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 5th, 2018, 5:37 am Not all physicists are philosophical physicalists. You seem to confuse 'physicalist' with 'physicist'.
Physicalism = Physicalism is an idea that everything, including mind and body, is ultimately physical, and can be explained by contemporary physics.
I don't think that's what I'm doing.

Looking at the quote above. Physicalism is the idea that everything can be explained by modern physics. Since modern physicists are still looking for explanations, it would be odd for physicalists to think that everything can be explained by what contemporary physics explains. It doesn't matter if they are physicists or not.

I suppose it would be possible.

Physicalist: I know those guys have explained everything. They don't realize it themselves, but they have.

That is a possible position. But it seems unlikely in the extreme. I certainly think it is a poor position to represent physicalism. Physicalism it seems to me is an assertion based strongly ALSO on deduction. IOW that we can deduce that everything that exists is physical, even though physics has not explained everything (yet).
User avatar
Consul
Posts: 6036
Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
Location: Germany

Re: A Pragmatist Argument against Substance Dualism

Post by Consul »

Karpel Tunnel wrote: August 6th, 2018, 9:48 amPhysicalism is the idea that everything can be explained by modern physics. Since modern physicists are still looking for explanations, it would be odd for physicalists to think that everything can be explained by what contemporary physics explains. It doesn't matter if they are physicists or not.
Strictly speaking, ontological physicalism is the view that everything (that exists/is real) is physical, that all entities are physical ones. This is compatible with the denial of the possibility of physical omniscience. That is, there may be some physically unexplainable physical phenomena, with the possible unexplainability being due to the empirical, technological and theoretical limits of human physics. (There may be superhumanly intelligent nonhuman physicists with a superhuman technology on other planets who are able to solve physical problems that human physicists cannot solve.)
"We may philosophize well or ill, but we must philosophize." – Wilfrid Sellars
User avatar
Mosesquine
Posts: 189
Joined: September 3rd, 2016, 4:17 am

Re: A Pragmatist Argument against Substance Dualism

Post by Mosesquine »

Consul wrote: August 6th, 2018, 7:28 am
Mosesquine wrote: August 5th, 2018, 11:37 pmWhat I mean by the term 'substance in 16th-17th centuries' is about philosophical uses of it. The fact that 'the English word substance appears in the 14th century' is not so relevant to this topic.
The word "substance"/"substantia" was used in the philosophical sense by pre-16th century philosophers such as Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274) [see e.g. De Ente et Essentia/On Being and Essence]

Whether Aquinas used the term 'substance' or not is not important to this topic. What I mean by 'substance used by 16th-17th centuries philosophers' is British Empiricists/Continental Rationalists, i.e., Descartes, Spinoza, Leibniz, Locke, Berkeley, Hume, era's uses of the term. However, your tackle to this issue is still not relevant to the core ideas of the OP.
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 6th, 2018, 6:06 am
Mosesquine wrote: August 5th, 2018, 11:27 pm
Your question has never been clearly stated. No bad question can be answered well.
I did not say anything that could not easily understood by someone who knows the meaning of 'compatibilism' or 'determinism', and I am certain you do. That is only a cheap bullying tactic you often use to avoid questions you don't want to answer, and to try to discredit or intimidate others and inflate yourself. It does more damage to you than to any of your intended victims, and has no place in any meaningful discussion.

Your asserting is not clear. You still can't make people understand what you intend to discuss.
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 6th, 2018, 9:48 am
Mosesquine wrote: August 5th, 2018, 5:37 am Not all physicists are philosophical physicalists. You seem to confuse 'physicalist' with 'physicist'.
Physicalism = Physicalism is an idea that everything, including mind and body, is ultimately physical, and can be explained by contemporary physics.
I don't think that's what I'm doing.

Looking at the quote above. Physicalism is the idea that everything can be explained by modern physics. Since modern physicists are still looking for explanations, it would be odd for physicalists to think that everything can be explained by what contemporary physics explains. It doesn't matter if they are physicists or not.

I suppose it would be possible.

Physicalist: I know those guys have explained everything. They don't realize it themselves, but they have.

That is a possible position. But it seems unlikely in the extreme. I certainly think it is a poor position to represent physicalism. Physicalism it seems to me is an assertion based strongly ALSO on deduction. IOW that we can deduce that everything that exists is physical, even though physics has not explained everything (yet).

The definitions are as follows:

Physicist = Physicists are people whose job is researching physics, and they are usually regarded as majoring in physics, and they are normally thought of as natural scientists.

Physicalist = Physicalists are people who endorse physics as the most reliable science, worldview, etc., and they think everything is perfectly explained by physical terms, or physics' disciplines in the end, and they are advocates of physicalism as a philosophical position.
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, 4:29 am The definitions are as follows:

Physicist = Physicists are people whose job is researching physics, and they are usually regarded as majoring in physics, and they are normally thought of as natural scientists.

Physicalist = Physicalists are people who endorse physics as the most reliable science, worldview, etc., and they think everything is perfectly explained by physical terms, or physics' disciplines in the end, and they are advocates of physicalism as a philosophical position.
Right, fine. Now you added 'physics disciplines in the end' IOW not just contemporary physics knowledge. This is not complete. This is what I was pointing out in the first post. And it would be clearer if you wrote 'or will be explained by physics disciplines in the end'.

And note: to make the claim that everything will be explained by physics AND that everything will be consider by physicists to be physical is either speculation
or
a conclusion based on deduction. IOW an argument that says here's why there can only be one substance......[with ensuing deductive argument]. A conclusion reached not through empirical research - since physics is not yet complete - but via deduction.

Or it is speculation.
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 7th, 2018, 6:10 am
Mosesquine wrote: August 7th, 2018, 4:29 am The definitions are as follows:

Physicist = Physicists are people whose job is researching physics, and they are usually regarded as majoring in physics, and they are normally thought of as natural scientists.

Physicalist = Physicalists are people who endorse physics as the most reliable science, worldview, etc., and they think everything is perfectly explained by physical terms, or physics' disciplines in the end, and they are advocates of physicalism as a philosophical position.
Right, fine. Now you added 'physics disciplines in the end' IOW not just contemporary physics knowledge. This is not complete. This is what I was pointing out in the first post. And it would be clearer if you wrote 'or will be explained by physics disciplines in the end'.

And note: to make the claim that everything will be explained by physics AND that everything will be consider by physicists to be physical is either speculation
or
a conclusion based on deduction. IOW an argument that says here's why there can only be one substance......[with ensuing deductive argument]. A conclusion reached not through empirical research - since physics is not yet complete - but via deduction.

Or it is speculation.


Both physicists and physicalists endorse that contemporary physics is still incomplete. The point is that physics is better than other systems or disciplines currently. Further, the point is that physics will explain everything in the future. You don't understand the point, it seems.
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 7th, 2018, 6:10 am
And note: to make the claim that everything will be explained by physics AND that everything will be consider by physicists to be physical is either speculation
or
a conclusion based on deduction. IOW an argument that says here's why there can only be one substance......[with ensuing deductive argument]. A conclusion reached not through empirical research - since physics is not yet complete - but via deduction.

Or it is speculation.

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.

You distinguish deduction from empirical research. 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.
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 7th, 2018, 4:24 am Your asserting is not clear. You still can't make people understand what you intend to discuss.
I am asking about the elephant in the room. Are you denying free will, and if so, how is that 'pragmatic' for you as an individual?

You are making an argument that mind is matter, and the next logical step is that the mind must be bound by the laws that govern matter, and therefore can only act as a result of prior causes.

1-Consciousness is material.

2-Material things are bound by the laws of physics

3-One law of physics is that every action is caused by prior action; nothing material acts of its own accord.

4-Therefore, the mind is not able to act on its own, but only to react as a result of prior causes.

Can I assume that, if you buy your argument, then you would also buy the one I just presented? If you do, then I don't see anything 'pragmatic' about the line of thought, in the sense that I understand that word, which is to do what is most useful or practical in the situation. Maybe it is 'pragmatic' to some scientist who is struggling to explain or predict actions, or to someone who wants to control the actions of others, but I don't see it doing me any good for reaching my goals.

So, I asked you quite directly if you believe a free will is compatible with a mind made of matter. Further, if a mind made of matter implies a mind whose actions must be fully determined by prior causes, is there any way to square that with the prospect of a free will? Are you denying free will as a result of what you are putting forward or not? If you are not, please show us how. If you are, consider that this path might not be called 'pragmatic'.

These things are not proven to any standard that requires a reasonable person to choose a 'side'. I can easily say that my free will disproves materialism.

1-I have a free will (I think, therefore I am--I exist as a thinking entity of some kind, and can not deny such existence without needing to be there to do the denying)

At every waking moment I am conscious of my ability to choose of my own free will. Call it a priori if you wish, but I say it is simply acknowledging reality as presented to me. Do you deny reality as presented to you through other senses? If you see a boat on the water, don't you take that as fact? You don't assume that outside forces are fooling you into believing in a boat that is not there, do you? If you smell bacon cooking, don't you draw a conclusion that bacon is being cooked nearby? Or is the universe telling you bacon is cooking, despite the impossibility of bacon cooking? So, if your sense of reason tells you that you can go to 7-11 and buy a Slurpee right now if it suits you, why would you assume that option is fully driven by outside forces, if you take it? Does the universe conspire to make you think you are choosing, or can you accept the input of your sense of reason telling you that you are free to choose, as presumably you would in the case of the boat or the bacon?

2-If my will is free, then it is not behaving by the rules to which all matter is subject; it is acting without being fully forced by prior causes.

3-Therefore, my consciousness is not matter.

Further, if consciousness is material, what kind of material thing is it? Can I assume it has no mass? Then, is it some kind of wave, like light or radio waves? If any other form of wave entered my brain, would it stay there, or merely pass through? Do you have even the slightest idea of what material thing you are describing and how it could hover inside my skull?

I am not trying to say my argument is any more valid than yours, but only that the jury is out. I just don't see any percentage in denying your own free will, nor any reason to do so. My actions are consistent with free will, and the 'pragmatic' thing to do is to accept my free will. I've yet to see someone deny free will who did not come right back and say that, as a practical matter, it makes sense to go ahead and act as if you have free will. Isn't that a huge red flag that an assumption along the way might have been flawed?

Free will is the central issue, and you are dancing around it. If you can describe the nature of the material thing you say is my consciousness, please do. If you have a form of compatiblism to go with materialism/determinism, then I would be interested in seeing you lay that out for us. If you don't, then I simply challenge the idea that you are being 'pragmatic' by denying yourself the only thing of real value any of us have.
"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 7th, 2018, 9:12 am
1-I have a free will (I think, therefore I am--I exist as a thinking entity of some kind, and can not deny such existence without needing to be there to do the denying)


2-If my will is free, then it is not behaving by the rules to which all matter is subject; it is acting without being fully forced by prior causes.

3-Therefore, my consciousness is not matter.


Your argument for immaterialism from free will depends on critique of type physicalism. Simply speaking, what you are against by your argument quoted above is type physicalism.

The target in the OP is type dualism. Although I attacked type dualism in the OP above, I didn't say which materialism/physicalism is right. This is important, since type physicalism is indeed vulnerable to your argument against materialism, but token physicalism is not weak to your argument.

In terms of arguments, your appealing to free will to defend immaterialism seems not plausible. It's possible that many machines move without free will. Of course, machines' moving properly without free will is not equivalent to claiming humans as machines. However, you are so easily assuming free will as immaterial things. Consider the following counter-argument:

(1) All existing things are essentially material objects.
(2) Free will is an existing thing.
Therefore, (3) Free will is an essentially material object.

This argument for free will shows that your argument against materialism is not successful.
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 7th, 2018, 11:57 am Consider the following counter-argument:

(1) All existing things are essentially material objects.
(2) Free will is an existing thing.
Therefore, (3) Free will is an essentially material object.
1. A team from Ohio has never won the World Series.
2. The Reds are a team from Ohio.
Therefore, 3. The Reds never won the World Series.

Your argument is just that far off the mark: false assumption, real observation, false conclusion. Is it a trick to see if I am paying attention?

So, it seems you don't want to respond to any of my other questions, but I'll ask once more the most compelling one of the bunch (to me):

If you believe consciousness is a material thing, will you please describe the nature of it in the way you could describe any other material thing?
"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 8th, 2018, 7:47 am
Mosesquine wrote: August 7th, 2018, 11:57 am Consider the following counter-argument:

(1) All existing things are essentially material objects.
(2) Free will is an existing thing.
Therefore, (3) Free will is an essentially material object.
1. A team from Ohio has never won the World Series.
2. The Reds are a team from Ohio.
Therefore, 3. The Reds never won the World Series.

Your argument is just that far off the mark: false assumption, real observation, false conclusion. Is it a trick to see if I am paying attention?

So, it seems you don't want to respond to any of my other questions, but I'll ask once more the most compelling one of the bunch (to me):

If you believe consciousness is a material thing, will you please describe the nature of it in the way you could describe any other material thing?
I don't have to answer your particular question here. The current topic is the issue of criticizing mind-body dualism. Your raising question about consciousness is somewhat related to it, but it's not directly relevant here. The argument that mind-body dualism is wrong is not the same as the argument that consciousness is such and such and such.
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 8th, 2018, 8:47 am I don't have to answer your particular question here. The current topic is the issue of criticizing mind-body dualism. Your raising question about consciousness is somewhat related to it, but it's not directly relevant here.
I never expected you would answer, but not because it's not relevant. If such a proof led you to conclude that unicorns exist here and now on earth, then I would ask you to show me a unicorn. If your answer was: "At this point, we are only considering the proof of the existence of unicorns, not actual unicorns", then what should I conclude? What can I learn from a discussion thus limited?
Mosesquine wrote: August 8th, 2018, 8:47 amThe argument that mind-body dualism is wrong is not the same as the argument that consciousness is such and such and such.
You can't decide dualism is false without concluding mind is matter. You assert what consciousness is not, so I naturally ask you what it is. You say by default: "consciousness is material", and I ask: "what sort of material thing"? I didn't ask who was going to win the Super Bowl next year.
"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 8th, 2018, 10:02 am
Mosesquine wrote: August 8th, 2018, 8:47 am I don't have to answer your particular question here. The current topic is the issue of criticizing mind-body dualism. Your raising question about consciousness is somewhat related to it, but it's not directly relevant here.
I never expected you would answer, but not because it's not relevant. If such a proof led you to conclude that unicorns exist here and now on earth, then I would ask you to show me a unicorn. If your answer was: "At this point, we are only considering the proof of the existence of unicorns, not actual unicorns", then what should I conclude? What can I learn from a discussion thus limited?
Mosesquine wrote: August 8th, 2018, 8:47 amThe argument that mind-body dualism is wrong is not the same as the argument that consciousness is such and such and such.
You can't decide dualism is false without concluding mind is matter. You assert what consciousness is not, so I naturally ask you what it is. You say by default: "consciousness is material", and I ask: "what sort of material thing"? I didn't ask who was going to win the Super Bowl next year.

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.
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 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.
"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."
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