Announcement: Your votes are in! The January 2019 Philosophy Book of the Month is The Runaway Species: How Human Creativity Remakes the World by David Eagleman and Anthony Brandt.

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: 182
Joined: September 3rd, 2016, 4:17 am

Re: A Pragmatist Argument against Substance Dualism

Post by Mosesquine » October 8th, 2018, 3:34 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
October 8th, 2018, 3:57 am
Mosesquine wrote:
October 3rd, 2018, 10:36 am
Dualism fails because of its beyondness of experimental perspectives. It also fails to be supported by being defeated by materialisms.
Then consciousness cannot be an epiphenomenon. It must be causal.

Consciousness is not an epiphenomenon, of course.

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

Re: A Pragmatist Argument against Substance Dualism

Post by ThomasHobbes » October 8th, 2018, 5:19 pm

Mosesquine wrote:
October 8th, 2018, 3:34 pm
Karpel Tunnel wrote:
October 8th, 2018, 3:57 am
Then consciousness cannot be an epiphenomenon. It must be causal.

Consciousness is not an epiphenomenon, of course.

Can you give an example of such a thing, and say why consciousness is NOT an example?

User avatar
Hereandnow
Posts: 2065
Joined: July 11th, 2012, 9:16 pm
Favorite Philosopher: the moon and the stars

Re: A Pragmatist Argument against Substance Dualism

Post by Hereandnow » October 8th, 2018, 10:16 pm

Mosesquine
Consciousness is not an epiphenomenon, of course.
It is not that it is not an epiphenomenon, it is rather calling it one cannot be confirmed or denied, is nonsense, for it is consciousness that produces the proposition "consciousness is an epiphenomenon" and cannot step outside itself to affirm anything about what it is.

User avatar
Hereandnow
Posts: 2065
Joined: July 11th, 2012, 9:16 pm
Favorite Philosopher: the moon and the stars

Re: A Pragmatist Argument against Substance Dualism

Post by Hereandnow » October 9th, 2018, 11:51 am

In case the point is not clear, it is like an eye looking at itself and making a determination as to what an eye is, while all it can possibly "see" is the product of its own visual mechanics, the cones and rods that receive light,the optic nerve turning light into bioelectric currents, and so on. Trouble is, everything is like this: we live in idea, not in some metaphysical scientist's world of things.

User avatar
Mosesquine
Posts: 182
Joined: September 3rd, 2016, 4:17 am

Re: A Pragmatist Argument against Substance Dualism

Post by Mosesquine » October 9th, 2018, 12:03 pm

ThomasHobbes wrote:
October 8th, 2018, 5:19 pm
Mosesquine wrote:
October 8th, 2018, 3:34 pm



Consciousness is not an epiphenomenon, of course.

Can you give an example of such a thing, and say why consciousness is NOT an example?

You requested an example. I can give an example of regimentation of sentences. Here's an example:

~(∃x)(x is consciousness & ~(∃y)(y is consciousness & x ≠ y) & x is an epiphenomenon)

To be is to be the value of a variable. We can exclude 'the thing such that is both consciousness and an epiphenomenon' from our ontology.

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

Re: A Pragmatist Argument against Substance Dualism

Post by ThomasHobbes » October 11th, 2018, 4:09 am

Mosesquine wrote:
October 9th, 2018, 12:03 pm
ThomasHobbes wrote:
October 8th, 2018, 5:19 pm



Can you give an example of such a thing, and say why consciousness is NOT an example?

You requested an example. I can give an example of regimentation of sentences. Here's an example:

~(∃x)(x is consciousness & ~(∃y)(y is consciousness & x ≠ y) & x is an epiphenomenon)

To be is to be the value of a variable. We can exclude 'the thing such that is both consciousness and an epiphenomenon' from our ontology.
Please answer the question!

User avatar
Mosesquine
Posts: 182
Joined: September 3rd, 2016, 4:17 am

Re: A Pragmatist Argument against Substance Dualism

Post by Mosesquine » October 11th, 2018, 9:10 pm

ThomasHobbes wrote:
October 11th, 2018, 4:09 am
Mosesquine wrote:
October 9th, 2018, 12:03 pm



You requested an example. I can give an example of regimentation of sentences. Here's an example:

~(∃x)(x is consciousness & ~(∃y)(y is consciousness & x ≠ y) & x is an epiphenomenon)

To be is to be the value of a variable. We can exclude 'the thing such that is both consciousness and an epiphenomenon' from our ontology.
Please answer the question!


I answered the question. Reality is constructed by our conceptual scheme. I gave an example of consciousness without epiphenomenon. Any statement can be held true come what may. I show an example of statement that consciousness is not an epiphenomenon. So, that's enough.

User avatar
Consul
Posts: 1344
Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
Location: Germany

Re: A Pragmatist Argument against Substance Dualism

Post by Consul » October 11th, 2018, 9:26 pm

Mosesquine wrote:
October 8th, 2018, 3:34 pm
Consciousness is not an epiphenomenon, of course.
How do you know?

"It is supposed to be just obvious that the hurtfulness of pain is partly responsible for the subject seeking to avoid pain, saying ‘It hurts’ and so on. But, to reverse Hume, anything can fail to cause anything. No matter how often B follows A, and no matter how initially obvious the causality of the connection seems, the hypothesis that A causes B can be overturned by an over-arching theory which shows the two as distinct effects of a common underlying causal process."

(Jackson, Frank. "Epiphenomenal Qualia." Philosophical Quarterly 32 (1982): 127-36. p. 133)
"We may philosophize well or ill, but we must philosophize." – Wilfrid Sellars

User avatar
Consul
Posts: 1344
Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
Location: Germany

Re: A Pragmatist Argument against Substance Dualism

Post by Consul » October 11th, 2018, 9:30 pm

Hereandnow wrote:
October 8th, 2018, 10:16 pm
It is not that it is not an epiphenomenon, it is rather calling it one cannot be confirmed or denied, is nonsense, for it is consciousness that produces the proposition "consciousness is an epiphenomenon" and cannot step outside itself to affirm anything about what it is.
According to epiphenomenalism, the thought that consciousness is an epiphenomenon is produced by neural processes but doesn't itself produce or cause anything.
"We may philosophize well or ill, but we must philosophize." – Wilfrid Sellars

Karpel Tunnel
Posts: 519
Joined: February 16th, 2018, 11:28 am

Re: A Pragmatist Argument against Substance Dualism

Post by Karpel Tunnel » October 11th, 2018, 9:33 pm

Consul wrote:
October 11th, 2018, 9:30 pm
Hereandnow wrote:
October 8th, 2018, 10:16 pm
It is not that it is not an epiphenomenon, it is rather calling it one cannot be confirmed or denied, is nonsense, for it is consciousness that produces the proposition "consciousness is an epiphenomenon" and cannot step outside itself to affirm anything about what it is.
According to epiphenomenalism, the thought that consciousness is an epiphenomenon is produced by neural processes but doesn't itself produce or cause anything.
Though, then, it's odd we are talking about it. We keep talking about this thing that is not causal. Which seems to, nevertheless, have it in a chain of causes and effects.

Karpel Tunnel
Posts: 519
Joined: February 16th, 2018, 11:28 am

Re: A Pragmatist Argument against Substance Dualism

Post by Karpel Tunnel » October 11th, 2018, 9:35 pm

Oh, I see now you invoked Hume, but then that means that anything, everything, could be an epiphenomenon. Nothing distinct about conscousness.

User avatar
Mosesquine
Posts: 182
Joined: September 3rd, 2016, 4:17 am

Re: A Pragmatist Argument against Substance Dualism

Post by Mosesquine » October 11th, 2018, 10:35 pm

Consul wrote:
October 11th, 2018, 9:26 pm
Mosesquine wrote:
October 8th, 2018, 3:34 pm
Consciousness is not an epiphenomenon, of course.
How do you know?

"It is supposed to be just obvious that the hurtfulness of pain is partly responsible for the subject seeking to avoid pain, saying ‘It hurts’ and so on. But, to reverse Hume, anything can fail to cause anything. No matter how often B follows A, and no matter how initially obvious the causality of the connection seems, the hypothesis that A causes B can be overturned by an over-arching theory which shows the two as distinct effects of a common underlying causal process."

(Jackson, Frank. "Epiphenomenal Qualia." Philosophical Quarterly 32 (1982): 127-36. p. 133)


Although Frank Jackson whom you quoted above is a famous philosopher on epiphenomenalism issues of the areas, he is not an absolute criterion about it. So, your merely quoting him is not a good objection to my position. I can do the following regimentation:

~(∃x)(x is-Frank-Jackson & ~(∃y)(y is-Frank-Jackson & x ≠ y) & (∃z)(z is epiphenomenalism & ~(∃y)(y is epiphenomenalism & z ≠ y) & x is right about z))

It can be an answer to your question above.

Syamsu
Posts: 2569
Joined: December 9th, 2011, 4:45 pm

Re: A Pragmatist Argument against Substance Dualism

Post by Syamsu » October 11th, 2018, 11:41 pm

Cartesian type mind body dualism is really sort of a strawman. Real dualism is of spirit and matter. Spirit is defined as agency of a choice, the existence of it a matter of opinion., and material is defined as chosen, the existence of it a fact. The dualism is neccesary to distinguish opinion, like opinion on what is beautiful, from statements of fact. Without dualism it is impossible to distinguish fact f om opinion, and you get arbitrary irrationality that beauty is fact, and the shape of the earth is an opinion.

So how does the agency of a choice, the spirit, perceive a red tomato?

Basically the light brings the information to the brain. There the information is noticed by the decisionmaking center in the brain.

As the only thing the spirit can do is choose things, the act of noticing must therefore operate by choice. This might be done by adding an extra bit to the information of the red tomato, a bit which is decided by the spirit. So then the spirit chooses on the picture of the tomato in the brain, and chooses the bit of importance to set to 1, so then the tomato is noticed. And if the spirit would choose to set the bit of importance to 0, then tomato would also be noticed.

So the spirit is choosing between the picture of the tomata + 0, and the picture of the tomato + 1, and either way it will choose, it will have noticed the tomato is there.

I don't really believe that is how it functions, but it is just to show it is possible to make theory about it.

User avatar
Mosesquine
Posts: 182
Joined: September 3rd, 2016, 4:17 am

Re: A Pragmatist Argument against Substance Dualism

Post by Mosesquine » October 12th, 2018, 12:42 am

Syamsu wrote:
October 11th, 2018, 11:41 pm
Cartesian type mind body dualism is really sort of a strawman. Real dualism is of spirit and matter. Spirit is defined as agency of a choice, the existence of it a matter of opinion., and material is defined as chosen, the existence of it a fact. The dualism is neccesary to distinguish opinion, like opinion on what is beautiful, from statements of fact. Without dualism it is impossible to distinguish fact f om opinion, and you get arbitrary irrationality that beauty is fact, and the shape of the earth is an opinion.

So how does the agency of a choice, the spirit, perceive a red tomato?

Basically the light brings the information to the brain. There the information is noticed by the decisionmaking center in the brain.

As the only thing the spirit can do is choose things, the act of noticing must therefore operate by choice. This might be done by adding an extra bit to the information of the red tomato, a bit which is decided by the spirit. So then the spirit chooses on the picture of the tomato in the brain, and chooses the bit of importance to set to 1, so then the tomato is noticed. And if the spirit would choose to set the bit of importance to 0, then tomato would also be noticed.

So the spirit is choosing between the picture of the tomata + 0, and the picture of the tomato + 1, and either way it will choose, it will have noticed the tomato is there.

I don't really believe that is how it functions, but it is just to show it is possible to make theory about it.

Both choicers and choiced are material beings. Materialism is better than real dualism of spirit and matter.

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

Re: A Pragmatist Argument against Substance Dualism

Post by ThomasHobbes » October 12th, 2018, 2:28 am

Mosesquine wrote:
October 11th, 2018, 9:10 pm
ThomasHobbes wrote:
October 11th, 2018, 4:09 am


Please answer the question!


I answered the question. Reality is constructed by our conceptual scheme. I gave an example of consciousness without epiphenomenon. Any statement can be held true come what may. I show an example of statement that consciousness is not an epiphenomenon. So, that's enough.
On the contrary. Continually denying that it is an epiphenomenon is not the same as showing it to be something else.

Post Reply