Total Posts:35|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Mind/Body Problem

Chaosism
Posts: 2,649
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2015 3:04:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
In traditional theism, some form of dualism appears to be necessary in order for an afterlife to logically exist, and that theistic beliefs would collapse if general monism is accepted*. I would assume that even a general spirituality would require it, as well. Further, a study, 'Children's Intuitions on Mind-Body Dualism Emerge Early', has suggested that we are mentally geared to lean towards the intuitive stance of dualism from an early age. The general tendency to retain this belief can be attributed to the psychological Need for Uniqueness and Belief Perseverance. (http://www.scientificamerican.com...)

Are there any good arguments for any form of dualism that are not founded in intuitive reasoning? Does anyone here subscribe to one of the philosophical positions listed below, or perhaps a different one?

Substance dualism is a fundamentally ontological position: it states that the mental and the physical are separate substances with independent existence. Physical things are extended in space and do not possess any thought. Mental things have thought as their very essence, but do not have any extension in the physical world. [1]

Property dualism is a variety of dualism in the philosophy of mind which argues that mind and body exist as ontologically distinct properties of a single, physical substance. [1]

Interactionism is a dualist position in the philosophy of mind which argues that (1) mind and body are separate, but that (2) there is causal interaction between the two. [1]

Occasionalism is a theory in philosophy that causality is essentially an illusion"that substances are created by God and that what appears to be cause and effect between substances is merely an instance of God directly causing certain actions in the world. [1]

Parallelism, or psychophysical parallelism (meaning that mind and body are parallel) is a form of dualism which denies any interaction between mind and body. [1]

*Alternatively, I have seen a version of monism supported quite a bit 'round these parts, but it just strikes me as nothing but solipsism.

Idealism is the theory in philosophy that reality essentially consists only of minds, and that the physical world is an illusion, or otherwise the product of minds. [1]

[1] http://www.philosophy-index.com...
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2015 3:56:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/14/2015 3:04:08 PM, Chaosism wrote:
Are there any good arguments for any form of dualism that are not founded in intuitive reasoning?
Well I have seen some pretty whacky arguments for idealism on the internet. Quantum Woo etc.
The reasons why people reject physicalism seems to be The Knowledge Argument, The Introspective Argument and The Hard Problem of Consciousness.

Substance dualism is a fundamentally ontological position: it states that the mental and the physical are separate substances with independent existence. Physical things are extended in space and do not possess any thought. Mental things have thought as their very essence, but do not have any extension in the physical world. [1]
Interactionism, Occasionalism and Parallellism are all varieties of Substance Dualism. No view is incompatible with it.
There are hardly any Occasionalists/ Parallellists and of those few philosophers who are SDs, all of them are Interactionists, as far as I am aware.

Property dualism is a variety of dualism in the philosophy of mind which argues that mind and body exist as ontologically distinct properties of a single, physical substance. [1]
Idealism is the theory in philosophy that reality essentially consists only of minds, and that the physical world is an illusion, or otherwise the product of minds. [1]
PD and Dual Aspect Theory are not really supportive of an afterlife.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
Yonko
Posts: 227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2015 4:12:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I am sympathetic to interactionist Substance Dualism and Idealism. That's mostly because of religious beliefs, but I think there are also some good intellectual arguments in favor of them (like the ones Fkkize mentioned; I personally find the hard problem of consciousness to be most convincing). All other forms of mind/body dualism you mentioned seem pretty whack. Especially Occasionalism lol.
Chaosism
Posts: 2,649
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2015 4:24:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/14/2015 3:56:35 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 10/14/2015 3:04:08 PM, Chaosism wrote:
Are there any good arguments for any form of dualism that are not founded in intuitive reasoning?
Well I have seen some pretty whacky arguments for idealism on the internet. Quantum Woo etc.
The reasons why people reject physicalism seems to be The Knowledge Argument, The Introspective Argument and The Hard Problem of Consciousness.

Thank you. I have only briefly looked over these arguments so far, but they don't seem very strong. How do you gauge the strength of them?

Substance dualism is a fundamentally ontological position: it states that the mental and the physical are separate substances with independent existence. Physical things are extended in space and do not possess any thought. Mental things have thought as their very essence, but do not have any extension in the physical world. [1]
Interactionism, Occasionalism and Parallellism are all varieties of Substance Dualism. No view is incompatible with it.
There are hardly any Occasionalists/ Parallellists and of those few philosophers who are SDs, all of them are Interactionists, as far as I am aware.

Thanks.

Property dualism is a variety of dualism in the philosophy of mind which argues that mind and body exist as ontologically distinct properties of a single, physical substance. [1]
Idealism is the theory in philosophy that reality essentially consists only of minds, and that the physical world is an illusion, or otherwise the product of minds. [1]
PD and Dual Aspect Theory are not really supportive of an afterlife.

Are you referring to Idealism at all, here?
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2015 4:34:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/14/2015 4:24:02 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 10/14/2015 3:56:35 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 10/14/2015 3:04:08 PM, Chaosism wrote:
Are there any good arguments for any form of dualism that are not founded in intuitive reasoning?
Well I have seen some pretty whacky arguments for idealism on the internet. Quantum Woo etc.
The reasons why people reject physicalism seems to be The Knowledge Argument, The Introspective Argument and The Hard Problem of Consciousness.

Thank you. I have only briefly looked over these arguments so far, but they don't seem very strong. How do you gauge the strength of them?
Approaching zero.

PD and Dual Aspect Theory are not really supportive of an afterlife.

Are you referring to Idealism at all, here?
No, I forgot to delete that part.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2015 4:38:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
There are some theists that are physicalists about humans/animals (Peter Van Inwagen, Lynne Rudder Baker, Kevin Cocoran, Trent Merricks). I can't see any logical inconsistency there assuming physicalism about oir monds is true. There's a lot of work on how resurrection/an afterlife would work on materialism/physicalism but it doesn't seem logically inconsistent.

And if something monistic like idealism is true then many have thought that lends itself very strongly to a theistic conclusion.

Speaking for myself I'm an emergent substance dualist. I think the hard problem does physicalism in.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2015 4:51:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/14/2015 4:38:36 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
There are some theists that are physicalists about humans/animals (Peter Van Inwagen, Lynne Rudder Baker, Kevin Cocoran, Trent Merricks). I can't see any logical inconsistency there assuming physicalism about oir monds is true. There's a lot of work on how resurrection/an afterlife would work on materialism/physicalism but it doesn't seem logically inconsistent.
I believe van Inwagen has dropped his views on materialist resurrection.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
Chaosism
Posts: 2,649
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2015 5:19:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/14/2015 4:38:36 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
There are some theists that are physicalists about humans/animals (Peter Van Inwagen, Lynne Rudder Baker, Kevin Cocoran, Trent Merricks). I can't see any logical inconsistency there assuming physicalism about oir monds is true. There's a lot of work on how resurrection/an afterlife would work on materialism/physicalism but it doesn't seem logically inconsistent.

And if something monistic like idealism is true then many have thought that lends itself very strongly to a theistic conclusion.

Speaking for myself I'm an emergent substance dualist. I think the hard problem does physicalism in.

How so? How does an unanswered question lead to a conclusion?
Chaosism
Posts: 2,649
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2015 5:50:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Hey, Fkkize. What are you thoughts on my contention against general idealism?

Everything that the mind knows is derived from external experiences, and we can only comprehend a concept as so far as components of the concept have been experienced. For example, a [lifelong] blind person would never be able to experience color, although the concept could be explained and understood by means of other experiences. For instance, if it was compared analogously to texture, an established means of detecting difference between perceived objects, then color can be generally conceptualized, but still not experienced. Concepts are constructs of experiences.

If idealism is true, then nothing exists external to the mind, and there is no source of experience upon which the imagination can be built. In essence, if a [lifelong] blind man cannot experience or conceptualize color, then what can a man who is blind to all senses experience? And without experience, what concepts can fuel the imagination and function of the mind?
Yonko
Posts: 227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2015 6:12:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/14/2015 4:24:02 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 10/14/2015 3:56:35 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 10/14/2015 3:04:08 PM, Chaosism wrote:
Are there any good arguments for any form of dualism that are not founded in intuitive reasoning?
Well I have seen some pretty whacky arguments for idealism on the internet. Quantum Woo etc.
The reasons why people reject physicalism seems to be The Knowledge Argument, The Introspective Argument and The Hard Problem of Consciousness.

Thank you. I have only briefly looked over these arguments so far, but they don't seem very strong. How do you gauge the strength of them?

How is the hard problem of consciousness not strong? Do you think physicalism fully explains first-person experience?
Chaosism
Posts: 2,649
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2015 6:23:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/14/2015 6:12:52 PM, Yonko wrote:
At 10/14/2015 4:24:02 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 10/14/2015 3:56:35 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 10/14/2015 3:04:08 PM, Chaosism wrote:
Are there any good arguments for any form of dualism that are not founded in intuitive reasoning?
Well I have seen some pretty whacky arguments for idealism on the internet. Quantum Woo etc.
The reasons why people reject physicalism seems to be The Knowledge Argument, The Introspective Argument and The Hard Problem of Consciousness.

Thank you. I have only briefly looked over these arguments so far, but they don't seem very strong. How do you gauge the strength of them?

How is the hard problem of consciousness not strong? Do you think physicalism fully explains first-person experience?

There is plenty that we do not yet understand about the nature consciousness and the human brain. So, how does the lack of an answer lead to a conclusion?
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2015 6:30:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/14/2015 5:50:37 PM, Chaosism wrote:
Hey, Fkkize. What are you thoughts on my contention against general idealism?

Everything that the mind knows is derived from external experiences, and we can only comprehend a concept as so far as components of the concept have been experienced. For example, a [lifelong] blind person would never be able to experience color, although the concept could be explained and understood by means of other experiences. For instance, if it was compared analogously to texture, an established means of detecting difference between perceived objects, then color can be generally conceptualized, but still not experienced. Concepts are constructs of experiences.

If idealism is true, then nothing exists external to the mind, and there is no source of experience upon which the imagination can be built. In essence, if a [lifelong] blind man cannot experience or conceptualize color, then what can a man who is blind to all senses experience? And without experience, what concepts can fuel the imagination and function of the mind?

Well, as far as I am aware, the minority of people who adhere to idealism are panentheists. Basically, everything is in God's mind, you are just one of his thoughts or whatever.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
Yonko
Posts: 227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2015 6:38:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/14/2015 6:23:33 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 10/14/2015 6:12:52 PM, Yonko wrote:
At 10/14/2015 4:24:02 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 10/14/2015 3:56:35 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 10/14/2015 3:04:08 PM, Chaosism wrote:
Are there any good arguments for any form of dualism that are not founded in intuitive reasoning?
Well I have seen some pretty whacky arguments for idealism on the internet. Quantum Woo etc.
The reasons why people reject physicalism seems to be The Knowledge Argument, The Introspective Argument and The Hard Problem of Consciousness.

Thank you. I have only briefly looked over these arguments so far, but they don't seem very strong. How do you gauge the strength of them?

How is the hard problem of consciousness not strong? Do you think physicalism fully explains first-person experience?

There is plenty that we do not yet understand about the nature consciousness and the human brain. So, how does the lack of an answer lead to a conclusion?

That's not the point. Matter is inherently third-person, so the physical sciences can't ever explain consciousness, which is inherently first-person.
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2015 6:58:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/14/2015 6:12:52 PM, Yonko wrote:
At 10/14/2015 4:24:02 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 10/14/2015 3:56:35 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 10/14/2015 3:04:08 PM, Chaosism wrote:
Are there any good arguments for any form of dualism that are not founded in intuitive reasoning?
Well I have seen some pretty whacky arguments for idealism on the internet. Quantum Woo etc.
The reasons why people reject physicalism seems to be The Knowledge Argument, The Introspective Argument and The Hard Problem of Consciousness.

Thank you. I have only briefly looked over these arguments so far, but they don't seem very strong. How do you gauge the strength of them?

How is the hard problem of consciousness not strong? Do you think physicalism fully explains first-person experience?
I don't believe I can give you the formula of consciousness, but I don't think it can be used to argue against physicalism either.
The "force" that might make these kinds of arguments persuasive really can be taken away completely.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
Chaosism
Posts: 2,649
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2015 7:03:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/14/2015 6:38:50 PM, Yonko wrote:
At 10/14/2015 6:23:33 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 10/14/2015 6:12:52 PM, Yonko wrote:
At 10/14/2015 4:24:02 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 10/14/2015 3:56:35 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 10/14/2015 3:04:08 PM, Chaosism wrote:
Are there any good arguments for any form of dualism that are not founded in intuitive reasoning?
Well I have seen some pretty whacky arguments for idealism on the internet. Quantum Woo etc.
The reasons why people reject physicalism seems to be The Knowledge Argument, The Introspective Argument and The Hard Problem of Consciousness.

Thank you. I have only briefly looked over these arguments so far, but they don't seem very strong. How do you gauge the strength of them?

How is the hard problem of consciousness not strong? Do you think physicalism fully explains first-person experience?

There is plenty that we do not yet understand about the nature consciousness and the human brain. So, how does the lack of an answer lead to a conclusion?

That's not the point. Matter is inherently third-person, so the physical sciences can't ever explain consciousness, which is inherently first-person.

I am not seeing the point then, I'm afraid. If consciousness is merely a function of the brain, then it is a result of material processes (matter). Consciousness is not an existent thing, but rather an expression of the physical activity of the brain. If so, why would they certainly never be able to explain this? I am not seeing a positive argument against physicalism.

While it's true that one's own consciousness is fully verifiable, the observation of other beings typically lead the vast majority of others to belief that the same experience exists for others, as well. Certainly, that is an assumption, but it is founded on observed evidence. One would have to adopt a solipsistic stance in order to deny this.

Some contentions I have with Substance Dualism:

1. Consciousness certainly seems to be associated with the brain, as we can experience changes to consciousness as a result of changes to the brain. If these two things are each entities, one material and one non-material, then how do they interact with each other? If they share no common properties, then by what means can they affect each other? Additionally, if consciousness is a separate entity, then how is it associated with or connected to the physical brain in the first place?

2. If consciousness is a separate entity, then how does it cease to exist and then return to existence? This can be observed when one is rendered unconscious. If consciousness is an activity of the brain, then the termination or suppression of this activity accounts for how consciousness is not ever-present.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2015 11:14:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/14/2015 6:23:33 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 10/14/2015 6:12:52 PM, Yonko wrote:
At 10/14/2015 4:24:02 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 10/14/2015 3:56:35 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 10/14/2015 3:04:08 PM, Chaosism wrote:
Are there any good arguments for any form of dualism that are not founded in intuitive reasoning?
Well I have seen some pretty whacky arguments for idealism on the internet. Quantum Woo etc.
The reasons why people reject physicalism seems to be The Knowledge Argument, The Introspective Argument and The Hard Problem of Consciousness.

Thank you. I have only briefly looked over these arguments so far, but they don't seem very strong. How do you gauge the strength of them?

How is the hard problem of consciousness not strong? Do you think physicalism fully explains first-person experience?

There is plenty that we do not yet understand about the nature consciousness and the human brain. So, how does the lack of an answer lead to a conclusion?

It's not arguing from what we don't know; it's arguing from what we DO know of the brain and consciousness (i.e. that consciousness cannot be analyzed in terms of functions and the like whereas brain processes can - the "easy problem" of consciousness).
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
kp98
Posts: 729
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2015 11:34:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
consciousness cannot be analyzed in terms of functions

I'll concede 'has not been', but 'cannot be'? I still remain hopeful.

http://www.rinkworks.com...
Chaosism
Posts: 2,649
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2015 1:22:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/14/2015 11:14:39 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 10/14/2015 6:23:33 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 10/14/2015 6:12:52 PM, Yonko wrote:
At 10/14/2015 4:24:02 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 10/14/2015 3:56:35 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 10/14/2015 3:04:08 PM, Chaosism wrote:
Are there any good arguments for any form of dualism that are not founded in intuitive reasoning?
Well I have seen some pretty whacky arguments for idealism on the internet. Quantum Woo etc.
The reasons why people reject physicalism seems to be The Knowledge Argument, The Introspective Argument and The Hard Problem of Consciousness.

Thank you. I have only briefly looked over these arguments so far, but they don't seem very strong. How do you gauge the strength of them?

How is the hard problem of consciousness not strong? Do you think physicalism fully explains first-person experience?

There is plenty that we do not yet understand about the nature consciousness and the human brain. So, how does the lack of an answer lead to a conclusion?

It's not arguing from what we don't know; it's arguing from what we DO know of the brain and consciousness (i.e. that consciousness cannot be analyzed in terms of functions and the like whereas brain processes can - the "easy problem" of consciousness).

As the previous poster asked, how can "cannot be analyzed" be justified? And how does the hard problem of consciousness get resolved if consciousness is a separate entity? We're still stuck in the same place regarding these questions.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2015 2:21:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/15/2015 1:22:17 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 10/14/2015 11:14:39 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 10/14/2015 6:23:33 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 10/14/2015 6:12:52 PM, Yonko wrote:
At 10/14/2015 4:24:02 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 10/14/2015 3:56:35 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 10/14/2015 3:04:08 PM, Chaosism wrote:
Are there any good arguments for any form of dualism that are not founded in intuitive reasoning?
Well I have seen some pretty whacky arguments for idealism on the internet. Quantum Woo etc.
The reasons why people reject physicalism seems to be The Knowledge Argument, The Introspective Argument and The Hard Problem of Consciousness.

Thank you. I have only briefly looked over these arguments so far, but they don't seem very strong. How do you gauge the strength of them?

How is the hard problem of consciousness not strong? Do you think physicalism fully explains first-person experience?

There is plenty that we do not yet understand about the nature consciousness and the human brain. So, how does the lack of an answer lead to a conclusion?

It's not arguing from what we don't know; it's arguing from what we DO know of the brain and consciousness (i.e. that consciousness cannot be analyzed in terms of functions and the like whereas brain processes can - the "easy problem" of consciousness).

As the previous poster asked, how can "cannot be analyzed" be justified?

Because there are positive arguments for why it can't be (see: David Chalmers).

And how does the hard problem of consciousness get resolved if consciousness is a separate entity? We're still stuck in the same place regarding these questions.

That means we aren't trying to force it into a framework it doesn't fit in. If we have to accept it as basic, so be it. That doesn't mean, just because people have some strange aversion to basic entities, that you should try to force it into conceptual scheme that's can't accommodate it.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Chaosism
Posts: 2,649
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2015 3:01:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/15/2015 2:21:58 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 10/15/2015 1:22:17 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 10/14/2015 11:14:39 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 10/14/2015 6:23:33 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 10/14/2015 6:12:52 PM, Yonko wrote:

How is the hard problem of consciousness not strong? Do you think physicalism fully explains first-person experience?

There is plenty that we do not yet understand about the nature consciousness and the human brain. So, how does the lack of an answer lead to a conclusion?

It's not arguing from what we don't know; it's arguing from what we DO know of the brain and consciousness (i.e. that consciousness cannot be analyzed in terms of functions and the like whereas brain processes can - the "easy problem" of consciousness).

As the previous poster asked, how can "cannot be analyzed" be justified?

Because there are positive arguments for why it can't be (see: David Chalmers).

I'll look this guy up on the interwebz. Thanks.

And how does the hard problem of consciousness get resolved if consciousness is a separate entity? We're still stuck in the same place regarding these questions.

That means we aren't trying to force it into a framework it doesn't fit in. If we have to accept it as basic, so be it. That doesn't mean, just because people have some strange aversion to basic entities, that you should try to force it into conceptual scheme that's can't accommodate it.

I understand that, but does that mean we can thrust it into a framework that is only speculated to exist? Our understanding of the nature of consciousness must improve before we make such judgments; it's not about "forcing" it into the current framework if there is still plenty that is unknown.
Chaosism
Posts: 2,649
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2015 3:04:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/14/2015 6:30:21 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 10/14/2015 5:50:37 PM, Chaosism wrote:
Hey, Fkkize. What are you thoughts on my contention against general idealism?

Everything that the mind knows is derived from external experiences, and we can only comprehend a concept as so far as components of the concept have been experienced. For example, a [lifelong] blind person would never be able to experience color, although the concept could be explained and understood by means of other experiences. For instance, if it was compared analogously to texture, an established means of detecting difference between perceived objects, then color can be generally conceptualized, but still not experienced. Concepts are constructs of experiences.

If idealism is true, then nothing exists external to the mind, and there is no source of experience upon which the imagination can be built. In essence, if a [lifelong] blind man cannot experience or conceptualize color, then what can a man who is blind to all senses experience? And without experience, what concepts can fuel the imagination and function of the mind?

Well, as far as I am aware, the minority of people who adhere to idealism are panentheists. Basically, everything is in God's mind, you are just one of his thoughts or whatever.

Gotchya. Man, if I am just a "thought" of God, then God has some pretty dumb thoughts! ;P

Additionally, I think that concept hurts the whole "Free Will" claim (depending on how you define it, I suppose).
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2015 3:05:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/15/2015 3:04:02 PM, Chaosism wrote:
Gotchya. Man, if I am just a "thought" of God, then God has some pretty dumb thoughts! ;P
lol

Additionally, I think that concept hurts the whole "Free Will" claim (depending on how you define it, I suppose).
Dunno.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2015 3:51:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/15/2015 3:01:35 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 10/15/2015 2:21:58 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 10/15/2015 1:22:17 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 10/14/2015 11:14:39 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 10/14/2015 6:23:33 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 10/14/2015 6:12:52 PM, Yonko wrote:

How is the hard problem of consciousness not strong? Do you think physicalism fully explains first-person experience?

There is plenty that we do not yet understand about the nature consciousness and the human brain. So, how does the lack of an answer lead to a conclusion?

It's not arguing from what we don't know; it's arguing from what we DO know of the brain and consciousness (i.e. that consciousness cannot be analyzed in terms of functions and the like whereas brain processes can - the "easy problem" of consciousness).

As the previous poster asked, how can "cannot be analyzed" be justified?

Because there are positive arguments for why it can't be (see: David Chalmers).

I'll look this guy up on the interwebz. Thanks.

And how does the hard problem of consciousness get resolved if consciousness is a separate entity? We're still stuck in the same place regarding these questions.

That means we aren't trying to force it into a framework it doesn't fit in. If we have to accept it as basic, so be it. That doesn't mean, just because people have some strange aversion to basic entities, that you should try to force it into conceptual scheme that's can't accommodate it.

I understand that, but does that mean we can thrust it into a framework that is only speculated to exist?

Well, physicalism is only "speculative" as well...

Our understanding of the nature of consciousness must improve before we make such judgments; it's not about "forcing" it into the current framework if there is still plenty that is unknown.

Well, the thing is, as Chalmers as said, science is really only concerned with functions. We can get finer grained explanations of the process correlated with certain phenomenal qualities, but it seems it always going to be an open question of why this subjective experience (pain) is attached to that neural process, when it could've been attached to any other subjective experience (like itchiness). Physicalism requires that those sort of connections be metaphysically necessary ("the physical fixes all facts"), so if they are contingent, physicalism is out.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2015 3:52:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Plus, things like "the feeling of pain" don't seem to be analyzable in terms of functions. ouu can go on and on about the physical processes correlated with the feeling, but you haven't actually described what it is like to feel that feeling.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2015 8:41:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Idealism. Dualism has an interaction problem and makes an extra unnecessary assumption.

Here's a simple proof that physicalism is false. Colors (red, blue, green) do not physically exist. There's no objective, real color in the world. Colors are observed to be an actual state of affairs, just like anything else that we would consider to be real. Since colors don't physically exist, if no sentient observers existed, colors would not exist. An actual state of affairs only exists when observed. This, if true, shows that physicalism is false. Not to mention the same theme with quantum mechanics.
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,079
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2015 2:12:36 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/14/2015 3:04:08 PM, Chaosism wrote:
In traditional theism, some form of dualism appears to be necessary in order for an afterlife to logically exist, and that theistic beliefs would collapse if general monism is accepted*. I would assume that even a general spirituality would require it, as well. Further, a study, 'Children's Intuitions on Mind-Body Dualism Emerge Early', has suggested that we are mentally geared to lean towards the intuitive stance of dualism from an early age. The general tendency to retain this belief can be attributed to the psychological Need for Uniqueness and Belief Perseverance. (http://www.scientificamerican.com...)

Are there any good arguments for any form of dualism that are not founded in intuitive reasoning? Does anyone here subscribe to one of the philosophical positions listed below, or perhaps a different one?

Substance dualism is a fundamentally ontological position: it states that the mental and the physical are separate substances with independent existence. Physical things are extended in space and do not possess any thought. Mental things have thought as their very essence, but do not have any extension in the physical world. [1]

Property dualism is a variety of dualism in the philosophy of mind which argues that mind and body exist as ontologically distinct properties of a single, physical substance. [1]

Interactionism is a dualist position in the philosophy of mind which argues that (1) mind and body are separate, but that (2) there is causal interaction between the two. [1]

Occasionalism is a theory in philosophy that causality is essentially an illusion"that substances are created by God and that what appears to be cause and effect between substances is merely an instance of God directly causing certain actions in the world. [1]

Parallelism, or psychophysical parallelism (meaning that mind and body are parallel) is a form of dualism which denies any interaction between mind and body. [1]

*Alternatively, I have seen a version of monism supported quite a bit 'round these parts, but it just strikes me as nothing but solipsism.

Idealism is the theory in philosophy that reality essentially consists only of minds, and that the physical world is an illusion, or otherwise the product of minds. [1]

[1] http://www.philosophy-index.com...

I don't know what I am. I like some aspects of idealism... and I like some aspects of Hylemorphic dualism. I am definitely NOT a property dualist or materialist.
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,079
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2015 2:24:23 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/15/2015 3:52:37 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
Plus, things like "the feeling of pain" don't seem to be analyzable in terms of functions. ouu can go on and on about the physical processes correlated with the feeling, but you haven't actually described what it is like to feel that feeling.

https://youtu.be...

You'll never feel my pain.
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2015 2:31:11 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/16/2015 2:24:23 AM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 10/15/2015 3:52:37 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
Plus, things like "the feeling of pain" don't seem to be analyzable in terms of functions. ouu can go on and on about the physical processes correlated with the feeling, but you haven't actually described what it is like to feel that feeling.

https://youtu.be...

You'll never feel my pain.

I've been on fb too long. I just tried to "like" your post lol.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,079
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2015 2:42:17 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/16/2015 2:31:11 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 10/16/2015 2:24:23 AM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 10/15/2015 3:52:37 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
Plus, things like "the feeling of pain" don't seem to be analyzable in terms of functions. ouu can go on and on about the physical processes correlated with the feeling, but you haven't actually described what it is like to feel that feeling.

https://youtu.be...

You'll never feel my pain.

I've been on fb too long. I just tried to "like" your post lol.

hahaha! you are trapped in your mind.
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
fettywap
Posts: 10
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2015 2:51:39 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/14/2015 3:04:08 PM, Chaosism wrote:
In traditional theism, some form of dualism appears to be necessary in order for an afterlife to logically exist, and that theistic beliefs would collapse if general monism is accepted*. I would assume that even a general spirituality would require it, as well. Further, a study, 'Children's Intuitions on Mind-Body Dualism Emerge Early', has suggested that we are mentally geared to lean towards the intuitive stance of dualism from an early age. The general tendency to retain this belief can be attributed to the psychological Need for Uniqueness and Belief Perseverance. (http://www.scientificamerican.com...)

Are there any good arguments for any form of dualism that are not founded in intuitive reasoning? Does anyone here subscribe to one of the philosophical positions listed below, or perhaps a different one?

Substance dualism is a fundamentally ontological position: it states that the mental and the physical are separate substances with independent existence. Physical things are extended in space and do not possess any thought. Mental things have thought as their very essence, but do not have any extension in the physical world. [1]

Property dualism is a variety of dualism in the philosophy of mind which argues that mind and body exist as ontologically distinct properties of a single, physical substance. [1]

Interactionism is a dualist position in the philosophy of mind which argues that (1) mind and body are separate, but that (2) there is causal interaction between the two. [1]

Occasionalism is a theory in philosophy that causality is essentially an illusion"that substances are created by God and that what appears to be cause and effect between substances is merely an instance of God directly causing certain actions in the world. [1]

Parallelism, or psychophysical parallelism (meaning that mind and body are parallel) is a form of dualism which denies any interaction between mind and body. [1]

*Alternatively, I have seen a version of monism supported quite a bit 'round these parts, but it just strikes me as nothing but solipsism.

Idealism is the theory in philosophy that reality essentially consists only of minds, and that the physical world is an illusion, or otherwise the product of minds. [1]


You are on the right track towards the Truth. Don't let anyone tell you that we're real people who evolved from some primordial soup. The Truth is much different than that.

[1] http://www.philosophy-index.com...