Dualism
benna
entirly illogical but I would love to get into a debate about it. Any
takers?
Nietzsche
interested. My definition would be the seperation between mind and
body that Descartes made famous in his writings.
>From a personal standpoint I lean towards a mind beyond a body much as
Descartes does especially when reading some of the more recent
discoveries of quantum physics (eg. 2 atoms taking up the same physical
space).
The belief that I have is that the mind(soul) is seperate from the body
which acts only as a vehicle for the mind. Without the mind, the body
obviously has no purpose. So then the question is does the mind rely
on the body as well and I don't believe so. I believe in a soul in the
most scientific sense, that as there are some forms of energy that
cannot be visible to humans, souls are one of these forms of energy.
The classic argument to dualism in general is how can a mental event ,
like a decision, have a causal relationship to neurons, making them
fire and make your mouth move for instance. In this case, the belief
would be that you are only the physical and the decision to move your
mouth is a physical one done by your brain. I guess it removes the
entire soul from the picture and lets the body run as a machine by
itself.
I would also bring up the argument that some have about the complete
lack of physical. Some believe that there only exists a mental state
and when you make a decision to move your mouth, it is the perception
of that everyone shares that your mouth moves and no physical actually
exists.
Can anyone out there expand on some of these ideas or correct me if
I"m wrong and add your own. I would be interested in what everyone
else believes and I hope justifies. ;)
benna
of your brain. If your soul some magic energy then what you mentioned
as the classic argument certainly shows why Dualism doesn't work.
Another reason it fails is if the body has a soul that controls it,
does the soul have a soul of its own to control it? Presumably this
would go on forever. Unless of course you say that the soul can
control itself, and be conscious itself, but in that case why couldn't
the body do those things? The quantum physics stuff about one atom
being in two places at once is interesting from a theoretical
standpoint, but its unlikly that it is enough to create consciousness,
since really the uncertainty in quantum physics is not so much about
the way things actually are as the physics of our observation of the
universe. Alot of penrose's ideas about consciousness have be shown
to be false by a number of people.
Nietzsche
Just because the soul is a physical manifestation does not mean that it
is a member of the brain.[yes this is what dualists think but not
myself personally] The manifestation of the physical is actually not
physical as the dualist would consider the word. Rather, it is a
mental[energy] portrayal of a world.
Everything are energies - light, mind, body - and they are on the same
plane of existence. In this respect, the body is part of the soul and
not vis versa. For example the mind is an energy that is not visible
by our eyes; sound are energies that are not visible by our eyes; my
hand is something that IS visible by our eyes but to say that my hand
exists on a different plane than sound is ridiculous. Furthermore
sound interacts with "physical" objects(ie bouncing off objects) in the
same way the the soul interacts with the body(ie causing your mouth to
move).
This should also create an argument in contrast to the soul of soul
argument you raised. There is only one soul and it's purpose is to
keep memories and experiences throughout different bodies. The soul is
a part of the body as much as a driver is part of her car.
I agree with your argument that quantum physics are just invalid right
now and will take back any comment I made about it.
benna
least mostly located in the same space as the brain and is physical?
Whether you want to call it a part of the brain or not at that point
doesn't really matter. I certainly to agree that sound and visible
things are on the same physical plane, along with your "soul." I just
think that to call something a soul that is in the physical plane is
sort of a different use of the word from what the dualists mean by the
soul and so it is a bit confusing. My point about the soul needing a
soul stands as long as the body needs something outside of itself to
control it. If the body needs something outside of itself then so
does the soul. Unless of course the soul doesn't in which case why
should the body. If by soul you just mean everything in the universe
interacting, then this problem doesn't exist. I would agree to this
meaning of the word soul.
Xhin
universe is either infinite in time or space, or both, and so hosts
"universes" that are exactly like ours in all ways but one. These
universes don't have to be infinite in size, they can be defined to our
perception of the universe.
Each of these universes hosts someone exactly like us, with only
minimal differences.
Physically, cause and effect is preserved. However, what our spirit
does is move to the universe that physically corresponds with its
choice.
For an example, take two universes. Let's say both are finite in size.
In an infinite univese (in time or space), there would be an infinite
number of them. In one, the character Bryan picks his nose. In another,
he refrains for a second. (of course the essence of choices may be much
smaller than this) If bryan resides in the universe where he will pick
his nose, then when he makes the spiritual choice to refrain for a
second, then his spirit moves to the universe where he will refrain.
The problem with this idea is that it is not provable. Say a scientist
wants to test it, so he presents somone with the choice of saying the
word "fish" or the word "sheep". The scientist has already calculated
which one the subject will say according to all the events he has
recorded. He knows the subject will say "fish".
What happens? The subject says fish, as predicted. Whether he chose to
say fish or not is unknown because he may have chosen fish, staying in
the same universe, or he may have chosen sheep and moved to the
universe where the scientist knows he was going to say sheep. The
scientist in either dimension would have accurately predicted that
choice does not exist, however it's impossible to know if he's looking
at the same patient.
benna
macro scale, where it does not really work. According to quantum
mechanics, there exist parralel universes for all the different
possible events that could occor at the quantum level (very tiny
things). There is, in theory, a tiny tiny chance that many small
events will get togeather at one time and change something on a large
scale, but the chances are extremly small, so effectivly newtonian
physics rules the macro scale of things like deciding whether or not
to pick ones nose.
Xhin
things at all, because they were observed by someone macroscopic, and
also stored in a macroscopic brain, thus setting off a whole chain of
events. I mean, if the first person to do, say the double-slit
experiment had not done it, Quantum mechanics would be virtually
nonexistant. A tiny event (or several) set off an explosion of
scientific progress.
It seems to me that our choices may be a lot smaller on the scale of
time than we think they are. If this is so, then consciousness is
collective in terms of billions of subatomic choices as well.
According to the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, every
time an event can happen in two or more directions, it happens in both,
but our reality relates only one.
Our "reality" then would indicate a winding path of choices through
various dimensions. Since some things, such as flying, are things we
certainly cannot do, then perhaps our choices appear on a linear path
through , say, three dimensions of different choices per each
microchoice that we make. (a few million of these microchoices add up
to Bryan picking his nose. )
This seems possible, as clearly we have no indication when we stopped
making the choice and its cause-and-effect began.
benna
world, does not have much effect on the rest of the universe. The
vast majority of the time people's choices aren't really affected by
quantum mechanics. Even on the level of neurons, quantum uncertainty
doesn't really apply. Penrose did write some stuff about how he
thoght consciousness related to quantum mechanics, but it was rejected
by most scientists and philosophers. What The Bleep Do We Know? was
an interesting movie, I will admit, but I don't see it really leaving
room for free will. I'm not really sure what you mean by that last
sentence. Could you explain it to me?
Xhin
setting in on everything?
benna
don't know that you could find such a point in time.
joshbachynski
First off, Dualism is not a theory that Descartes posited. It is
something people have put in Descartes mouth. Secondly, Descartes would
probably consider himself a knower of the incorporeal soul and a
believer of the material - in that sense he is not a dualist. The very
term is a contradiction - as such, Descartes wouldn't have argued for
it.
You guys should read Descartes more closely... and listen to your
professor less.
josh
--
http://thymos.blogspot.com
josh
benna
read Consciousness Explained by Daniel Dennett, and he spends the
whole book talking about the "cartesian theater." Also if you look at
the 6th meditation on Meditations on first Philosophy it seems pretty
clear to me that he is a dualist.
9. To commence this examination accordingly, I here remark, in the
first place, that there is a vast difference between mind and body, in
respect that body, from its nature, is always divisible, and that mind
is entirely indivisible. For in truth, when I consider the mind, that
is, when I consider myself in so far only as I am a thinking thing, I
can distinguish in myself no parts, but I very clearly discern that I
am somewhat absolutely one and entire; and although the whole mind
seems to be united to the whole body, yet, when a foot, an arm, or any
other part is cut off, I am conscious that nothing has been taken from
my mind; nor can the faculties of willing, perceiving, conceiving,
etc., properly be called its parts, for it is the same mind that is
exercised [all entire] in willing, in perceiving, and in conceiving,
etc. But quite the opposite holds in corporeal or extended things; for
I cannot imagine any one of them [how small soever it may be], which I
cannot easily sunder in thought, and which, therefore, I do not know
to be divisible. This would be sufficient to teach me that the mind or
soul of man is entirely different from the body, if I had not already
been apprised of it on other grounds.
But then maybe I am wrong. Could you point out to me where it is in
his writings that he shows that he is not a dualist?
joshbachynski
Hi. Few responses:
1) I know lots of people think he was a dualist. They are wrong.
2) I can prove it by the very quote you posted. I already proved it by
the post I already gave.
What matters is what people think a Dualist is. It is so dangerous
talking in "isms" because it can very easilly cause you to err.
Dualism is not a theory that Descartes posited. It is something people
have put in Descartes' mouth. Where exactly in that quote does he say
he is a dualist?
Descartes would probably consider himself a knower of the incorporeal
soul and a believer of the material - in that sense he is not a
dualist. Descartes thinks there MAY be a difference between the body
and the mind - that's all. He does not posit that the body certainly
exists on its own accord and that therefore it is in anyway unconnected
to the mind. He is not stupid. He says the mind is indivisible and the
body is divisible - that's all. One side of the coin is different from
the other - they are not two coins.
Dualism goes much further to assert that the body and mind are two
different things. But Descartes didn't even believe in the body with
his method of doubt (Meditation 1 - 2). Therefore, Descartes cannot be
a Dualist because he does not meet the criteria. Everyone who says he
is did not read Descartes carefully enough or with enough professional
courtessey (to assume he is not an idiot and interpret him in the most
logically sound way possible).
benna
the same coin, but, it seems to me that you are giving him the benifit
of the doubt that that is what he is saying, and not actually finding
it in the text. When he says "This would be sufficient to teach me
that COULD be understood to mean they are different sides of the same
coin, but without him stating that, I tend to believe he means they
are seperate things. But I really would like to see some quoted text
that shows he is not a simple dualist. I know I am being skeptical,
but it is only proper when talking about descartes.
joshbachynski
called professional courtesy. Besides I happen to know Descartes
wouldn't care (because he later published a book of all the questions
and objections he received on his Meditations and he answered and shot
down every single critique - all of whihc I STILL hear said today -
like he was a "dualist" whatever that means).
What is important is the argument and leanring something from it. If I
can make someones argument better by interproetting it the correct way
I would. This is not a competition - its about advanced human
knowledge.
josh
benna
believe that was really what Descartes was thinking. I see nothing
wrong with reinterpreting it to make it better as long as its clear
that it is a reinterpretation.
joshbachynski
try to make it as good as possible and give everyone the benefit of the
doubt. Because as I said philosophy is not a competition :)
Also, ANY way of reading a book is a mere interpretation by you -
whether you think the author intended it that way or not. It only makes
sense to interpret it properly.
josh
benna
philosophy as history. Philosophically we are in agreement.