Happy New Year! The January Philosophy Book of the Month is The Runaway Species. Discuss it now.

The February Philosophy Book of the Month is The Fourth Age by Byron Reese (Nominated by RJG.)

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: 183
Joined: September 3rd, 2016, 4:17 am

Re: A Pragmatist Argument against Substance Dualism

Post by Mosesquine » October 17th, 2018, 12:02 am

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
October 16th, 2018, 11:47 pm
Mosesquine wrote:
October 16th, 2018, 3:49 pm
Logic can say something about empirical questions.

If Thomas Hobbes ate a bread recently, then he ate food recently.
Thomas Hobbes ate a bread recently.
Therefore, he ate food recently.
One can draw conclusions using logic, here deduction, but we learn nothing about food or bread, since we had to know already that bread was a kind of food,that food is things we eat. It doesn't say anything about food or bread.

I have found some of your logical analyses odd and was glad to see TH challenge them. But then I thought that perhaps I was missing your intent.

Most 80% of students go to school by riding a bus.
Charles is a student.
Therefore, probably, Charles would go to school by riding a bus.

These follow that consciousness can be explained by logic.
Conscoiusness would be equivalent to one of those nouns. buses or students or perhaps a process like riding.

If we do not know what those mean at the beginning, we stil do not. But since we were able to determine the numbers, we probably did. The logic did not explain any of these things. We had to know them already.

Logic can look at the relation between sentences or absracted symbolic sequences.

It would be funny-and-absurd that one can understand bread is a kind of food, but one cannot infer from eating bread to eating food. Simply saying "all breads are food" is different from inferring like "all breads are food, and Hobbes ate a bread, so he ate food". DO NOT underrate the importance of formal logic.

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

Re: A Pragmatist Argument against Substance Dualism

Post by ThomasHobbes » October 17th, 2018, 3:09 pm

Mosesquine wrote:
October 16th, 2018, 11:56 pm
ThomasHobbes wrote:
October 16th, 2018, 5:22 pm

Circular adding nothing. No new information.

The empirical content has not changed. Nothing new here.

Rubbish.
None of these statements say anything about the subjects. It's nothing more than definitional.
Surely your philosophy warned you about the limits of logic??
LOL



You believe that all logical reasonings have only formal features. However, compare the following ones:

(1) If Thomas Hobbes ate a bread recently, then he ate a spy robot that came from Alpha Centauri recently.
(2) If Thomas Hobbes ate a bread recently, then he ate food recently.

The conditional (1) above is one whose antecedent ("Thomas Hobbes ate a bread recently") is irrelevant to its consequent ("he ate a spy robot that came from Alpha Centauri recently") in terms of meaning. Since (1) above is not meaning-constituting, it is not informative.
However, the conditional (2) above is meaning-constituting (the antecedent of it implying the consequent in terms of meaning), and informative (shift from eating a bread to eating food, not from eating a bread to eating a spy robot).
You seem to say about the importance of informative-empirical ones. The power of clarity of analyzing natural language into formal logic is the common sense among philosophers and linguists these days.
You rely on empirical evidence, as I said, and offered nothing that is not completely obvious.
Since you have failed to say ANYTHING about what consciousness is, nothing you have said amounts to ANY argument about consciousness.

User avatar
Mosesquine
Posts: 183
Joined: September 3rd, 2016, 4:17 am

Re: A Pragmatist Argument against Substance Dualism

Post by Mosesquine » October 17th, 2018, 5:49 pm

ThomasHobbes wrote:
October 17th, 2018, 3:09 pm
Mosesquine wrote:
October 16th, 2018, 11:56 pm





You believe that all logical reasonings have only formal features. However, compare the following ones:

(1) If Thomas Hobbes ate a bread recently, then he ate a spy robot that came from Alpha Centauri recently.
(2) If Thomas Hobbes ate a bread recently, then he ate food recently.

The conditional (1) above is one whose antecedent ("Thomas Hobbes ate a bread recently") is irrelevant to its consequent ("he ate a spy robot that came from Alpha Centauri recently") in terms of meaning. Since (1) above is not meaning-constituting, it is not informative.
However, the conditional (2) above is meaning-constituting (the antecedent of it implying the consequent in terms of meaning), and informative (shift from eating a bread to eating food, not from eating a bread to eating a spy robot).
You seem to say about the importance of informative-empirical ones. The power of clarity of analyzing natural language into formal logic is the common sense among philosophers and linguists these days.
You rely on empirical evidence, as I said, and offered nothing that is not completely obvious.
Since you have failed to say ANYTHING about what consciousness is, nothing you have said amounts to ANY argument about consciousness.


Saying about things is either saying that things are so-and-so or saying that things are not so-and-so. I said that consciousness is not an epiphenomenon. This follows that I said about consciousness. And further, this follows that you are a blind stupid nincompoop.

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

Re: A Pragmatist Argument against Substance Dualism

Post by ThomasHobbes » October 18th, 2018, 2:52 am

Mosesquine wrote:
October 17th, 2018, 5:49 pm
I said that consciousness is not an epiphenomenon. And further, this follows that you are a blind stupid nincompoop.
LOL.

Two empty assertions with no evidence and lacking in basic logical rules.
You need to take a step back and take a look at your self!

Karpel Tunnel
Posts: 562
Joined: February 16th, 2018, 11:28 am

Re: A Pragmatist Argument against Substance Dualism

Post by Karpel Tunnel » October 18th, 2018, 7:41 am

Mosesquine wrote:
October 17th, 2018, 12:02 am
It would be funny-and-absurd that one can understand bread is a kind of food, but one cannot infer from eating bread to eating food.
I am not sure what your point is. I certainly wasn't saying one cannot infer this.
Simply saying "all breads are food" is different from inferring like "all breads are food, and Hobbes ate a bread, so he ate food". DO NOT underrate the importance of formal logic.
I am not underrating it. I am pointing out its scope.

You might want to address the points I made or not.

User avatar
Mosesquine
Posts: 183
Joined: September 3rd, 2016, 4:17 am

Re: A Pragmatist Argument against Substance Dualism

Post by Mosesquine » October 19th, 2018, 1:24 am

ThomasHobbes wrote:
October 18th, 2018, 2:52 am
Mosesquine wrote:
October 17th, 2018, 5:49 pm
I said that consciousness is not an epiphenomenon. And further, this follows that you are a blind stupid nincompoop.
LOL.

Two empty assertions with no evidence and lacking in basic logical rules.
You need to take a step back and take a look at your self!

You do not think what empty assertions are, these days. Give a definition. Otherwise, your assertion itself is without support of evidence.

User avatar
Mosesquine
Posts: 183
Joined: September 3rd, 2016, 4:17 am

Re: A Pragmatist Argument against Substance Dualism

Post by Mosesquine » October 19th, 2018, 2:43 am

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
October 18th, 2018, 7:41 am
Mosesquine wrote:
October 17th, 2018, 12:02 am
It would be funny-and-absurd that one can understand bread is a kind of food, but one cannot infer from eating bread to eating food.
I am not sure what your point is. I certainly wasn't saying one cannot infer this.
Simply saying "all breads are food" is different from inferring like "all breads are food, and Hobbes ate a bread, so he ate food". DO NOT underrate the importance of formal logic.
I am not underrating it. I am pointing out its scope.

You might want to address the points I made or not.

The point is that simply saying 'p is such and such' is different with inferring from 'p is such and such' to 'q is such and such'. Some people can say something is such and such, but they cannot infer from it to some other thing. This means that logic can extend our knowledge and understanding. In other words, those who do not do logic much have difficulties in thinking and calculating.

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

Re: A Pragmatist Argument against Substance Dualism

Post by ThomasHobbes » October 19th, 2018, 3:47 am

Mosesquine wrote:
October 19th, 2018, 1:24 am
ThomasHobbes wrote:
October 18th, 2018, 2:52 am


LOL.

Two empty assertions with no evidence and lacking in basic logical rules.
You need to take a step back and take a look at your self!

You do not think what empty assertions are, these days. Give a definition. Otherwise, your assertion itself is without support of evidence.
Your empty assertion;" consciousness is not a meta-phenomenon"

Now run along.

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

Re: A Pragmatist Argument against Substance Dualism

Post by ThomasHobbes » October 19th, 2018, 3:49 am

Mosesquine wrote:
October 19th, 2018, 2:43 am
Karpel Tunnel wrote:
October 18th, 2018, 7:41 am
I am not sure what your point is. I certainly wasn't saying one cannot infer this.

I am not underrating it. I am pointing out its scope.

You might want to address the points I made or not.

The point is that simply saying 'p is such and such' is different with inferring from 'p is such and such' to 'q is such and such'. Some people can say something is such and such, but they cannot infer from it to some other thing. This means that logic can extend our knowledge and understanding. In other words, those who do not do logic much have difficulties in thinking and calculating.
A thing which you have singularly failed to do.

User avatar
Mosesquine
Posts: 183
Joined: September 3rd, 2016, 4:17 am

Re: A Pragmatist Argument against Substance Dualism

Post by Mosesquine » October 19th, 2018, 8:23 am

ThomasHobbes wrote:
October 19th, 2018, 3:47 am
Mosesquine wrote:
October 19th, 2018, 1:24 am



You do not think what empty assertions are, these days. Give a definition. Otherwise, your assertion itself is without support of evidence.
Your empty assertion;" consciousness is not a meta-phenomenon"

Now run along.

Consciousness is not an epiphenomenon, because property dualism is not right. Physicalism has it that everything is essentially physical. Everything is physical. Every physical thing is causal. Every causal thing is not an epiphenomenon. This follows that consciousness, one of physical things, is not an epiphenomenon.

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

Re: A Pragmatist Argument against Substance Dualism

Post by ThomasHobbes » October 19th, 2018, 11:42 am

Mosesquine wrote:
October 19th, 2018, 8:23 am
ThomasHobbes wrote:
October 19th, 2018, 3:47 am


Your empty assertion;" consciousness is not a meta-phenomenon"

Now run along.

Consciousness is not an epiphenomenon, because property dualism is not right. Physicalism has it that everything is essentially physical. Everything is physical. Every physical thing is causal. Every causal thing is not an epiphenomenon. This follows that consciousness, one of physical things, is not an epiphenomenon.
Thats better. An honestly spoken opinion not dressed up in bogus logical "proof".

Why do you think it not possible that there are affects that have no causes?
If there is no eye to see a light beam could it not travel to the end of eternity without causing any event?
I do not think it unreasonable that the same effects that cause human action could proceed without we being "conscious" of them. In fact most of our actions are of that type. Millions of events occur in the brain, and the rest of the body that we are never aware of.
If consciousness is not an epiphenomenon than in what way, how is it the cause of something else, and what is the need for it. Since we can act without it.

User avatar
Consul
Posts: 1460
Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
Location: Germany

Re: A Pragmatist Argument against Substance Dualism

Post by Consul » October 19th, 2018, 12:36 pm

Mosesquine wrote:
October 19th, 2018, 8:23 am
Consciousness is not an epiphenomenon, because property dualism is not right. Physicalism has it that everything is essentially physical. Everything is physical. Every physical thing is causal. Every causal thing is not an epiphenomenon. This follows that consciousness, one of physical things, is not an epiphenomenon.
Your premise that everything physical is non-epiphenomenal is not a necessary conceptual truth (like "Every bachelor is non-married"), so it begs the question against those who believe in the possibility of epiphenomenal physical entities (particularly properties).
"We may philosophize well or ill, but we must philosophize." – Wilfrid Sellars

User avatar
Mosesquine
Posts: 183
Joined: September 3rd, 2016, 4:17 am

Re: A Pragmatist Argument against Substance Dualism

Post by Mosesquine » October 20th, 2018, 5:24 am

ThomasHobbes wrote:
October 19th, 2018, 11:42 am
Mosesquine wrote:
October 19th, 2018, 8:23 am



Consciousness is not an epiphenomenon, because property dualism is not right. Physicalism has it that everything is essentially physical. Everything is physical. Every physical thing is causal. Every causal thing is not an epiphenomenon. This follows that consciousness, one of physical things, is not an epiphenomenon.
Thats better. An honestly spoken opinion not dressed up in bogus logical "proof".

Why do you think it not possible that there are affects that have no causes?
If there is no eye to see a light beam could it not travel to the end of eternity without causing any event?
I do not think it unreasonable that the same effects that cause human action could proceed without we being "conscious" of them. In fact most of our actions are of that type. Millions of events occur in the brain, and the rest of the body that we are never aware of.
If consciousness is not an epiphenomenon than in what way, how is it the cause of something else, and what is the need for it. Since we can act without it.


The causal explanation of consciousness is usually discussed under the subject of 'mental causation'. The view that consciousness is an epiphenomenon is rather rare in the area of philosophy of mind nowadays.

User avatar
Mosesquine
Posts: 183
Joined: September 3rd, 2016, 4:17 am

Re: A Pragmatist Argument against Substance Dualism

Post by Mosesquine » October 20th, 2018, 5:27 am

Consul wrote:
October 19th, 2018, 12:36 pm
Mosesquine wrote:
October 19th, 2018, 8:23 am
Consciousness is not an epiphenomenon, because property dualism is not right. Physicalism has it that everything is essentially physical. Everything is physical. Every physical thing is causal. Every causal thing is not an epiphenomenon. This follows that consciousness, one of physical things, is not an epiphenomenon.
Your premise that everything physical is non-epiphenomenal is not a necessary conceptual truth (like "Every bachelor is non-married"), so it begs the question against those who believe in the possibility of epiphenomenal physical entities (particularly properties).

It is weird that non-necessary conceptual truths beg the question. Of course, all necessary conceptual truths, it seems, do not beg the question, but not all non-necessary conceptual truths beg the question.

User avatar
Consul
Posts: 1460
Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
Location: Germany

Re: A Pragmatist Argument against Substance Dualism

Post by Consul » October 20th, 2018, 10:54 am

Mosesquine wrote:
October 20th, 2018, 5:27 am
It is weird that non-necessary conceptual truths beg the question. Of course, all necessary conceptual truths, it seems, do not beg the question, but not all non-necessary conceptual truths beg the question.
All conceptual truths are necessary truths.
(Of course, for instance, we could redefine "bachelor" in such a way that "Bachelors are unmarried" is no longer a necessary truth; but given its actual meaning, it is.)
"We may philosophize well or ill, but we must philosophize." – Wilfrid Sellars

Post Reply