A Pragmatist Argument against Substance Dualism
- Mosesquine
- Posts: 189
- Joined: September 3rd, 2016, 4:17 am
Re: A Pragmatist Argument against Substance Dualism
(1) All mug cups are made up of molecules.
(2) Firecchio's favorite stuff is a mug cup.
Therefore, (3) Firecchio's favorite stuff is made up of molecules.
proof:
(1) (∀x)(Fx → Gx)
(2) Fa
∴ Ga
(3) asm: ~Ga
(4) Fa → Ga 1, UI
(5) Ga 2, 4, MP
∴ (6) Ga from 3; 3 contradicts 5.
Q.E.D.
(1) The body of the man named as 'Chris Bolt' is divided into particle units in the speed of light if and only if the body of the man named as 'Chris Bolt' is divided into particle units in the speed of light.
Therefore, (2) if the body of the man named as "Chris Bolt' is divided into particle units in the speed of light, then the body of the man named as 'Chris Bolt' is divided into particle units in the speed of light.
proof.
(1) (∃x)(Fx & ~(∃y)(Fy & x ≠ y) & Gx) ↔ (∃x)(Fx & ~(∃y)(Fy & x ≠ y) & Gx)
∴ (∃x)(Fx & ~(∃y)(Fy & x ≠ y) & Gx) → (∃x)(Fx & ~(∃y)(Fy & x ≠ y) & Gx)
(2) asm: ~((∃x)(Fx & ~(∃y)(Fy & x ≠ y) & Gx) → (∃x)(Fx & ~(∃y)(Fy & x ≠ y) & Gx))
(3) ((∃x)(Fx & ~(∃y)(Fy & x ≠ y) & Gx) → (∃x)(Fx & ~(∃y)(Fy & x ≠ y) & Gx)) & ((∃x)(Fx & ~(∃y)(Fy & x ≠ y) & Gx) → (∃x)(Fx & ~(∃y)(Fy & x ≠ y) & Gx)) 1, BCR
(4) ((∃x)(Fx & ~(∃y)(Fy & x ≠ y) & Gx) → (∃x)(Fx & ~(∃y)(Fy & x ≠ y) & Gx)) 3, S
∴ (5) (∃x)(Fx & ~(∃y)(Fy & x ≠ y) & Gx) → (∃x)(Fx & ~(∃y)(Fy & x ≠ y) & Gx) from 2; 2 contradicts 4.
Q.E.D.
Deductive reasoning is compatible with physics.
- ThomasHobbes
- Posts: 1122
- Joined: May 5th, 2018, 5:53 pm
Re: A Pragmatist Argument against Substance Dualism
To have free will as most conceive it would be to act free from your own self.chewybrian wrote: ↑August 11th, 2018, 9:42 am
Do you believe in some form of compatibilism? I'd be interested to see how you find free will in a determined world, or why you don't want to blow your brains out if you don't.
I am free to do as I will, but I am not free to will as I will.
- ThomasHobbes
- Posts: 1122
- Joined: May 5th, 2018, 5:53 pm
Re: A Pragmatist Argument against Substance Dualism
This is just verbal masturbation.Mosesquine wrote: ↑August 11th, 2018, 1:11 pm (1) (∃x)(Fx & ~(∃y)(Fy & x ≠ y) & Gx) ↔ (∃x)(Fx & ~(∃y)(Fy & x ≠ y) & Gx)
∴ (∃x)(Fx & ~(∃y)(Fy & x ≠ y) & Gx) → (∃x)(Fx & ~(∃y)(Fy & x ≠ y) & Gx)
(2) asm: ~((∃x)(Fx & ~(∃y)(Fy & x ≠ y) & Gx) → (∃x)(Fx & ~(∃y)(Fy & x ≠ y) & Gx))
(3) ((∃x)(Fx & ~(∃y)(Fy & x ≠ y) & Gx) → (∃x)(Fx & ~(∃y)(Fy & x ≠ y) & Gx)) & ((∃x)(Fx & ~(∃y)(Fy & x ≠ y) & Gx) → (∃x)(Fx & ~(∃y)(Fy & x ≠ y) & Gx)) 1, BCR
(4) ((∃x)(Fx & ~(∃y)(Fy & x ≠ y) & Gx) → (∃x)(Fx & ~(∃y)(Fy & x ≠ y) & Gx)) 3, S
∴ (5) (∃x)(Fx & ~(∃y)(Fy & x ≠ y) & Gx) → (∃x)(Fx & ~(∃y)(Fy & x ≠ y) & Gx) from 2; 2 contradicts 4.
Q.E.D.
Deductive reasoning is compatible with physics.
Deduction is meaningless, and only asserts what you think you already know.
Physics relies on induction.
-
- Posts: 1780
- Joined: January 27th, 2012, 9:32 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Hermese Trismegistus
Re: A Pragmatist Argument against Substance Dualism
Only Fool would imagine that the mind, that consciousness is a substance.
Even though I can not explain the working of the Mind, consciousness, I know that consciousness is not physical is not a substance nor can it reduced to the Physical.
-
- Posts: 948
- Joined: February 16th, 2018, 11:28 am
Re: A Pragmatist Argument against Substance Dualism
Of course deduction is compatible with physics. But not GLOBAL DEDUCTION of the kind you are claming physicalists are doing.Mosesquine wrote: ↑August 11th, 2018, 1:11 pm The following arguments are deductive arguments from physics:
(1) All mug cups are made up of molecules.
(2) Firecchio's favorite stuff is a mug cup.
Therefore, (3) Firecchio's favorite stuff is made up of molecules.
proof:
(1) (∀x)(Fx → Gx)
(2) Fa
∴ Ga
(3) asm: ~Ga
(4) Fa → Ga 1, UI
(5) Ga 2, 4, MP
∴ (6) Ga from 3; 3 contradicts 5.
Q.E.D.
(1) The body of the man named as 'Chris Bolt' is divided into particle units in the speed of light if and only if the body of the man named as 'Chris Bolt' is divided into particle units in the speed of light.
Therefore, (2) if the body of the man named as "Chris Bolt' is divided into particle units in the speed of light, then the body of the man named as 'Chris Bolt' is divided into particle units in the speed of light.
proof.
(1) (∃x)(Fx & ~(∃y)(Fy & x ≠ y) & Gx) ↔ (∃x)(Fx & ~(∃y)(Fy & x ≠ y) & Gx)
∴ (∃x)(Fx & ~(∃y)(Fy & x ≠ y) & Gx) → (∃x)(Fx & ~(∃y)(Fy & x ≠ y) & Gx)
(2) asm: ~((∃x)(Fx & ~(∃y)(Fy & x ≠ y) & Gx) → (∃x)(Fx & ~(∃y)(Fy & x ≠ y) & Gx))
(3) ((∃x)(Fx & ~(∃y)(Fy & x ≠ y) & Gx) → (∃x)(Fx & ~(∃y)(Fy & x ≠ y) & Gx)) & ((∃x)(Fx & ~(∃y)(Fy & x ≠ y) & Gx) → (∃x)(Fx & ~(∃y)(Fy & x ≠ y) & Gx)) 1, BCR
(4) ((∃x)(Fx & ~(∃y)(Fy & x ≠ y) & Gx) → (∃x)(Fx & ~(∃y)(Fy & x ≠ y) & Gx)) 3, S
∴ (5) (∃x)(Fx & ~(∃y)(Fy & x ≠ y) & Gx) → (∃x)(Fx & ~(∃y)(Fy & x ≠ y) & Gx) from 2; 2 contradicts 4.
Q.E.D.
Deductive reasoning is compatible with physics.
They are claiming to know the results of all future research by physicists, that no paradigmatic shift will take place, for example, or that no later model will be dualist in some way.
That is not the same thing as the kind of specific deductions you make above.
You started the thread by using focusing on current physics. I point out the problem with current physics having an explanation of everything and without conceding this you change the defniition. When I point out that the physicalists, when drawing their conclusions using a global deduction that is not the kind of thing used by physicists in physics, you present one extremely tautological deduction and one specific deduction, deciding for some reason to ignore the issue I raised about a global deduction about the conclusions of all future research. In other words they somehow know that physicists will never decide that a dualistic model covers better some future phenomenon they discover or then can explain. Or that they will never decide that 'physical' contains metaphysical baggage that does not fit a reality that already now has 'things' that have no mass or are fields or exist in superposition. Knowing in advance what all future physics will discover and through what models and language it will decide are best to describe this is a global deduction that does not fit with physics research. It fits nicely with Descartian intuitive contemplation. It is not necessarily wrong at all. But it is some other way, other than the practices in physics, of arriving at truths.
Since you seem unable to read my posts carefully, concede points, or actually interact with the posts I write, picking things out of context, cherry picking and strawmanning - along with going ad hom - I will ignore you from here on out.
There are physicalists who can actually have a mature discussion. I'll have it with them.
- Mosesquine
- Posts: 189
- Joined: September 3rd, 2016, 4:17 am
Re: A Pragmatist Argument against Substance Dualism
Karpel Tunnel wrote: ↑August 12th, 2018, 3:00 amOf course deduction is compatible with physics. But not GLOBAL DEDUCTION of the kind you are claming physicalists are doing.Mosesquine wrote: ↑August 11th, 2018, 1:11 pm The following arguments are deductive arguments from physics:
(1) All mug cups are made up of molecules.
(2) Firecchio's favorite stuff is a mug cup.
Therefore, (3) Firecchio's favorite stuff is made up of molecules.
proof:
(1) (∀x)(Fx → Gx)
(2) Fa
∴ Ga
(3) asm: ~Ga
(4) Fa → Ga 1, UI
(5) Ga 2, 4, MP
∴ (6) Ga from 3; 3 contradicts 5.
Q.E.D.
(1) The body of the man named as 'Chris Bolt' is divided into particle units in the speed of light if and only if the body of the man named as 'Chris Bolt' is divided into particle units in the speed of light.
Therefore, (2) if the body of the man named as "Chris Bolt' is divided into particle units in the speed of light, then the body of the man named as 'Chris Bolt' is divided into particle units in the speed of light.
proof.
(1) (∃x)(Fx & ~(∃y)(Fy & x ≠ y) & Gx) ↔ (∃x)(Fx & ~(∃y)(Fy & x ≠ y) & Gx)
∴ (∃x)(Fx & ~(∃y)(Fy & x ≠ y) & Gx) → (∃x)(Fx & ~(∃y)(Fy & x ≠ y) & Gx)
(2) asm: ~((∃x)(Fx & ~(∃y)(Fy & x ≠ y) & Gx) → (∃x)(Fx & ~(∃y)(Fy & x ≠ y) & Gx))
(3) ((∃x)(Fx & ~(∃y)(Fy & x ≠ y) & Gx) → (∃x)(Fx & ~(∃y)(Fy & x ≠ y) & Gx)) & ((∃x)(Fx & ~(∃y)(Fy & x ≠ y) & Gx) → (∃x)(Fx & ~(∃y)(Fy & x ≠ y) & Gx)) 1, BCR
(4) ((∃x)(Fx & ~(∃y)(Fy & x ≠ y) & Gx) → (∃x)(Fx & ~(∃y)(Fy & x ≠ y) & Gx)) 3, S
∴ (5) (∃x)(Fx & ~(∃y)(Fy & x ≠ y) & Gx) → (∃x)(Fx & ~(∃y)(Fy & x ≠ y) & Gx) from 2; 2 contradicts 4.
Q.E.D.
Deductive reasoning is compatible with physics.
They are claiming to know the results of all future research by physicists, that no paradigmatic shift will take place, for example, or that no later model will be dualist in some way.
That is not the same thing as the kind of specific deductions you make above.
You started the thread by using focusing on current physics. I point out the problem with current physics having an explanation of everything and without conceding this you change the defniition. When I point out that the physicalists, when drawing their conclusions using a global deduction that is not the kind of thing used by physicists in physics, you present one extremely tautological deduction and one specific deduction, deciding for some reason to ignore the issue I raised about a global deduction about the conclusions of all future research. In other words they somehow know that physicists will never decide that a dualistic model covers better some future phenomenon they discover or then can explain. Or that they will never decide that 'physical' contains metaphysical baggage that does not fit a reality that already now has 'things' that have no mass or are fields or exist in superposition. Knowing in advance what all future physics will discover and through what models and language it will decide are best to describe this is a global deduction that does not fit with physics research. It fits nicely with Descartian intuitive contemplation. It is not necessarily wrong at all. But it is some other way, other than the practices in physics, of arriving at truths.
Since you seem unable to read my posts carefully, concede points, or actually interact with the posts I write, picking things out of context, cherry picking and strawmanning - along with going ad hom - I will ignore you from here on out.
There are physicalists who can actually have a mature discussion. I'll have it with them.
The term 'global deduction' is not clearly defined here. In logic, deduction is a kind of reasoning such that conclusions are formally derived by premises. It seems not that you are using the term 'global deduction' in a sense of 'deduction' in general.
- Mosesquine
- Posts: 189
- Joined: September 3rd, 2016, 4:17 am
Re: A Pragmatist Argument against Substance Dualism
ThomasHobbes wrote: ↑August 11th, 2018, 6:30 pmThis is just verbal masturbation.Mosesquine wrote: ↑August 11th, 2018, 1:11 pm (1) (∃x)(Fx & ~(∃y)(Fy & x ≠ y) & Gx) ↔ (∃x)(Fx & ~(∃y)(Fy & x ≠ y) & Gx)
∴ (∃x)(Fx & ~(∃y)(Fy & x ≠ y) & Gx) → (∃x)(Fx & ~(∃y)(Fy & x ≠ y) & Gx)
(2) asm: ~((∃x)(Fx & ~(∃y)(Fy & x ≠ y) & Gx) → (∃x)(Fx & ~(∃y)(Fy & x ≠ y) & Gx))
(3) ((∃x)(Fx & ~(∃y)(Fy & x ≠ y) & Gx) → (∃x)(Fx & ~(∃y)(Fy & x ≠ y) & Gx)) & ((∃x)(Fx & ~(∃y)(Fy & x ≠ y) & Gx) → (∃x)(Fx & ~(∃y)(Fy & x ≠ y) & Gx)) 1, BCR
(4) ((∃x)(Fx & ~(∃y)(Fy & x ≠ y) & Gx) → (∃x)(Fx & ~(∃y)(Fy & x ≠ y) & Gx)) 3, S
∴ (5) (∃x)(Fx & ~(∃y)(Fy & x ≠ y) & Gx) → (∃x)(Fx & ~(∃y)(Fy & x ≠ y) & Gx) from 2; 2 contradicts 4.
Q.E.D.
Deductive reasoning is compatible with physics.
Deduction is meaningless, and only asserts what you think you already know.
Physics relies on induction.
Deduction is meaningful, since it gives general-universal principles. Suppose that physicists found that human bodies are made up of molecules. Then, the physicists can do the following deduction:
Every human body is made up of molecules.
Bergson is a human body.
Therefore, Bergson is made up of molecules.
If there were no deduction, then such a generalization-universalization above would not be.
- ThomasHobbes
- Posts: 1122
- Joined: May 5th, 2018, 5:53 pm
Re: A Pragmatist Argument against Substance Dualism
You deduction has added nothing, as I said.Mosesquine wrote: ↑August 12th, 2018, 6:48 amThomasHobbes wrote: ↑August 11th, 2018, 6:30 pm
This is just verbal masturbation.
Deduction is meaningless, and only asserts what you think you already know.
Physics relies on induction.
Deduction is meaningful, since it gives general-universal principles. Suppose that physicists found that human bodies are made up of molecules. Then, the physicists can do the following deduction:
Every human body is made up of molecules.
Bergson is a human body.
Therefore, Bergson is made up of molecules.
If there were no deduction, then such a generalization-universalization above would not be.
- ThomasHobbes
- Posts: 1122
- Joined: May 5th, 2018, 5:53 pm
Re: A Pragmatist Argument against Substance Dualism
The fact is that premises, about that which is not know, are at best faulty and at worse simply false. Your premises assert a claim which is already in contention by the subject of the thread.
You have given us nothing but question begging nonsense.
And evidential approach given a balance of probability is far more in tune with how science actually works.
- chewybrian
- Posts: 1594
- Joined: May 9th, 2018, 7:17 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Epictetus
- Location: Florida man
Re: A Pragmatist Argument against Substance Dualism
I think regular folks, non-philosophers or non-scientists, have most of it right. They would understand that they have instincts, and desires and aversions driven by physical needs, like hunger, and tendencies based on experience. They understand that they can use their will to go against any and all of these, but it might not be easy. Where most of them get it wrong is failing to realize that they can alter their desires and aversions over time with mindfulness and a change in perspective.ThomasHobbes wrote: ↑August 11th, 2018, 6:28 pmTo have free will as most conceive it would be to act free from your own self.chewybrian wrote: ↑August 11th, 2018, 9:42 am
Do you believe in some form of compatibilism? I'd be interested to see how you find free will in a determined world, or why you don't want to blow your brains out if you don't.
I am free to do as I will, but I am not free to will as I will.
Stoic philosophy shows how to do so. Behavior is driven in large part by perspective and habit, and these can be changed. Cognitive behavioral therapy and twelve step programs are extensions of this philosophy. Such methods can not only help you to beat your addiction, but to emerge on the other side with new desires. You can both quit smoking and quit desiring to smoke.
- Mosesquine
- Posts: 189
- Joined: September 3rd, 2016, 4:17 am
Re: A Pragmatist Argument against Substance Dualism
Deduction is useful for generalizations of acquired information. Inductive method has limitations. George W. Bush will die, Bill Clinton will die, and Barack Obama will die, ... This is the limit of inductive reasoning. Deductive method can solve this problem: All living Presidents of USA will die. So, deductive method is not trivial but inevitable.
- ThomasHobbes
- Posts: 1122
- Joined: May 5th, 2018, 5:53 pm
Re: A Pragmatist Argument against Substance Dualism
chewybrian wrote: ↑August 12th, 2018, 7:06 amThey understand that they can use their will to go against any and all of these,...ThomasHobbes wrote: ↑August 11th, 2018, 6:28 pm
To have free will as most conceive it would be to act free from your own self.
I am free to do as I will, but I am not free to will as I will.
-- You can both quit smoking and quit desiring to smoke....
Indeed you can. But what people refuse to admit is that the will is also determined by antecedent causes.
- ThomasHobbes
- Posts: 1122
- Joined: May 5th, 2018, 5:53 pm
Re: A Pragmatist Argument against Substance Dualism
I agree that small logic tables please similar minds. But most people know Obama will die without consulting one.Mosesquine wrote: ↑August 12th, 2018, 7:43 am
Deduction is useful for generalizations of acquired information. Inductive method has limitations. George W. Bush will die, Bill Clinton will die, and Barack Obama will die, ... This is the limit of inductive reasoning. Deductive method can solve this problem: All living Presidents of USA will die. So, deductive method is not trivial but inevitable.
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: A Pragmatist Argument against Substance Dualism
This is not a generalization-universalization. It's the opposite. You've gone from every human body to just Bergson's. Generalizations come from Induction. They are of the form:Mosesquine wrote:Deduction is meaningful, since it gives general-universal principles. Suppose that physicists found that human bodies are made up of molecules. Then, the physicists can do the following deduction:
Every human body is made up of molecules.
Bergson is a human body.
Therefore, Bergson is made up of molecules.
If there were no deduction, then such a generalization-universalization above would not be.
Bergson is made up of molecules.
Loads of other people are made up of molecules.
Until I find one that isn't, I propose that every human body is made up of molecules.
[Insert some logical symbology to represent the above here.]
I think it's entirely possible that Barack Obama will consult a small logic table before he dies. He may even already have done so.ThomasHobbes wrote:I agree that small logic tables please similar minds. But most people know Obama will die without consulting one.
- Mosesquine
- Posts: 189
- Joined: September 3rd, 2016, 4:17 am
Re: A Pragmatist Argument against Substance Dualism
ThomasHobbes wrote: ↑August 12th, 2018, 9:30 am I agree that small logic tables please similar minds. But most people know Obama will die without consulting one.
Concretizing trivial matter into serious one is the very purpose of science. Everyone knows that bodies fall to the lower grounds without consulting physics. The purpose of science is to theoretize things people already knows.
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
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
by Chet Shupe
March 2023