An Argument against Substance Dualism

Discuss any topics related to metaphysics (the philosophical study of the principles of reality) or epistemology (the philosophical study of knowledge) in this forum.
Post Reply
Londoner
Posts: 1783
Joined: March 8th, 2013, 12:46 pm

Re: An Argument against Substance Dualism

Post by Londoner »

Mosesquine wrote: March 11th, 2018, 7:57 am
(1) All causal processes (i.e. processes of causes and effects) occur in space-time points.
(2) All interactions occur in space-time points.
(3) No soul occurs in space-time points (by the definition of Descartes' version of substance dualism).
Therefore, (4) No soul is in a causal process.
Therefore, (5) No soul is in an interaction.

We know that our mental activities interact with our body performances. This follows that Descartes' version of substance-dualistic-assumption that soul is non-spatio-temporal and body is spatio-temporal is false.
How do we know all these things? We could only know them if we could get outside our heads and say; 'Look, there are some space-time points'. Then climb back inside our heads and say 'Yes, my idea of space-time points correspond to reality'.

But you can't; you do not know that what you think of as knowledge corresponds to reality. (Indeed, I do not know what a 'space-time point' is supposed to be, nor a 'causal process'. Both seem to be mental abstractions.)

So if you are going to deny dualism, surely the 'cogito' is more immediately presented than 'space-time points'. So, if 'no soul is an interaction' why isn't that because there is nothing for it to interact with? Because there is only soul.

I'm not saying that is the case; I'm pointing out that your 'we know' was a way of begging the question.
User avatar
Mosesquine
Posts: 189
Joined: September 3rd, 2016, 4:17 am

Re: An Argument against Substance Dualism

Post by Mosesquine »

Londoner wrote: March 21st, 2018, 5:41 am
Mosesquine wrote: March 11th, 2018, 7:57 am
(1) All causal processes (i.e. processes of causes and effects) occur in space-time points.
(2) All interactions occur in space-time points.
(3) No soul occurs in space-time points (by the definition of Descartes' version of substance dualism).
Therefore, (4) No soul is in a causal process.
Therefore, (5) No soul is in an interaction.

We know that our mental activities interact with our body performances. This follows that Descartes' version of substance-dualistic-assumption that soul is non-spatio-temporal and body is spatio-temporal is false.
How do we know all these things? We could only know them if we could get outside our heads and say; 'Look, there are some space-time points'. Then climb back inside our heads and say 'Yes, my idea of space-time points correspond to reality'.

But you can't; you do not know that what you think of as knowledge corresponds to reality. (Indeed, I do not know what a 'space-time point' is supposed to be, nor a 'causal process'. Both seem to be mental abstractions.)

So if you are going to deny dualism, surely the 'cogito' is more immediately presented than 'space-time points'. So, if 'no soul is an interaction' why isn't that because there is nothing for it to interact with? Because there is only soul.

I'm not saying that is the case; I'm pointing out that your 'we know' was a way of begging the question.

How do we know that you exist??? The fallacy of begging the question sometimes is a disguise of blind skepticism. How do we know that your head is biologically connected to you???
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14992
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: An Argument against Substance Dualism

Post by Sy Borg »

Mosesquine wrote: March 22nd, 2018, 12:49 am
Londoner wrote: March 21st, 2018, 5:41 amHow do we know all these things? We could only know them if we could get outside our heads and say; 'Look, there are some space-time points'. Then climb back inside our heads and say 'Yes, my idea of space-time points correspond to reality'.

But you can't; you do not know that what you think of as knowledge corresponds to reality. (Indeed, I do not know what a 'space-time point' is supposed to be, nor a 'causal process'. Both seem to be mental abstractions.)

So if you are going to deny dualism, surely the 'cogito' is more immediately presented than 'space-time points'. So, if 'no soul is an interaction' why isn't that because there is nothing for it to interact with? Because there is only soul.

I'm not saying that is the case; I'm pointing out that your 'we know' was a way of begging the question.
How do we know that you exist??? The fallacy of begging the question sometimes is a disguise of blind skepticism. How do we know that your head is biologically connected to you???
Define "exist". Define "biologically connected" :)

I agree with him (and Kant) that we cannot be truly certain about the objective makeup of reality, though. As he note,s we are on the inside and an outside-in viewpoint is not available to us.
User avatar
Mosesquine
Posts: 189
Joined: September 3rd, 2016, 4:17 am

Re: An Argument against Substance Dualism

Post by Mosesquine »

Greta wrote: March 22nd, 2018, 2:06 am
Mosesquine wrote: March 22nd, 2018, 12:49 am How do we know that you exist??? The fallacy of begging the question sometimes is a disguise of blind skepticism. How do we know that your head is biologically connected to you???
Define "exist". Define "biologically connected" :)

I agree with him (and Kant) that we cannot be truly certain about the objective makeup of reality, though. As he note,s we are on the inside and an outside-in viewpoint is not available to us.
As far as I know, Kant is the very person who officially publicly endorsed the view that space and time are the forms of our intuitions. Kant was not a skeptic, since there should be some preconditions that we must accept in order to progress in scientific discourses.
Londoner
Posts: 1783
Joined: March 8th, 2013, 12:46 pm

Re: An Argument against Substance Dualism

Post by Londoner »

Mosesquine wrote: March 22nd, 2018, 12:49 am How do we know that you exist??? The fallacy of begging the question sometimes is a disguise of blind skepticism. How do we know that your head is biologically connected to you???
You were discussing Descartes. Descartes famously starts from a position of doubt in the evidence of his senses.

As for your question: 'How do we know that your head is biologically connected to you??? it contains the dualism you deny. It says that there are two separate things 'you' and 'your head'. i.e. my thoughts (which are not the same as any part of my body) and my physical body.

In the OP you say:
We know that our mental activities interact with our body performances
If that is the case, then what is your answer? What is the way that you think 'you' and 'your head', i.e. our mental activities (which are not material) connect with the material world (including our own heads)?
User avatar
Mosesquine
Posts: 189
Joined: September 3rd, 2016, 4:17 am

Re: An Argument against Substance Dualism

Post by Mosesquine »

Londoner wrote: March 22nd, 2018, 6:35 am
Mosesquine wrote: March 22nd, 2018, 12:49 am How do we know that you exist??? The fallacy of begging the question sometimes is a disguise of blind skepticism. How do we know that your head is biologically connected to you???
You were discussing Descartes. Descartes famously starts from a position of doubt in the evidence of his senses.

As for your question: 'How do we know that your head is biologically connected to you??? it contains the dualism you deny. It says that there are two separate things 'you' and 'your head'. i.e. my thoughts (which are not the same as any part of my body) and my physical body.

In the OP you say:
We know that our mental activities interact with our body performances
If that is the case, then what is your answer? What is the way that you think 'you' and 'your head', i.e. our mental activities (which are not material) connect with the material world (including our own heads)?

I was discussing Descartes. By 'your head' (i.e. the head of the user of the nickname 'Londoner') I mean, however, your physical head (i.e. the part of of the body of the user of the nickname 'Londoner' containing his hair, eyes, nose, mouth, etc.). Although I was discussing dualism that I deny, the question 'How do we know that your head is biologically connected to you???' is not about dualism. It's just a counter-attack of your first 'How do we know...???" question.

My answer to the problem of mind-body interaction is monism like mind-brain identity theory, etc.
Londoner
Posts: 1783
Joined: March 8th, 2013, 12:46 pm

Re: An Argument against Substance Dualism

Post by Londoner »

Mosesquine wrote: March 22nd, 2018, 7:08 am I was discussing Descartes. By 'your head' (i.e. the head of the user of the nickname 'Londoner') I mean, however, your physical head (i.e. the part of of the body of the user of the nickname 'Londoner' containing his hair, eyes, nose, mouth, etc.). Although I was discussing dualism that I deny, the question 'How do we know that your head is biologically connected to you???' is not about dualism. It's just a counter-attack of your first 'How do we know...???" question.
Well, you call it a counter-attack' but I do not see any argument! I point out it is dualistic and you just say it 'is not about dualism'.
My answer to the problem of mind-body interaction is monism like mind-brain identity theory, etc.
Yes, but you just seem to declare your answer is right. You do not address the arguments of those that think otherwise.
User avatar
Mosesquine
Posts: 189
Joined: September 3rd, 2016, 4:17 am

Re: An Argument against Substance Dualism

Post by Mosesquine »

Londoner wrote: March 22nd, 2018, 7:31 am
Mosesquine wrote: March 22nd, 2018, 7:08 am I was discussing Descartes. By 'your head' (i.e. the head of the user of the nickname 'Londoner') I mean, however, your physical head (i.e. the part of of the body of the user of the nickname 'Londoner' containing his hair, eyes, nose, mouth, etc.). Although I was discussing dualism that I deny, the question 'How do we know that your head is biologically connected to you???' is not about dualism. It's just a counter-attack of your first 'How do we know...???" question.
Well, you call it a counter-attack' but I do not see any argument! I point out it is dualistic and you just say it 'is not about dualism'.
My answer to the problem of mind-body interaction is monism like mind-brain identity theory, etc.
Yes, but you just seem to declare your answer is right. You do not address the arguments of those that think otherwise.

The purpose of OP is to offer an argument against dualism, and not to offer an argument for anti-dualistic positions that you require. You keep insisting that 'head' is an analogous expression of 'mental', but you totally misunderstood about it. If you interpret 'head' in the context above as 'mental', then you are in trouble to comprehend the intention above. Since I mentioned 'biological connection between your head and you', the only proper understanding on that matter is to interpret 'your head' into 'your physical head (or some part of your body)'.
Londoner
Posts: 1783
Joined: March 8th, 2013, 12:46 pm

Re: An Argument against Substance Dualism

Post by Londoner »

Mosesquine wrote: March 22nd, 2018, 7:40 am The purpose of OP is to offer an argument against dualism, and not to offer an argument for anti-dualistic positions that you require. You keep insisting that 'head' is an analogous expression of 'mental', but you totally misunderstood about it. If you interpret 'head' in the context above as 'mental', then you are in trouble to comprehend the intention above. Since I mentioned 'biological connection between your head and you', the only proper understanding on that matter is to interpret 'your head' into 'your physical head (or some part of your body)'.
Your question was 'How do we know that your head is biologically connected to you???'

I did not interpret the word "head" as mental. I interpreted the word "you" as being something mental, that you say is distinct from the head, otherwise what sense would it make to ask how the two are connected?

If by 'you' you meant 'the torso', and expected the answer 'the neck', then I do not see what your question would have to do with the subject we are discussing. Nor when people think about themselves do I think they understand 'me' to mean 'torso' any more than they understand me to mean 'head'

And that is the point; 'you/me' is not identified with any particular part of my body. So, when you write of a 'you', as distinct from the physical body, you are allowing the dualism you are supposed to be arguing against.

You write:
The purpose of OP is to offer an argument against dualism, and not to offer an argument for anti-dualistic positions that you require.
You cannot just argue one side, otherwise you are shadow boxing. An argument against dualism has to engage with the arguments for dualism, not just declare itself the winner.
User avatar
Mosesquine
Posts: 189
Joined: September 3rd, 2016, 4:17 am

Re: An Argument against Substance Dualism

Post by Mosesquine »

Londoner wrote: March 22nd, 2018, 8:39 am
Mosesquine wrote: March 22nd, 2018, 7:40 am The purpose of OP is to offer an argument against dualism, and not to offer an argument for anti-dualistic positions that you require. You keep insisting that 'head' is an analogous expression of 'mental', but you totally misunderstood about it. If you interpret 'head' in the context above as 'mental', then you are in trouble to comprehend the intention above. Since I mentioned 'biological connection between your head and you', the only proper understanding on that matter is to interpret 'your head' into 'your physical head (or some part of your body)'.
Your question was 'How do we know that your head is biologically connected to you???'

I did not interpret the word "head" as mental. I interpreted the word "you" as being something mental, that you say is distinct from the head, otherwise what sense would it make to ask how the two are connected?

If by 'you' you meant 'the torso', and expected the answer 'the neck', then I do not see what your question would have to do with the subject we are discussing. Nor when people think about themselves do I think they understand 'me' to mean 'torso' any more than they understand me to mean 'head'

And that is the point; 'you/me' is not identified with any particular part of my body. So, when you write of a 'you', as distinct from the physical body, you are allowing the dualism you are supposed to be arguing against.

You write:
The purpose of OP is to offer an argument against dualism, and not to offer an argument for anti-dualistic positions that you require.
You cannot just argue one side, otherwise you are shadow boxing. An argument against dualism has to engage with the arguments for dualism, not just declare itself the winner.


The OP is about mind-body dualism. I offered an argument against mind-body dualism. The question "How do we know that your head is biologically connected to you???" emerged in the process of discussing *begging the question*. You, Londoner, asked a question of "How do we know such and such???". So, I gave you a counter-attack of "How do we know such and such" fashion.
Londoner
Posts: 1783
Joined: March 8th, 2013, 12:46 pm

Re: An Argument against Substance Dualism

Post by Londoner »

Mosesquine wrote: March 22nd, 2018, 11:25 am The OP is about mind-body dualism. I offered an argument against mind-body dualism. The question "How do we know that your head is biologically connected to you???" emerged in the process of discussing *begging the question*. You, Londoner, asked a question of "How do we know such and such???". So, I gave you a counter-attack of "How do we know such and such" fashion.
I still do not understand the point of that question and do not understand this 'counter-attack' business.
User avatar
Mosesquine
Posts: 189
Joined: September 3rd, 2016, 4:17 am

Re: An Argument against Substance Dualism

Post by Mosesquine »

Londoner wrote: March 22nd, 2018, 11:35 am
Mosesquine wrote: March 22nd, 2018, 11:25 am The OP is about mind-body dualism. I offered an argument against mind-body dualism. The question "How do we know that your head is biologically connected to you???" emerged in the process of discussing *begging the question*. You, Londoner, asked a question of "How do we know such and such???". So, I gave you a counter-attack of "How do we know such and such" fashion.
I still do not understand the point of that question and do not understand this 'counter-attack' business.

I mean that you looked-extreme-skeptic-denying-space-time to me. Your first comment was not about, at least directly, the contents or structure of my argument in OP. I attacked dualism. You defended skepticism. I counter-attacked your skepticism. You don't understand the situation. This is the whole story so far occurred here.
BigBango
Posts: 343
Joined: March 15th, 2018, 6:15 pm

Re: An Argument against Substance Dualism

Post by BigBango »

The discussion has become too conflicted with language that can easily be misinterpreted by various contributors.

The OP’s opening line asserts its intent is to offer an argument against “substance dualism”. It then very succinctly offers only an argument against DeCartes’ very narrow definition of the two different kinds of “Substance”. That argument does close the case against that specific form of substance dualism with the only caveat being the mysterious nature of the pineal portal through which some connection might be imagined as the only point in space time that should be seen as an anomaly to timeless mental experience much as even relativity has black hole points of discontinuity.

The question then becomes “Are there other forms of substance dualism that avoid DesCartes’ fallacy?”.

Kant answers this question by turning the issue from an unresolvable metaphysical problem to a more tractable epistemological divide. This divide consists of the objective(space/time) world and how we know it(empirically). That move from a metaphysical dilemma to an epistemological divide(the knower vs. the known) really just introduces a more subtle form of substance dualism. The nature of what is known against the nature of the knower.

Kant’s student, Schopenhauer, makes this distinction sharper by describing the world as both “Will and Representation”, a nod toward metaphysicall dualism.

Leibniz expounds another kind of dualism, that of “infinitely divisible substance vs. indivisible monads”. Interestingly, he has God coordinate the interactions between these different natured “things”.

Whitehead, on the other hand, is a monist, pan psohycist to be exact, but rescues metaphysical dualism by introducing two different ryes of mental entities, those who will change and those who seem immersed irrevocably in habit(giving rise to substance with solid attributions.

My recommendation is that the participants in this debate be more specific as to what kind of dualism (metaphysycal/epistemological) they are for or against.
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14992
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: An Argument against Substance Dualism

Post by Sy Borg »

Nice postings.

My impression is that each party could be right, depending on one's perspective. Monism considers all of reality to all be one thing, which makes sense. For them, conscious awareness is an emergence from, and affect of, life (and matter generally).

Dualists posit that there exists a primary nonphysical realm, with a secondary physical universe that arose from it. Aside from origin narratives, everyone agrees that reality includes the physical and nonphysical, but disagree as to the relationship between them.

As things stand now, there are two major measurable domains - the large, governed by relativity and the small, governed by quantum mechanics. Is this theoretical dual nature of reality's structure apparent or actual?
BigBango
Posts: 343
Joined: March 15th, 2018, 6:15 pm

Re: An Argument against Substance Dualism

Post by BigBango »

Please Greta don’t let the popularity of relativism give you permission to believe all interpretations of our fundamental philosophical issues regarding “subject dualism” may be true depending on one’s perspective. Instead meditate on the famous drawing of a pipe that is titled “This is not a Pipe” or CNN’s add that this image of an Apple is an Apple rather than a banana.

Humor aside, I think the origin narratives could be critical for a real understanding of reality. Does our physical universe arise from a quantum fluctuation of nothingness and then consciousness evolved or does the pan psychic monism of Whitehead give rise to substances that present properties for our inspection.

My position is that the mental and physical appear simultaneously and their evolution within a galaxy serves to separate “value/meaning” from the pure physicality of Black holes.

It is very interesting to me that you should segue from your relativiistic interpretation of this topic to the lack of our ability to reconcile relativity’s domain of truth with QM’s domain of truth. In my opinion that is off topic and is merely a debate within the purview of competing theories of “physical” reality.
Post Reply

Return to “Epistemology and Metaphysics”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021