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
User avatar
Mosesquine
Posts: 189
Joined: September 3rd, 2016, 4:17 am

Re: A Pragmatist Argument against Substance Dualism

Post by Mosesquine »

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.
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, 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.
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.
User avatar
ThomasHobbes
Posts: 1122
Joined: May 5th, 2018, 5:53 pm

Re: A Pragmatist Argument against Substance Dualism

Post by ThomasHobbes »

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.
This is just verbal masturbation.
Deduction is meaningless, and only asserts what you think you already know.
Physics relies on induction.
Wayne92587
Posts: 1780
Joined: January 27th, 2012, 9:32 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Hermese Trismegistus

Re: A Pragmatist Argument against Substance Dualism

Post by Wayne92587 »

As a Theory, Substance Duality is Flawed.

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.
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, 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.
Of course deduction is compatible with physics. But not GLOBAL DEDUCTION of the kind you are claming physicalists are doing.
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.
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 12th, 2018, 3:00 am
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.
Of course deduction is compatible with physics. But not GLOBAL DEDUCTION of the kind you are claming physicalists are doing.
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.
User avatar
Mosesquine
Posts: 189
Joined: September 3rd, 2016, 4:17 am

Re: A Pragmatist Argument against Substance Dualism

Post by Mosesquine »

ThomasHobbes wrote: August 11th, 2018, 6:30 pm
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.
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.
User avatar
ThomasHobbes
Posts: 1122
Joined: May 5th, 2018, 5:53 pm

Re: A Pragmatist Argument against Substance Dualism

Post by ThomasHobbes »

Mosesquine wrote: August 12th, 2018, 6:48 am
ThomasHobbes 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.
You deduction has added nothing, as I said.
User avatar
ThomasHobbes
Posts: 1122
Joined: May 5th, 2018, 5:53 pm

Re: A Pragmatist Argument against Substance Dualism

Post by ThomasHobbes »

Deduction is only as good as your premises.
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.
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, 6:28 pm
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.
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.
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.

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.
"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 »

ThomasHobbes wrote: August 12th, 2018, 6:56 am You deduction has added nothing, as I said.

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.
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 12th, 2018, 7:06 am
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.
They understand that they can use their will to go against any and all of these,...

-- 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.
User avatar
ThomasHobbes
Posts: 1122
Joined: May 5th, 2018, 5:53 pm

Re: A Pragmatist Argument against Substance Dualism

Post by ThomasHobbes »

Mosesquine wrote: August 12th, 2018, 7:43 am
ThomasHobbes wrote: August 12th, 2018, 6:56 am You deduction has added nothing, as I said.

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.
I agree that small logic tables please similar minds. But most people know Obama will die without consulting one.
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: A Pragmatist Argument against Substance Dualism

Post by Steve3007 »

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.
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:

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.]
ThomasHobbes wrote:I agree that small logic tables please similar minds. But most people know Obama will die without consulting one.
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.
User avatar
Mosesquine
Posts: 189
Joined: September 3rd, 2016, 4:17 am

Re: A Pragmatist Argument against Substance Dualism

Post by Mosesquine »

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.
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