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
Wayne92587
Posts: 1756
Joined: January 27th, 2012, 9:32 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Hermese Trismegistus

Re: An Argument against Substance Dualism

Post by Wayne92587 » April 5th, 2018, 5:31 am

Metaphors, Material Realities, are substituted for substances that have no material Reality, Pirori Knowledge.

User avatar
Greta
Site Admin
Posts: 7131
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: An Argument against Substance Dualism

Post by Greta » April 5th, 2018, 6:48 am

It seems to me that you are positing fairly typical dualism - matter and spirit - but you don't call it "substance dualism" since you say that "soul" or "spirit" is not a substance but borne of nothingness. Yes?

Wayne92587
Posts: 1756
Joined: January 27th, 2012, 9:32 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Hermese Trismegistus

Re: An Argument against Substance Dualism

Post by Wayne92587 » April 5th, 2018, 11:05 am

True!

I just spent an hour and half answering your quest and then deleted it before I could submit it for posting.

It is a big jump to call nothing something, a non-materially, a Spiritual, an immaterial, Reality a substance.

User avatar
Greta
Site Admin
Posts: 7131
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: An Argument against Substance Dualism

Post by Greta » April 5th, 2018, 6:53 pm

Wayne92587 wrote:
April 5th, 2018, 11:05 am
True!

I just spent an hour and half answering your quest and then deleted it before I could submit it for posting.
Commiserations Wayne. I think many of us have been there at some time or another. Occasionally the back button has been a saviour.
Wayne92587 wrote:It is a big jump to call nothing something, a non-materially, a Spiritual, an immaterial, Reality a substance.
Yes, it reminds me of the inauspicious start to my friendship with Leo, when he excoriated me for a mindless comment I made to the effect of "there is no evidence of nothing, only something" :D

My clumsy point back then was that all we know is something, so the idea of "nothing" is speculative, and seemingly at best only being applicable to reality in a relative sense, eg. there is nothing in the box (aside from air, dust, microbes, microbe carcasses, etc).

Justintruth
Posts: 25
Joined: November 1st, 2016, 9:58 pm

Re: An Argument against Substance Dualism

Post by Justintruth » April 8th, 2018, 5:28 am

Following make your argument subject to objection. Accessibility of the premise.

You are assuming something. It is false what you derive is not established. You must establish the basis for the validity of these.

Substance dualism fails because the brain can serve as the substance of consciousness so to add a second substance fails by Ochams razor
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.

Karpel Tunnel
Posts: 397
Joined: February 16th, 2018, 11:28 am

Re: An Argument against Substance Dualism

Post by Karpel Tunnel » April 8th, 2018, 10:37 am

Mosesquine wrote:
March 11th, 2018, 7:57 am
I think that Descartes' version of substance dualism is flawed. According to Descartes, soul and body are two distinct substances. It's because body is always located in space-time points anyway, but soul is always not located in space-time points at all. I think that all causal processes nomically occur in space-time points.
Is this an apriori idea?
I also think that all interactions of anything are happening in space and time. According to Descartes' version of substance dualism, soul is not located in space-time points, so soul cannot interact with body causally!
is the conclusion Descartes? It seems like the assumption is that something must have a location to have an effect. i certainly get how reasonable this sounds, since that is how we conceive of causes and effects, but can we be sure. Could something non-local be a cause with a non-local effect? Can we rule this out?

I understand that you are countering Descartes version of substance dualism. Must substance dualism be based on space-time bound vs. not?

Karpel Tunnel
Posts: 397
Joined: February 16th, 2018, 11:28 am

Re: An Argument against Substance Dualism

Post by Karpel Tunnel » April 8th, 2018, 10:46 am

Justintruth wrote:
April 8th, 2018, 5:28 am
Substance dualism fails because the brain can serve as the substance of consciousness so to add a second substance fails by Ochams razor
Occam's Razor cannot determine ontology. It is a suggestion about methodology. If we can explain something - all in a set of experiences - just using one entity or one substance, then let's agree to use just one. Subjective beings agreeing to be parsimonious in those instances where they agree that X number of entities explains well all experiences (or observations). It is not clear to me that the concept brain explains all phenomena, or even any of the phenomena we could batch under 'experiencing'. I see nothing in the descriptions of the brain, which are focused on the substances and structures of the brain that explain the fact that I am experiencing myself write this write now. I see explanations in 'brain' for how my writing is happening, but not that I am experiencing it or anything. At the very least our description and understanding of brain is incomplete and has not yet explained this experiencing. Perhaps it will one day, but to say that it can does not seem correct to me. Right now it cannot.

g

Wayne92587
Posts: 1756
Joined: January 27th, 2012, 9:32 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Hermese Trismegistus

Re: An Argument against Substance Dualism

Post by Wayne92587 » April 8th, 2018, 1:07 pm

Consciousness is born of the brain but consciousnesses itself is not a substance, consciousness being born of the air, nothingness, is a Creation.

Justintruth
Posts: 25
Joined: November 1st, 2016, 9:58 pm

Re: An Argument against Substance Dualism

Post by Justintruth » April 8th, 2018, 5:42 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
April 8th, 2018, 10:46 am
Occam's Razor cannot determine ontology. It is a suggestion about methodology. If we can explain something - all in a set of experiences - just using one entity or one substance, then let's agree to use just one.
Ok, so I can either posit two substances (substance dualism) or one and have property dualism. So “then let’s agree to use just one” BUT!

It is not clear to me that the concept brain explains all phenomena, or even any of the phenomena we could batch under 'experiencing'. I see nothing in the descriptions of the brain, which are focused on the substances and structures of the brain that explain the fact that I am experiencing myself write this write now. I see explanations in 'brain' for how my writing is happening, but not that I am experiencing it or anything. At the very least our description and understanding of brain is incomplete and has not yet explained this experiencing. Perhaps it will one day, but to say that it can does not seem correct to me. Right now it cannot.
If you believe in mechanistic biology, that all biology is a form of chemistry, and further presume that all of chemistry is a form of physics then I think I can prove you are right because a brain and a relevant portion of its environment can be represented as a vector in Hilbert space which just evolves into another vector in Hilbert space. Further, while there are several operators that can give you the probabilitiy that various measurements have of resulting once measured not a single one of those operators mention experiencing of any kind. It’s just not in the physics right now.

But it is there in the science. No one would deny the need to point one end of Galeleo’’s telescope at Jupiter to see the moons but equally no one would have doubted the need to point the other end at a human eye.

Imagine a student at Galileo’s time taking a telescope and pointing one end at Jupiter and the other at a wall and declaring that it doesn’t verify anything because he failed to see the moons of Jupiter.

Someone might have said of course not you have to look into the other end but that would not have been seen as a real objection. They would have thought it was a joke. Everyone knows you have to use the eye to look. Might not have been able to track the optical signal to the back of the brain etc.

Likewise when describing the finding of the Higgs Boson no paper need mention that the light from the leds on the screen entered the eyes of several scientists and etc etc ...pixie dust... it was observed that there was evidence for the Higgs.

Everyone knows, assumes, you have to look and knows to point the eyes at the screen to do so.

So I agree if we follow current science it’s just not there explicitly in the physical theory and if you are a mechanist with respect to biology then its just not a property of the brain.

But we all know more than that. We know we see with our eyes hear with our ears both of which conduct signals to the brain to be experienced. We define death legally in terms of what the brain does an we all know what to many drinks does or a hit of LSD not to mention a gunshot to the head...however...

It’s been a while now and we all know that Chalmers program will be realized and these folk facts will be incorporated into the physical description of the brain and we will know what class of maechanisms see or hear or think by looking at the physical properties and knowing the expeririencings that are produced by them.

We already know some an I bet for example a neurologist could tell you a blow to the back of the brain might produce blindness in the sense that the experience of seeeing would cease for the individual struck.

It’s been around since the first caveman ducked a chucked rock.

The real question is when we do the modification of the physics to include the phenomenology of experiencing in all its types whether we posit some other substance than the brain to be the substrate that is the subject that the experiencing occurs to.

I said in my response substance dualism fails because it posits more than it needs. We can just say it is that brain that sees or that other that dreams because they are in classes of mechanism that we know experience in those ways. Most likely we will even be able to know the content of the dream from the state vector.

I do assume facts not in evidence but that is not a problem as the burden of proof lies with those who believe we must posit something else. I amperfectly aware that might happen but until a fact is produced requiring a second substance we must follow Occam’s razor.

I am aware also that the property of experiencing is of a wholly different kind than any property posited before for physical reality.

I further am aware of the relation of the “hard problem” to being and it’s relation to time.

User avatar
The Beast
Posts: 771
Joined: July 7th, 2013, 10:32 pm

Re: An Argument against Substance Dualism

Post by The Beast » April 9th, 2018, 1:41 pm

There is consciousness. It arises in the brain. Activity in the brain has been measured as a wave. The nature of the wave is photonic. As the quanta is deposited consciousness arises. Energy packs from food sources are used by brain transmitters. Consciousness depends on the nature of energy sources and of a combination of chemicals moving across the brain barrier. The chemicals are not particles however, the emission of particles and the feedback from this emission calibrates the DNA. If we ingest substances like alkaloids it will have a different effect than carbos. There is a translation done by layers of chemicals. A correlation is done by experience layers and recognition is speech together with abstractions. Does the photonic energy of the sun gives consciousness to the Earth? As the photons are entering the layers of the sea new life may still be happening. The deposit of quanta energy on the right chemicals with the right conditions and the spectra of light is responsible for the diversity. The photonic energy of the sun is emitted by radioactive elements whose nucleus might have been together before the Big Bang. Conventional physics assign the electron energies as negative and the nucleus as positive. It might just be a conventional negative/positive/photon. Can we achieved energies of bosonic production? We already do. Life based at this energies might achieve consciousness at particles not yet discovered. A backward move to conditions prior to the Big Bang. As a forward move we might be descendants of a higher consciousness. We are. The duality is understood in our irreversible reality with many different flavors. In another flavor of monism the order is Above/Below or Below/Above or One. Error is the duality of truth or this which is different is another. One or Nothing as its origen… therefore If I exist is One which is mathematically imposible for it yields Infinitive. The paradox of free will… and so, Free will might qualify as the thing within.

Karpel Tunnel
Posts: 397
Joined: February 16th, 2018, 11:28 am

Re: An Argument against Substance Dualism

Post by Karpel Tunnel » April 9th, 2018, 3:25 pm

Justintruth wrote:
April 8th, 2018, 5:42 pm
Ok, so I can either posit two substances (substance dualism) or one and have property dualism. So “then let’s agree to use just one” BUT!
or remain undecided. One could do that as a general agnosticism on the subject. One could do it based on reports other have of experiences that seem to indicate substance dualism. IOW decide that the problem of other minds leads to caution deciding that you know what those experiences really are and pocketing them conveniently in a single substance model. Shelve it and wait.

One need not choose.
But it is there in the science. No one would deny the need to point one end of Galeleo’’s telescope at Jupiter to see the moons but equally no one would have doubted the need to point the other end at a human eye.

Imagine a student at Galileo’s time taking a telescope and pointing one end at Jupiter and the other at a wall and declaring that it doesn’t verify anything because he failed to see the moons of Jupiter.

Someone might have said of course not you have to look into the other end but that would not have been seen as a real objection. They would have thought it was a joke. Everyone knows you have to use the eye to look. Might not have been able to track the optical signal to the back of the brain etc.
I would say that the language above is more substance dualism than monism. I realize that this is built into the language, but the argument would be stronger without it. Who is this I using the eye to look? Why it is not also the eye?
Likewise when describing the finding of the Higgs Boson no paper need mention that the light from the leds on the screen entered the eyes of several scientists and etc etc ...pixie dust... it was observed that there was evidence for the Higgs.

Everyone knows, assumes, you have to look and knows to point the eyes at the screen to do so.
It seems like you are saying that since the body will be present when these things happen, then it is the only substance. While at the same time indicating an I that experiences this and chooses to use these body parts to have the experiences. It seems like we could have bodies turning in certain directions, having photons doing their stuff in the eyes, leading to chains of actions, without experiencing. There would be no need to posit an I, a chooser, or an experiencer. But in the language you use, we have this. And we do not know what that is, yet, this experiencing. And we describe it in a way that is rather substance dualistic like, with intentions and experiencing and with making choices about what to do with the physical. To be consistent, I think we should avoid that completely.
So I agree if we follow current science it’s just not there explicitly in the physical theory and if you are a mechanist with respect to biology then its just not a property of the brain.

But we all know more than that. We know we see with our eyes hear with our ears both of which conduct signals to the brain to be experienced. We define death legally in terms of what the brain does an we all know what to many drinks does or a hit of LSD not to mention a gunshot to the head...however...
Some people define death that way, yes. Some do not. LSD is a bad example since it becomes clearer, at least on some occasions for some, on LSD that minds are not in separate boxes. I personally think that mind and body are on a spectrum. I hesitate to use the word substance with all its physicalist baggage, but I suppose I am a somewhat agnostic monist. On the other hand some of the things you say about what one must do to see something, and much of the current science around where a mind is, I am convinced is deeply incorrect due to experiences with LSD and then a lot of other experiences while not in that kind of state.

Substance has expanded to such a degree in science that I am not sure the term has much meaning. We have things now that share little in common with anything we considered physical 150 years ago. Physical just means real and verified. The monism expands to include anything that is considered real. To call that one substance becomes impossible to falsify.
We already know some an I bet for example a neurologist could tell you a blow to the back of the brain might produce blindness in the sense that the experience of seeeing would cease for the individual struck.
Sure, and if I smash my radio, I kill the interviewer I was listening to also.
I said in my response substance dualism fails because it posits more than it needs.
If may posit more than you need to cover all your experiences, but it may not cover all of what others experience. If you are sure the others are wrong, then great, you have bypassed the problem of other minds. And again, the third option is there. I am not saying that their experiences and interpretations of those experiences should convince you.
We can just say it is that brain that sees or that other that dreams because they are in classes of mechanism that we know experience in those ways. Most likely we will even be able to know the content of the dream from the state vector.
Telling someone what you will someday be able to do, but cannot now, is not a very good argument. And it an argument you use several times here.
I do assume facts not in evidence but that is not a problem as the burden of proof lies with those who believe we must posit something else.
Even if this was a correct framing of the issue, the latter part of the sentence about onus, it has no effect on the presenting arguments based on speculated future knowledge. They bear the onus for their claims. This does not excuse you making stuff up. Onus is a ball that when one team has it the other does not.
I amperfectly aware that might happen but until a fact is produced requiring a second substance we must follow Occam’s razor.ovin
It makes sense for you to believe in one substance, though perhaps with more agnosticism tossed in. That does not mean 'we' must follow Occams razor. We, as in all people, do not necessarily all have to reach the same conclusions, even if all are being rational. A native american describes canoes the size of hills and pale men with shiny skin and magic wands. His tribe, knowing that people can get high on various plants and sometimes think things are real that are not dismiss the guy's claims. Different experiences. The guy hears their claim about he likely ate the wrong mushroom. He trusts his own estimation of his ability to discern visions from what he saw, by his knowledge of the felt state differences. Both draw rational conclusions given their experiences. Occam needs to shut up and stop being so binary. As said, Occam's Razor is a useful methodological heuristic for groups with similar experiences. It aids experimentation and communal working assumptions. But if one group has very different experiences from the other, then that 'we' is not a we in terms of parsimony, because the explanation is only adequate for one.

A good example of a poor use of Occams razor was in the scientific communities explanation of the overly emotional stories of sailors about rogue waves. Finanlly when technology changed - cameras on the bridge, then satellites - they realized those people were experiencing another phenomenon and correctly estimating it and models needed to change.

Occams' Razor is for groups with the same basic experiences. It is not something you can make other people wear. It is something you can say when describing why YOU and people like you are not convinced or work with the number of entities or in this case substances you do.

And **** Occam said the only thing that could not be eliminated was God. I know, they were all theists back then, it's just that the OR gets tossed around over and over like a metaphysical rule, rather than a methodological heuristic for people with similar experiences. If we are going to appeal to its authority as something all must accept, well, let's draw in the originator's most certain substance.

User avatar
Mosesquine
Posts: 154
Joined: September 3rd, 2016, 4:17 am

Re: An Argument against Substance Dualism

Post by Mosesquine » April 10th, 2018, 7:29 am

Justintruth wrote:
April 8th, 2018, 5:28 am
Following make your argument subject to objection. Accessibility of the premise.

You are assuming something. It is false what you derive is not established. You must establish the basis for the validity of these.

Substance dualism fails because the brain can serve as the substance of consciousness so to add a second substance fails by Ochams razor
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.


My argument against dualism in OP has the following structure:

1. (∀x)(Fx → Gx)
2. (∀x)(Hx → Gx)
3. ~(∃x)(Jx & Gx)
∴ ~(∃x)(Jx & Fx)
∴ ~(∃x)(Jx & Hx)

The proof procedures go as follows:

1. (∀x)(Fx → Gx)
2. (∀x)(Hx → Gx)
3. ~(∃x)(Jx & Gx)
∴ ~(∃x)(Jx & Gx)
4. asm: (∃x)(Jx & Gx)
5. Ja & Ga 4, EI
6. (∀x)~(Jx & Gx) 3, QN
7. ~(Ja & Ga) 6, UI
8. ~Ja ∨ ~Ga 7, DM
9. Ja 5, S
10. ~Ga 8, 9, MTP
11. Ga 5, S
∴ 12. ~(∃x)(Jx & Gx) from 4; 10 contradicts 11.
Q.E.D.


1. (∀x)(Fx → Gx)
2. (∀x)(Hx → Gx)
3. ~(∃x)(Jx & Gx)
∴ ~(∃x)(Jx & Hx)
4. asm: (∃x)(Jx & Hx)
5. Ja & Ha 4, EI
6. (∀x)~(Jx & Gx) 3, QN
7. ~(Ja & Ga) 6, UI
8. ~Ja ∨ ~Ga 7, DM
9. Ja 5, S
10. ~Ga 8, 9, MTP
11. Ha → Ga 2, UI
12. ~Ha 10, 11, MT
13. Ha 5, S
∴ 14. ~(∃x)(Jx & Hx) from 4; 12 contradicts 13.
Q.E.D.

The proof method above is reductio ad absurdum, in natural deduction of first-order logic. Some vocabularies used above are explicated as below:

asm: assumption (for reductio ad absurdum)
EI: existential instantiation.
QN: quantifier negation.
DM: DeMorgan's law.
S: simplification.
MTP: modus tollendo ponens (also called, disjunction elimination)
UI: universal instantiation.
MT: modus tollens.
Q.E.D.: quod erat demonstratum.


Anyway, my argument is formally valid as shown above.

User avatar
The Beast
Posts: 771
Joined: July 7th, 2013, 10:32 pm

Re: An Argument against Substance Dualism

Post by The Beast » April 11th, 2018, 10:37 am

Mosesquine wrote:
April 10th, 2018, 7:29 am
Justintruth wrote:
April 8th, 2018, 5:28 am
Following make your argument subject to objection. Accessibility of the premise.

You are assuming something. It is false what you derive is not established. You must establish the basis for the validity of these.

Substance dualism fails because the brain can serve as the substance of consciousness so to add a second substance fails by Ochams razor



My argument against dualism in OP has the following structure:

1. (∀x)(Fx → Gx)
2. (∀x)(Hx → Gx)
3. ~(∃x)(Jx & Gx)
∴ ~(∃x)(Jx & Fx)
∴ ~(∃x)(Jx & Hx)

The proof procedures go as follows:

1. (∀x)(Fx → Gx)
2. (∀x)(Hx → Gx)
3. ~(∃x)(Jx & Gx)
∴ ~(∃x)(Jx & Gx)
4. asm: (∃x)(Jx & Gx)
5. Ja & Ga 4, EI
6. (∀x)~(Jx & Gx) 3, QN
7. ~(Ja & Ga) 6, UI
8. ~Ja ∨ ~Ga 7, DM
9. Ja 5, S
10. ~Ga 8, 9, MTP
11. Ga 5, S
∴ 12. ~(∃x)(Jx & Gx) from 4; 10 contradicts 11.
Q.E.D.


1. (∀x)(Fx → Gx)
2. (∀x)(Hx → Gx)
3. ~(∃x)(Jx & Gx)
∴ ~(∃x)(Jx & Hx)
4. asm: (∃x)(Jx & Hx)
5. Ja & Ha 4, EI
6. (∀x)~(Jx & Gx) 3, QN
7. ~(Ja & Ga) 6, UI
8. ~Ja ∨ ~Ga 7, DM
9. Ja 5, S
10. ~Ga 8, 9, MTP
11. Ha → Ga 2, UI
12. ~Ha 10, 11, MT
13. Ha 5, S
∴ 14. ~(∃x)(Jx & Hx) from 4; 12 contradicts 13.
Q.E.D.

The proof method above is reductio ad absurdum, in natural deduction of first-order logic. Some vocabularies used above are explicated as below:

asm: assumption (for reductio ad absurdum)
EI: existential instantiation.
QN: quantifier negation.
DM: DeMorgan's law.
S: simplification.
MTP: modus tollendo ponens (also called, disjunction elimination)
UI: universal instantiation.
MT: modus tollens.
Q.E.D.: quod erat demonstratum.


Anyway, my argument is formally valid as shown above.
Consider Berry’s paradox in.
1.- 1. (∀x)(Fx → Gx);
2.- 2.(∀x)(Hx → Gx);
In the principle of identity of indiscernibles a dintinction is done with qualitive and quantitive predication.
The wave is represented as “{E∙}” indicating a commutative to higher homotropy ring spectrum E∞
Consider the predication: in the beginning there was the name of God with “four letters” … or the Noema… or whatever… like existence before anything else. I will be chewing on another outrageous sophism.

User avatar
The Beast
Posts: 771
Joined: July 7th, 2013, 10:32 pm

Re: An Argument against Substance Dualism

Post by The Beast » April 11th, 2018, 1:33 pm

It is a flavor of a horned syllogism. Obviously, the origin of error is a logical application against the fallacy of division. Do we assign Free Will/or other flavor of the thing within as a constant to all that is reality, or is it a part of the spectrum evolving according to other properties? It not Boolean. It is a spectrum of which all existential imports of x are E or that x has the properties of human but not all x has all the properties but only some of the properties much like the evolution of DNA.
It is possible that the properties favored by a flavor P of x instigate a new name/identity say L and if you like the signification with more flavor of free will if P. It may be that properties evolve themselves as consciousness.
A rose could just be a rose or some other meaning attached to P and predicated from x for other x which may or may not assign a spectrum of truth. This spectrum is within the realm of sensibility which is also quantified as an indiscernible. So, the property may be recognized within or not… or being in denial… maybe some… maybe more or less…in whatever case. Free Will.

User avatar
jerlands
Posts: 431
Joined: December 12th, 2017, 10:56 pm

Re: An Argument against Substance Dualism

Post by jerlands » April 11th, 2018, 3:48 pm

The Beast wrote:
April 9th, 2018, 1:41 pm
There is consciousness. It arises in the brain.
This is speculation. Consciousness is awareness that arises from the sum total of all our senses which are located throughout the body. What science observes in the brain is regional activity which corresponds either with physical activity or some kind of mental (thought|emotion) activity. Science can electrically stimulate physical movement or emotion but emotion isn't located in the brain. The brain is more like a microprocessor and the software that is actually the decision making aspect may be located elsewhere.
"It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so." - Mark Twain

Post Reply