and pseudo-scientific conjecture. I think the whole dichotamy of material vs. immaterial is a bit lacking for things that are known and metaphysical like the concepts of mathematics, or morality, and the more classically metaphysicals of God, conscousness, etc..

Gravity isn't material yet it's very real and corporeal; is saying that Gravity is immaterial a cop-out? I don't know why we're arguing semantics here, as we pretty much agree on these paragraphs, but yeah.

 

Well this is a complicated issue, which was why I flagged it, if you will. The idea of a immaterial soul, a mental substance, could be considered a contingent entity insofar as it is not a necessary being. On the other hand, one might just as easily define it as a necessary being and say that certain aspects or accidents about it change and are contingent. It all depends on what view we are talking about, and yes, we can speculate till the cows come home.

 

There is certainly an issue with language and what we mean by material or immaterial. Materialism and physicalism are sometimes used interchangeably. I think physicalism as defined as the notion that all that exists is whatever is postulated by physics to exist, is a more vague idea, but obviously more flexible.

 

But to switch gears, we know you are against dualism (and me with you). So, in your opinion, what do you think the strongest argument or version of dualism is that you know of?

Edited May 11, 2013 by exogen

[Shirtless Crackhead]

Strongest form of dualism? I dunno, the one that makes the claim that things like the laws of physics, morality, and mathematics are metaphysical concepts?

[exogen]

Strongest form of dualism? I dunno, the one that makes the claim that things like the laws of physics, morality, and mathematics are metaphysical concepts?

 

Sounds to me like Platonism. Plato's dualism is not in terms of mind-body per se, although he did think that the psyche was imoratal in some way (sort of a third state between being and becoming). For Plato the world we experience is just an ever changing aproximation of the realm of being. I think that Plato's dualism is probably the strongest form as well, but that isn't so much philosophy of mind as it is metaphysics generally.

 

My biggest problem with dualism isn't so much the issues having to do with brain-experience correlation (as I think dualist have some whiggle room there), as to do with interactionism. Interactionism has been, and still is, a fundimental metaphysical stumbling block. Panpsychism/panexperientialism I think tends to suffer from the same problem, because its really just dualism diferently rapped up. The same with property dualism, which tends to be similar to epiphenomenalism, which also has its own share of problems, being a dualist theory, although not an interactionists one. With epiphenomenalism, the causal flow only goes one way, but there is no one can explain how or why that works metaphysically, let alone scientifically falsify it.

 

Edit: I just thought of something. A problem with one of the arguments for dualism that I know of is this argument that if we can imagine ourselves disembodied or unembodied altogather, than it must mean that the mind is a mental substance. I just don't see how that follows as a disproof of the assumption that matter is or causes mind, because of imagination. Imagniation can simulate emperical experience but I don't see why that counts as being proof that consciousness is not physical. Basically they are saying that imagination is proof that the mind can be disembodied.

 

This video isn't exactly about dualism but it is about the self. The idea is that there is none, or should I say no one.

Edited May 19, 2013 by exogen