A Pragmatist 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
Karpel Tunnel
Posts: 948
Joined: February 16th, 2018, 11:28 am

Re: A Pragmatist Argument against Substance Dualism

Post by Karpel Tunnel »

Mosesquine wrote: August 7th, 2018, 7:01 am Arguments are objects of research in logic. Logic is the science dealing with arguments and related things. Deductively valid arguments are, according to logic, good arguments, so it's not ashamed.
I am not saying deduction is bad, if this is what you mean by 'it's ashamed', my Point is that your definition of a physicalist is someone who respects physics - which is generally an empirical approach, that is, it does not accept as knowledge things that have not yet been demonstrated via empirical testing. That is what the physicalist is basing his or her position on. But then decides that they can use deduction to assume what future research will conclude. That is a position, and one can make a good version of it. But it is 1) certainly not the only kind of physicalist 2) can be criticized for building from physics, but then using epistemological approaches that differ from it.
You distinguish deduction from empirical research.
Certainly at this level yes. When one is saying I can demonstrate deductively what all future physics research will show. There isa lot of deduction in scientific models. But this is quite a different use of deduction.
However, there can be empirical-content-having-deductively-invalid arguments like:

All tigers are quadrupedal.
Therefore, all birds have wings.

All the contents including premise and conclusion of the argument right above are empirically verified ones. However, the whole argument itself is not formally valid. So, the first is formal validity, and the second is content-soundness, according to logic.

Some definitions are added as follows:

Validity = Validity is a property related to arguments such that conclusion necessarily follows from premises.

Soundness = Soundness is a property related to arguments such that an argument is valid and its conclusion is actually true.

So, when arguments are successful, they should be, at least, formally valid.
I don't see where this is relevant.

In your first post you said that a physicalist believes that everything can be explained by current physics. I pointed out this was very unlikely to be what physicalists believe, and without conceding this point you amended the definition to including future conclusions of physicists.


I am pointing out now that to say now what all future conclusions will be in physics is either
1) speculative
or 2) based on deduction.


If it is based on deduction - which I think we would both agree would be stronger - it is 1) a very large scale deduction. IOW not like deducing something from a specific model in science and 2) it is epistemologically odd. Why?


It is odd because it places physics up as the source of knowledge about everything. In physics one is not allowed to use that kind of global deduction. So why would this hypothetical physicalist decide, seemingly, t hat physics is the source of knowledge, but physicists are wrong not to allow the kind of global deduction I am making when I decide that it will never be the case that physics will have a different ontology in regards to substances AND that physics will be able to demonstrate that everything is physical.
User avatar
Mosesquine
Posts: 189
Joined: September 3rd, 2016, 4:17 am

Re: A Pragmatist Argument against Substance Dualism

Post by Mosesquine »

chewybrian wrote: August 9th, 2018, 9:21 am
Mosesquine wrote: August 8th, 2018, 11:11 am Your own term 'consciousness' itself is not clear. There are two kinds of consciousness according to philosophers of mind: phenomenal consciousness (sensations, qualia, etc.) and access consciousness (attitudes like beliefs, desires, etc.). Physicalists in general think of both kinds of consciousness are physical.
Take your pick if you are willing to discuss your opinion of the nature of either. Obviously, I am more concerned with the latter, but I'd be interested in any description of what material thing either of these appears to be.
It seems that you are more concerned with access consciousness than phenomenal one. The idea that mental representations related to beliefs, etc., are physical things caused by brain processes is widely accepted one. So, your thought of immaterial consciousness is still not plausible. And physicalism is firmly defended.
User avatar
Mosesquine
Posts: 189
Joined: September 3rd, 2016, 4:17 am

Re: A Pragmatist Argument against Substance Dualism

Post by Mosesquine »

Karpel Tunnel wrote: August 9th, 2018, 9:44 am
Mosesquine wrote: August 7th, 2018, 7:01 am Arguments are objects of research in logic. Logic is the science dealing with arguments and related things. Deductively valid arguments are, according to logic, good arguments, so it's not ashamed.
I am not saying deduction is bad, if this is what you mean by 'it's ashamed', my Point is that your definition of a physicalist is someone who respects physics - which is generally an empirical approach, that is, it does not accept as knowledge things that have not yet been demonstrated via empirical testing. That is what the physicalist is basing his or her position on. But then decides that they can use deduction to assume what future research will conclude. That is a position, and one can make a good version of it. But it is 1) certainly not the only kind of physicalist 2) can be criticized for building from physics, but then using epistemological approaches that differ from it.
You distinguish deduction from empirical research.
Certainly at this level yes. When one is saying I can demonstrate deductively what all future physics research will show. There isa lot of deduction in scientific models. But this is quite a different use of deduction.
However, there can be empirical-content-having-deductively-invalid arguments like:

All tigers are quadrupedal.
Therefore, all birds have wings.

All the contents including premise and conclusion of the argument right above are empirically verified ones. However, the whole argument itself is not formally valid. So, the first is formal validity, and the second is content-soundness, according to logic.

Some definitions are added as follows:

Validity = Validity is a property related to arguments such that conclusion necessarily follows from premises.

Soundness = Soundness is a property related to arguments such that an argument is valid and its conclusion is actually true.

So, when arguments are successful, they should be, at least, formally valid.
I don't see where this is relevant.

In your first post you said that a physicalist believes that everything can be explained by current physics. I pointed out this was very unlikely to be what physicalists believe, and without conceding this point you amended the definition to including future conclusions of physicists.


I am pointing out now that to say now what all future conclusions will be in physics is either
1) speculative
or 2) based on deduction.


If it is based on deduction - which I think we would both agree would be stronger - it is 1) a very large scale deduction. IOW not like deducing something from a specific model in science and 2) it is epistemologically odd. Why?


It is odd because it places physics up as the source of knowledge about everything. In physics one is not allowed to use that kind of global deduction. So why would this hypothetical physicalist decide, seemingly, t hat physics is the source of knowledge, but physicists are wrong not to allow the kind of global deduction I am making when I decide that it will never be the case that physics will have a different ontology in regards to substances AND that physics will be able to demonstrate that everything is physical.



Your objection above amounts to the fact that you dislike physics. Everyone likes something, and dislikes something. Maybe, someone dislikes the law of gravity. However, like-dislike matter is irrelevant to right-wrong matter, in this circumstance. So, your complaint to physics is no real threat to physicalism.
User avatar
chewybrian
Posts: 1594
Joined: May 9th, 2018, 7:17 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Epictetus
Location: Florida man

Re: A Pragmatist Argument against Substance Dualism

Post by chewybrian »

Mosesquine wrote: August 9th, 2018, 10:18 am
It seems that you are more concerned with access consciousness than phenomenal one. The idea that mental representations related to beliefs, etc., are physical things caused by brain processes is widely accepted one. So, your thought of immaterial consciousness is still not plausible. And physicalism is firmly defended.
This is a demonstration of the logical fallacy known as "argumentum ad populum", meaning you assume the truth of your assertion simply because it is popular.

I think we need to come up with a new category for you, a logical fallacy in which one makes an assertion of opinion, adds a couple more steps that would be true if the assertion were true, and then folds their arms and declares victory. "Argumentum ad Mosesquine".

Wisdom > logic, and it is a delicious irony that you want to break the rules of physics in defense of physics, as Karpel pointed out. If you were on the right track, you would be able to answer the simple questions asked of you in defense of your position. Why would you care if your logic holds if the assumptions underlying it were false? Why would you not want to know if they were false, so you could try to learn the truth? Real wisdom always includes acknowledging what you don't know, which is always more than you know. "Argumentum ad Socrates".
"If determinism holds, then past events have conspired to cause me to hold this view--it is out of my control. Either I am right about free will, or it is not my fault that I am wrong."
User avatar
Mosesquine
Posts: 189
Joined: September 3rd, 2016, 4:17 am

Re: A Pragmatist Argument against Substance Dualism

Post by Mosesquine »

chewybrian wrote: August 9th, 2018, 11:09 am
Mosesquine wrote: August 9th, 2018, 10:18 am
It seems that you are more concerned with access consciousness than phenomenal one. The idea that mental representations related to beliefs, etc., are physical things caused by brain processes is widely accepted one. So, your thought of immaterial consciousness is still not plausible. And physicalism is firmly defended.
This is a demonstration of the logical fallacy known as "argumentum ad populum", meaning you assume the truth of your assertion simply because it is popular.

I think we need to come up with a new category for you, a logical fallacy in which one makes an assertion of opinion, adds a couple more steps that would be true if the assertion were true, and then folds their arms and declares victory. "Argumentum ad Mosesquine".

Wisdom > logic, and it is a delicious irony that you want to break the rules of physics in defense of physics, as Karpel pointed out. If you were on the right track, you would be able to answer the simple questions asked of you in defense of your position. Why would you care if your logic holds if the assumptions underlying it were false? Why would you not want to know if they were false, so you could try to learn the truth? Real wisdom always includes acknowledging what you don't know, which is always more than you know. "Argumentum ad Socrates".

I simply recommend popular views to let you know your ignorance. This is different from asserting. It's not that something is popular so it is true, but it is that something is popular so you should previously know in advance. So, your application of fallacy is not right.
User avatar
chewybrian
Posts: 1594
Joined: May 9th, 2018, 7:17 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Epictetus
Location: Florida man

Re: A Pragmatist Argument against Substance Dualism

Post by chewybrian »

Mosesquine wrote: August 9th, 2018, 11:43 am
chewybrian wrote: August 9th, 2018, 11:09 am

This is a demonstration of the logical fallacy known as "argumentum ad populum", meaning you assume the truth of your assertion simply because it is popular.

I think we need to come up with a new category for you, a logical fallacy in which one makes an assertion of opinion, adds a couple more steps that would be true if the assertion were true, and then folds their arms and declares victory. "Argumentum ad Mosesquine".

Wisdom > logic, and it is a delicious irony that you want to break the rules of physics in defense of physics, as Karpel pointed out. If you were on the right track, you would be able to answer the simple questions asked of you in defense of your position. Why would you care if your logic holds if the assumptions underlying it were false? Why would you not want to know if they were false, so you could try to learn the truth? Real wisdom always includes acknowledging what you don't know, which is always more than you know. "Argumentum ad Socrates".

I simply recommend popular views to let you know your ignorance. This is different from asserting. It's not that something is popular so it is true, but it is that something is popular so you should previously know in advance. So, your application of fallacy is not right.
I understand the meaning of the word "so", and, so, you did make an appeal to popularity. Disagreement does not imply ignorance. I am aware of many things that other people tend to believe with which I do not agree. I am also ignorant of many things, but that is not one of them and it was wrong of you to assume that I was.

1. Mosesquine has asserted that consciousness is material
2. All material things have properties which can be described.
3. He is unable to describe the properties of consciousness.
4. He has not proven his point, and is merely stating opinion as fact.
5. His method of 'discussion' is tedious and I've become bored with it.
"If determinism holds, then past events have conspired to cause me to hold this view--it is out of my control. Either I am right about free will, or it is not my fault that I am wrong."
User avatar
Mosesquine
Posts: 189
Joined: September 3rd, 2016, 4:17 am

Re: A Pragmatist Argument against Substance Dualism

Post by Mosesquine »

chewybrian wrote: August 10th, 2018, 4:58 am
Mosesquine wrote: August 9th, 2018, 11:43 am


I simply recommend popular views to let you know your ignorance. This is different from asserting. It's not that something is popular so it is true, but it is that something is popular so you should previously know in advance. So, your application of fallacy is not right.
I understand the meaning of the word "so", and, so, you did make an appeal to popularity. Disagreement does not imply ignorance. I am aware of many things that other people tend to believe with which I do not agree. I am also ignorant of many things, but that is not one of them and it was wrong of you to assume that I was.

1. Mosesquine has asserted that consciousness is material
2. All material things have properties which can be described.
3. He is unable to describe the properties of consciousness.
4. He has not proven his point, and is merely stating opinion as fact.
5. His method of 'discussion' is tedious and I've become bored with it.

The following argument is against chewybrian.

1. Consciousness is physical, and chewybrian is not a-head-torso-arms-legs-contained being.
Therefore, 2. chewybrian is not a head-torso-arms-legs-contained being.

Proof:

1. (∃x)(Fx & ~(∃y)(Fy & x ≠ y) & Gx) & ~(∃x)(Hx & ~(∃y)(Hy & x ≠ y) & Jx)
∴ ~(∃x)(Hx & ~(∃y)(Hy & x ≠ y) & Jx)
2. asm: (∃x)(Hx & ~(∃y)(Hy & x ≠ y) & Jx)
3. ~(∃x)(Hx & ~(∃y)(Hy & x ≠ y) & Jx) 1, S
∴ 4. ~(∃x)(Hx & ~(∃y)(Hy & x ≠ y) & Jx) from 2; 2 contradicts 3.
Q.E.D.

The argument stated above is not appealing to popularity, but appealing to logical principles.
User avatar
ThomasHobbes
Posts: 1122
Joined: May 5th, 2018, 5:53 pm

Re: A Pragmatist Argument against Substance Dualism

Post by ThomasHobbes »

chewybrian wrote: August 10th, 2018, 4:58 am 1. Mosesquine has asserted that consciousness is material
2. All material things have properties which can be described.
3. He is unable to describe the properties of consciousness.
4. He has not proven his point, and is merely stating opinion as fact.
5. His method of 'discussion' is tedious and I've become bored with it.
2. All descriptions are limited. So no, not really, your case is not made.
3. We can all describe consciousness. Our descriptions are limited as are all descriptions.
4. Your opinions 2 & 3 are faulty.
5. I image you shall now leave the stage?
User avatar
ThomasHobbes
Posts: 1122
Joined: May 5th, 2018, 5:53 pm

Re: A Pragmatist Argument against Substance Dualism

Post by ThomasHobbes »

It is an empirical fact that all examples of consciousness derive from the presence of healthy neural tissue, supplied with blood containing nutrients and oxygen.
The brain requires constant and uninterrupted nutrition and warmth, and stimulated with sensation from the nervous system.
The so called 'mind' can be altered easily enough with injury, a cessation of nutrition or with a blunt spoon - ask Hannibal Lector!
So it seems reasonable that consciousness is absolutely dependant on the physical operation of our nervous system.
Rene Descartes was born into a time when the notion of an eternal soul was a standard, irrefutable and endemic assumption. It is from this rather faulty assumption that the notion of substance dualism was formalised.
There seems to be no evidence to alter the conviction that consciousness is a special property of the unique and complex arrangement of neural MATTER and the electrical energy that animates its physicality.
Any suggestion that the "mind" is of a different substance requires a great deal of evidence - none of which is forthcoming on this thread.
The extraordinary claim that our minds are "separate" from out physicality requires extraordinary evidence. Making the claim of substance dualism on the grounds that we do not have a perfect picture of the physicality of consciousness is NOT evidence.

So until we have so evidence the balance of reason is with the physical model.
Karpel Tunnel
Posts: 948
Joined: February 16th, 2018, 11:28 am

Re: A Pragmatist Argument against Substance Dualism

Post by Karpel Tunnel »

Mosesquine wrote: August 9th, 2018, 10:29 am Your objection above amounts to the fact that you dislike physics. Everyone likes something, and dislikes something. Maybe, someone dislikes the law of gravity. However, like-dislike matter is irrelevant to right-wrong matter, in this circumstance. So, your complaint to physics is no real threat to physicalism.
1) I don't dislike physics. I find physics fascinating and consider it an incredible source of knowledge 2) I made no argument based on a dislike of physics. Please cite the section that indicates my dislike of physics.
User avatar
Mosesquine
Posts: 189
Joined: September 3rd, 2016, 4:17 am

Re: A Pragmatist Argument against Substance Dualism

Post by Mosesquine »

Karpel Tunnel wrote: August 9th, 2018, 9:44 am It is odd because it places physics up as the source of knowledge about everything. In physics one is not allowed to use that kind of global deduction.

You look-person-who-dislikes-physics.
User avatar
chewybrian
Posts: 1594
Joined: May 9th, 2018, 7:17 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Epictetus
Location: Florida man

Re: A Pragmatist Argument against Substance Dualism

Post by chewybrian »

ThomasHobbes wrote: August 11th, 2018, 5:01 am
chewybrian wrote: August 10th, 2018, 4:58 am 1. Mosesquine has asserted that consciousness is material
2. All material things have properties which can be described.
3. He is unable to describe the properties of consciousness.
4. He has not proven his point, and is merely stating opinion as fact.
5. His method of 'discussion' is tedious and I've become bored with it.
2. All descriptions are limited. So no, not really, your case is not made.
3. We can all describe consciousness. Our descriptions are limited as are all descriptions.
4. Your opinions 2 & 3 are faulty.
5. I image you shall now leave the stage?
No, I don't need to leave the stage. I just find limiting all discussion to logic, or to the scientific method, is dull and contrary to the nature of philosophy, which is about discussing hard issues. The same board could be used for checkers or chess. I'm guessing you would prefer chess.

I'm not sure if my opinions are faulty or you're not getting my point. Physical things have properties that can be described. I can describe the nature of water as being a gas, liquid or solid at various temperatures. I can tell you the speed of light. I could tell you how sodium would react when contacting various other elements.

Say I'd never seen a car and you told me a car was a physical thing, and all you could say about it is "it makes you go fast". I'd say you described it, but did not show it to be material. So you say: "all things are physical, so the car must be". But if you could not describe one physical feature of the car, then I would say you failed to prove it was a physical thing. Is there one other physical thing for which you could not offer some description of its physical nature? Gold is shiny and heavy. Such descriptions come easy with any material thing.

I'm not sure if consciousness is material or not, so I'm not trying to 'prove' that it isn't. I'm only trying to say that he has not proved it is. Saying all things are material and then concluding consciousness is material because it is a thing doesn't amount to proof, but only to stating a broad opinion as fact, which includes a narrow opinion, and then stating the narrow opinion as fact.

-All 60's rock is awesome
-Blind Faith is a rock band from the 60's
-Blind Faith is awesome

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJJnA6zEcGk

Despite the self-evident awesomeness of Blind Faith, I only stated my opinion of 60's rock which includes them by saying 'all'. The case of The Archies shows that 'all' was a mistake, as perhaps it would be in stating: 'all' things are material, when perhaps consciousness is an exception. Mistake or not, stating opinion does not amount to proving it true.
"If determinism holds, then past events have conspired to cause me to hold this view--it is out of my control. Either I am right about free will, or it is not my fault that I am wrong."
User avatar
ThomasHobbes
Posts: 1122
Joined: May 5th, 2018, 5:53 pm

Re: A Pragmatist Argument against Substance Dualism

Post by ThomasHobbes »

chewybrian wrote: August 11th, 2018, 8:10 am
ThomasHobbes wrote: August 11th, 2018, 5:01 am

2. All descriptions are limited. So no, not really, your case is not made.
3. We can all describe consciousness. Our descriptions are limited as are all descriptions.
4. Your opinions 2 & 3 are faulty.
5. I image you shall now leave the stage?

I'm not sure if my opinions are faulty or you're not getting my point. Physical things have properties that can be described.
and the property of the brain is consciousness
I can describe the nature of water as being a gas, liquid or solid at various temperatures.
Just as my statement above is limited so is your about water. You are doing what langauge does; its just a game of metaphors
I can tell you the speed of light. I could tell you how sodium would react when contacting various other elements.


Say I'd never seen a car and you told me a car was a physical thing, and all you could say about it is "it makes you go fast". I'd say you described it, but did not show it to be material. So you say: "all things are physical, so the car must be". But if you could not describe one physical feature of the car, then I would say you failed to prove it was a physical thing. Is there one other physical thing for which you could not offer some description of its physical nature? Gold is shiny and heavy. Such descriptions come easy with any material thing.


I'm not sure if consciousness is material or not, so I'm not trying to 'prove' that it isn't. I'm only trying to say that he has not proved it is. Saying all things are material and then concluding consciousness is material because it is a thing doesn't amount to proof
Nothing you said above helped your case.
Despite the self-evident awesomeness of Blind Faith, I only stated my opinion of 60's rock which includes them by saying 'all'. The case of The Archies shows that 'all' was a mistake, as perhaps it would be in stating: 'all' things are material, when perhaps consciousness is an exception. Mistake or not, stating opinion does not amount to proving it true.
You've not managed to advance your case here at all.
User avatar
chewybrian
Posts: 1594
Joined: May 9th, 2018, 7:17 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Epictetus
Location: Florida man

Re: A Pragmatist Argument against Substance Dualism

Post by chewybrian »

ThomasHobbes wrote: August 11th, 2018, 8:56 am You've not managed to advance your case here at all.
Because you still over-reach and attach a straw man to what I am saying. My 'case' is not that consciousness is not material, but that the nature of it remains unknown. Actually, you made my case for me:
ThomasHobbes wrote: August 11th, 2018, 5:12 am So until we have so evidence the balance of reason is with the physical model.
We are in some agreement in that we don't have the evidence yet. We only disagree on how to proceed without evidence. I choose to assume I am free to act within the restraints of reality. It squares with my perception, and appears to me to be at odds with materialism, because materialism seems to lead to determinism and away from free will. Is this where you are going?

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.
"If determinism holds, then past events have conspired to cause me to hold this view--it is out of my control. Either I am right about free will, or it is not my fault that I am wrong."
Karpel Tunnel
Posts: 948
Joined: February 16th, 2018, 11:28 am

Re: A Pragmatist Argument against Substance Dualism

Post by Karpel Tunnel »

Mosesquine wrote: August 11th, 2018, 5:44 am
Karpel Tunnel wrote: August 9th, 2018, 9:44 am It is odd because it places physics up as the source of knowledge about everything. In physics one is not allowed to use that kind of global deduction.

You look-person-who-dislikes-physics.
Look at the context. It looks at physics as the source of all knowledge, I say.
Then I say that in physics you are not allowed to do what you say physicalists are doing.
The physicalist is concluding that everything will be determined to be physical.
They have not done empirical research to do this. They are using global deduction.
IOW I am criticising them for NOT following the epistemology of physics.

I do not look-person-who-dislikes-physics. Or as we would say in English: I do not look like a person who dislikes physics. I am not a person who dislikes physics. I am pointing out a potential contradiction physicalists as you define them, using my respect for physics as a discipline to do that.
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