The March Philosophy Book of the Month is Final Notice by Van Fleisher. Discuss Final Notice now.

The April Philosophy Book of the Month is The Unbound Soul by Richard L. Haight. Discuss The Unbound Soul Now

The May Philosophy Book of the Month is Misreading Judas by Robert Wahler.

An 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
The Beast
Posts: 798
Joined: July 7th, 2013, 10:32 pm

Re: An Argument against Substance Dualism

Post by The Beast » April 12th, 2018, 11:32 am

Your words entered my eyes and through the Noema. I was conscious of them. My personal space has words as well. They reside and flow independently of truth in my consciousness. I know my eyes are connected to my brain. The understanding uses my words and the many other words of libraries. My mouth is close to my brain. I recite your words in a lonesome space. The words float in my ears and ascend to the understanding. I was conscious of them. I know my ears are connected to my brain. If I was blind and deaf I will read your words with my hands, In this case, I do not have any words for the understanding so I do not know what you said. Since, I’m typing my words: Are you saying that you are talking to my hand the same way the understanding talks to us? The expression of your pain to my understanding is in the use of the understanding that is yours and mine as well as of the Geist of x.
The reality is that we are evolved to more Noema and to unknown capacities showing up. They may reflect your view as well. We are Human after all. In the next division of the species you will go your way if there is a Geist of z. Neither my body or yours will see that day but our understanding will.

User avatar
jerlands
Posts: 431
Joined: December 12th, 2017, 10:56 pm

Re: An Argument against Substance Dualism

Post by jerlands » April 12th, 2018, 1:43 pm

The Beast wrote:
April 12th, 2018, 11:32 am
Your words entered my eyes and through the Noema.
More Noema for the ethos.

Science Vs God - Is There A Life Force That Transcends Matter?
"It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so." - Mark Twain

Justintruth
Posts: 25
Joined: November 1st, 2016, 9:58 pm

Re: An Argument against Substance Dualism

Post by Justintruth » April 13th, 2018, 6:42 am

Mosesquine wrote:
April 10th, 2018, 7:29 am
Anyway, my argument is formally valid as shown above.
All mammals that wear skirts are horses.
My mother wears skirts.
My mother is a horse.

This argument is formally valid but not sound because one of its premises is false.

In order for an argument to work all must agree on the validity of the premises. That is called "accessibility of the premises"

Your premises are false:

(1) All causal processes (i.e. processes of causes and effects) occur in space-time points.
(2) All interactions occur in space-time points.

You can demonstrate this by taking a hit of acid, getting drunk, putting your hand in a vice and closing it, etc, etc.

Justintruth
Posts: 25
Joined: November 1st, 2016, 9:58 pm

Re: An Argument against Substance Dualism

Post by Justintruth » April 13th, 2018, 7:45 am

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
April 9th, 2018, 3:25 pm
Justintruth wrote:
April 8th, 2018, 5:42 pm
Likewise when describing the finding of the Higgs Boson no paper need mention that the light from the leds on the screen entered the eyes of several scientists and etc etc ...pixie dust... it was observed that there was evidence for the Higgs.

Everyone knows, assumes, you have to look and knows to point the eyes at the screen to do so.
It seems like you are saying that since the body will be present when these things happen, then it is the only substance.
No, I am not. I am just saying that even though the scientific physical model does not contain posits similar to "experiencing" meaning it doesn't say anything about matter becoming anything like "conscious" under certain circumstances, the knowledge that it does is inherent in the behavior of the scientists. In fact the whole notion of "experiment" involves the notion that any science can repeat the "experiment" and have an "experience" that is consistent with the theory. Further there is knowledge not in the standard models of science explicitly, that all scientists take for granted. Now that neuroscience is making progress, there will have to be a theoretical shift in physics or else there needs to be a new science that studies the relationship between matter and experiencing. To me its better to just expand the physics and capture the fact that material systems under the right configurations experience and that their experience has content.

While at the same time indicating an I that experiences this and chooses to use these body parts to have the experiences. It seems like we could have bodies turning in certain directions, having photons doing their stuff in the eyes, leading to chains of actions, without experiencing.
Yes we can imagine such a world. That is the zombie argument. But we don't seem to have that kind of world. It is a fact.

There would be no need to posit an I, a chooser, or an experiencer.
Right. But the fact of my experiencing and the instinctive communication we are capable of makes it very reasonable that you are experiencing too.
But in the language you use, we have this. And we do not know what that is, yet, this experiencing.
Well, we know a lot about what it is. We describe color and hearing and feeling and all kinds of experiencing. We also know there is a relation to the brain. And anesthesiologists know how to stop and start such experiencing by putting material substances into the brain. So while we don't have all the facts we have a lot of them and they are remarkably consistent.
And we describe it in a way that is rather substance dualistic like, with intentions and experiencing and with making choices about what to do with the physical. To be consistent, I think we should avoid that completely.
But it's so useful. "Why did you run over my dog, didn't you see him?" Think of a doctor's eye exam. We use it all the time. What will you replace it with? What is wrong with just saying that we have found that experiencing is associated with the brain and we are studying what configurations of matter result in what experiencing and we don't yet have a good theory?

I am saying for now we should just continue to investigate and if we find we need another substance, well, that is equivocal to discovering that substance. But until we do we should stick to what we have which is that the brain is causing it's own experiencing. Doesn't look like an anesthesia administered to your brain affects mine.
Substance has expanded to such a degree in science that I am not sure the term has much meaning. We have things now that share little in common with anything we considered physical 150 years ago. Physical just means real and verified.
I think it means a little more, for there is the content of what we have found to be real and verified in there. Look at the standard model of quantum mechanics for example. Also look at our surveys of stars. We know where a lot of stars are. I am aware that we no longer have "stuff" in the old sense. We have entanglement and the relativity of time but all of that science still constitutes a body of knowledge that to some extent describes accurately a wide range of our experiences. When it doesn't the person who describes where it doesn't get's a Nobel in experimental science and the theoreticians go to work to adjust their theories.
The monism expands to include anything that is considered real. To call that one substance becomes impossible to falsify.
As long as you can back it up with repeatable experiments.

I guess I am confused about your rejection of Occam's razor. The use of Occam's razor does not invalidate the reality of experiencing. In fact you cannot explain experiencing with the current physical posits. And even with respect to mystical experiencing, there is nothing of that that need be dismissed as it is existential and not essential description, it describes that we experience not what we experience (except that what we experience sometimes is that we experience) . And all of qualia, or the phenomena, as it is called on the continent is preserved. So it is not eliminative.

We never experience the reality of any objective posit. But we can posit the existence of objects and subjects and use that to explain a lot of our experiencing and navigate life. This morning I reached in my sock drawer to get out a pair of socks. I did that based on instinctual objective modeling. I have a spatial idea of where my socks were. Likewise I reached for my iphone and looked at the screen and expected certain experiencing to occur in me when I did that.

User avatar
Mosesquine
Posts: 185
Joined: September 3rd, 2016, 4:17 am

Re: An Argument against Substance Dualism

Post by Mosesquine » April 13th, 2018, 9:40 am

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
April 8th, 2018, 10:37 am
Mosesquine wrote:
March 11th, 2018, 7:57 am
I think that Descartes' version of substance dualism is flawed. According to Descartes, soul and body are two distinct substances. It's because body is always located in space-time points anyway, but soul is always not located in space-time points at all. I think that all causal processes nomically occur in space-time points.
Is this an apriori idea?
I also think that all interactions of anything are happening in space and time. According to Descartes' version of substance dualism, soul is not located in space-time points, so soul cannot interact with body causally!
is the conclusion Descartes? It seems like the assumption is that something must have a location to have an effect. i certainly get how reasonable this sounds, since that is how we conceive of causes and effects, but can we be sure. Could something non-local be a cause with a non-local effect? Can we rule this out?

I understand that you are countering Descartes version of substance dualism. Must substance dualism be based on space-time bound vs. not?

I think that whether this idea is a priori or not is not important.
And, causes and effects are observable. All observable things can be located in space-time points. Descartes' version of dualistic mind is not observable nor can be located in space-time points. It follows that Descartes' version of dualistic mind cannot be interact with anything.

User avatar
The Beast
Posts: 798
Joined: July 7th, 2013, 10:32 pm

Re: An Argument against Substance Dualism

Post by The Beast » April 13th, 2018, 12:04 pm

The realities of matter at the level of particles are somewhat “experienced” with the mind. Many will say that they do exist. Others that they do not. Many others dwell this existence. They form the irreversible reality that is. But, this which is irreversible may be questioned as well for if particles exist we have engineered a reversibility to experienced them.
If true, there is a reality that exist but cannot be perceived with the input general senses. Other realities exist as possibilities to infinity. Like going to Mars. Is all matter conscious? It may exist as a spectrum of truth… Our perceptual machine only perceives what our understanding allows. Obviously, there is a progression: “Only human have consciousness” to “animals have consciousness” to “degrees of consciousness in all carbon-based life” to “the nature of consciousness” to “it exist in all matter” to “it precedes matter and... is the basis for existence of matter”.

User avatar
Mosesquine
Posts: 185
Joined: September 3rd, 2016, 4:17 am

Re: An Argument against Substance Dualism

Post by Mosesquine » April 13th, 2018, 12:50 pm

Justintruth wrote:
April 13th, 2018, 6:42 am
Mosesquine wrote:
April 10th, 2018, 7:29 am
Anyway, my argument is formally valid as shown above.
All mammals that wear skirts are horses.
My mother wears skirts.
My mother is a horse.

This argument is formally valid but not sound because one of its premises is false.



Your argument above can be constructed as follows:

1. (∀x)((Fx & Gx) → Hx)
2. (∃x)((∀y)(Jy ↔ x = y) & Gx)
∴ (∃x)((∀y)(Jy ↔ x = y) & Hx)
3. asm: ~(∃x)((∀y)(Jy ↔ x = y) & Hx)
4. (∀x)~((∀y)(Jy ↔ x = y) & Hx) 3, QN
5. (∀y)(Jy ↔ a = y) & Ga 2, EI
6. ~((∀y)(Jy ↔ a = y) & Ha) 4, UI
7. ~(∀y)(Jy ↔ a = y) ∨ ~Ha 6, DM
8. (∀y)(Jy ↔ a = y) 5, S
9. ~Ha 7, 8, MTP
10. (Fa & Ga) → Ha 1, UI
11. ~(Fa & Ga) 9, 10, MT
12. ~Fa ∨ ~Ga 11, DM
13. Ga 5, S
14. ~Fa 12, 13, MTP
Invalid.


Your argument is proved to be invalid. I think that the premise like 'my mother is a mammal' is needed. At least one premise is needed for making your argument formally valid.

User avatar
The Beast
Posts: 798
Joined: July 7th, 2013, 10:32 pm

Re: An Argument against Substance Dualism

Post by The Beast » April 13th, 2018, 2:40 pm

I have touch, smell, vision, hearing, taste. A human experience another human; values are assigned to identity human. In a just dead human the vision of human A judging human B is there to 80%, the hearing gone to 0.1%, the touch to 95%, the taste to 98% and the smell to 99%. When do we let go of the identity? When is it human or not human? A sick human has a separate set of values as well. There is a personal judgement assigning the identity human. From human identity to passing human to dead human. The reversible/irreversible conundrum.
Is a sick human less than human? …By the logic of it: yes. Most Geist that still are in existence say: No. The case of human takes on air. When is air not air. As you put your head in a bag the air is felt in the nose and is heard in the exhale… Is it there… Is it there? It is there. What is not there is the O2. You cannot see, smell, taste, feel or touch the o2.

Justintruth
Posts: 25
Joined: November 1st, 2016, 9:58 pm

Re: An Argument against Substance Dualism

Post by Justintruth » April 14th, 2018, 4:49 pm

Mosesquine wrote:
April 13th, 2018, 12:50 pm
Justintruth wrote:
April 13th, 2018, 6:42 am


All mammals that wear skirts are horses.
My mother wears skirts.
My mother is a horse.

This argument is formally valid but not sound because one of its premises is false.



Your argument above can be constructed as follows:

1. (∀x)((Fx & Gx) → Hx)
2. (∃x)((∀y)(Jy ↔ x = y) & Gx)
∴ (∃x)((∀y)(Jy ↔ x = y) & Hx)
3. asm: ~(∃x)((∀y)(Jy ↔ x = y) & Hx)
4. (∀x)~((∀y)(Jy ↔ x = y) & Hx) 3, QN
5. (∀y)(Jy ↔ a = y) & Ga 2, EI
6. ~((∀y)(Jy ↔ a = y) & Ha) 4, UI
7. ~(∀y)(Jy ↔ a = y) ∨ ~Ha 6, DM
8. (∀y)(Jy ↔ a = y) 5, S
9. ~Ha 7, 8, MTP
10. (Fa & Ga) → Ha 1, UI
11. ~(Fa & Ga) 9, 10, MT
12. ~Fa ∨ ~Ga 11, DM
13. Ga 5, S
14. ~Fa 12, 13, MTP
Invalid.


Your argument is proved to be invalid. I think that the premise like 'my mother is a mammal' is needed. At least one premise is needed for making your argument formally valid.
Yea you are right. Worse I cut it out before I sent it.

So change “my mother wears skirts” to “my mother wears skirts and is a mammal”

Still you can see how your premises being false affects the truth or your conclusion. A formally correct argument from invalid premises doesn’t establish anything.

Oh, forgot to add that my mother was not a horse.

You know enough logic that you already knew this so why did you post originally?

Wayne92587
Posts: 1777
Joined: January 27th, 2012, 9:32 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Hermese Trismegistus

Re: An Argument against Substance Dualism

Post by Wayne92587 » April 15th, 2018, 5:19 pm

It is not possible to prove the existence or the non-existence of the Higgs Boson, the God.
Particle.

The whole of Material World of Reality is born of a Single Particle that has no substance, a Singularity that has not relative, numerical value, that has a numerical value of Zero-0; This Particle existing as an omnipresent State of Singularity,, Field, of Singularity as a Great Void..

The God particle exists as an Infinitely Finite Indivisible Singularity that has no substance..

The Higgs Boson. the God Particle, is not measurable as to location and momentum in Space-Time is not readily apparent rendering the existence or non-existence of the so called Boson Particle, the God Particle to be Uncertain.

The Whole of Reality being born of Nothingness, the omniscience of an unspoken of number, quantity, of omnipresent Infinitely Finite Indivisible Singularities having no relative, numerical value, having a numerical value of Zero-0.

The Omniscience of the State of Singularity, as an unspoken of Omnipresent quaintly, number, of Infinitely Finite Indivisible Singularities of Zero-0, that exists as the Transcendental (Metaphysical) Fully Random Quantum State, Field, of Singularity, filled with an unspoken of quantity, number, an omnipresent State of Random Singularities.

The whole of Reality is born of the existence of a Priori Reality, a singularity having no mass, no relative, numerical value, that has a numerical value of Zero-0 that can not be experienced, is not readily apparent, is not measurable as to location and momentum in
Time nor in in space.

User avatar
Mosesquine
Posts: 185
Joined: September 3rd, 2016, 4:17 am

Re: An Argument against Substance Dualism

Post by Mosesquine » April 16th, 2018, 5:30 pm

Justintruth wrote:
April 14th, 2018, 4:49 pm
Mosesquine wrote:
April 13th, 2018, 12:50 pm




Your argument above can be constructed as follows:

1. (∀x)((Fx & Gx) → Hx)
2. (∃x)((∀y)(Jy ↔ x = y) & Gx)
∴ (∃x)((∀y)(Jy ↔ x = y) & Hx)
3. asm: ~(∃x)((∀y)(Jy ↔ x = y) & Hx)
4. (∀x)~((∀y)(Jy ↔ x = y) & Hx) 3, QN
5. (∀y)(Jy ↔ a = y) & Ga 2, EI
6. ~((∀y)(Jy ↔ a = y) & Ha) 4, UI
7. ~(∀y)(Jy ↔ a = y) ∨ ~Ha 6, DM
8. (∀y)(Jy ↔ a = y) 5, S
9. ~Ha 7, 8, MTP
10. (Fa & Ga) → Ha 1, UI
11. ~(Fa & Ga) 9, 10, MT
12. ~Fa ∨ ~Ga 11, DM
13. Ga 5, S
14. ~Fa 12, 13, MTP
Invalid.


Your argument is proved to be invalid. I think that the premise like 'my mother is a mammal' is needed. At least one premise is needed for making your argument formally valid.
Yea you are right. Worse I cut it out before I sent it.

So change “my mother wears skirts” to “my mother wears skirts and is a mammal”

Still you can see how your premises being false affects the truth or your conclusion. A formally correct argument from invalid premises doesn’t establish anything.

Oh, forgot to add that my mother was not a horse.

You know enough logic that you already knew this so why did you post originally?


It seems that your point is that validity is not enough. I think that you require soundness. However, the following arguments have true premises but seem wrong:

All dogs are animals.
Therefore, all fishes are animals.

Sarah Palin is not a horse.
Therefore, Justintruth's mother is not a horse.

All tall bachelors are bachelors.
Therefore, no crazy Canadian is not a Canadian.

These examples show that true premises and true conclusions sometimes fail to construct 'good' arguments. This shows that formal validity is the most important component of successful arguments.

Justintruth
Posts: 25
Joined: November 1st, 2016, 9:58 pm

Re: An Argument against Substance Dualism

Post by Justintruth » April 18th, 2018, 5:26 pm

Would you agree that the validity of the conclusion that your argument makes is not established by the validity of your argument but rather requires that the premises be valid also?

Do you think your premises are valid?

User avatar
Mosesquine
Posts: 185
Joined: September 3rd, 2016, 4:17 am

Re: An Argument against Substance Dualism

Post by Mosesquine » April 20th, 2018, 4:45 am

Justintruth wrote:
April 18th, 2018, 5:26 pm
Would you agree that the validity of the conclusion that your argument makes is not established by the validity of your argument but rather requires that the premises be valid also?

Do you think your premises are valid?

Validity is a property of arguments. Arguments are sets of statements to support conclusions. Premises are statements. I think that you can calculate.

Compare the arguments:

Argument A
(1) Sarah Palin is not a horse. (True)
(2) Justintruth's mother is not a horse. (True)
(3) Britney Spears is not a horse. (True)
Therefore, (4) Substance dualism is wrong. (True or False???)

Argument B
(1) All causal processes (i.e. causes and effects) occur in space-time points. (True or False???)
(2) All interactions occur in space-time points. (True or False???)
(3) No soul occurs in space-time points. (True or False???)
Therefore, (4) No soul is a causal process. (True or False???)
Therefore, (5) No soul is an interaction. (True or False???)

Argument A contains only true premises, but it seems wrong. Argument B contains premises whose truth values are indeterminate, but it is formally valid. I think that you don't misjudge about it.

User avatar
The Beast
Posts: 798
Joined: July 7th, 2013, 10:32 pm

Re: An Argument against Substance Dualism

Post by The Beast » April 21st, 2018, 2:23 pm

(∃x) │(x ⟹ ℩x )
Logic of the indiscernible is complicated.
There is a sun: true
There is radiation: true
Radiation originates in the sun: true
If radiation is true, then sun is true: logical but false for some suns.
Reality is the radiation of the initial condition. A multiplication map exists for any given reality. It is all relative to X and the sphere of all possibilities of the original ring spectrum.
What is it in the radiation? In the case of the sun the photon. The quanta are deposited in my sphere. I will account for it in the map. Do I carry the sun within me?

CIN
Posts: 93
Joined: November 6th, 2016, 10:33 am

Re: An Argument against Substance Dualism

Post by CIN » April 25th, 2018, 5:51 am

Wayne92587 wrote:
April 4th, 2018, 12:02 pm
Amazing!
You People are able to dance all around the subject without being able to come to any legitimate conclusion.
I regard the putative existence of a Cartesian mental substance as a purely empirical question. The (extremely successful) method we have for determining the answers to empirical questions is science. Science has never found a Cartesian mental substance. Consequently we have no reason to believe that any such thing exists.

That's MY 'legitimate conclusion'. But of course others will not accept it - and so philosophy continues on its merry unproductive way.

Post Reply