Modern Dualism

[It doesn't matter]

{{I would like to ask you not to assume this is my personal belief. I am a man of too many minds to have a single, set opinion}}

Modern Dualism

Let us first look at why dualism is worth discussing, and why a monistic universe faces it’s own problems. The objective world behaves in a seemingly understandable way--until you go into quantum physics--with every aspect of it able to be studied. When studying humans, everything seems to go accounted for. For instance, unconscious beings, if studying us, would think they knew everything about us, but no nothing of consciousness. They would not even know what it was we were referring to.

Now, let me try to explain what it is I mean by consciousness. As presented by other philosophers, there are different meanings to the word. I do not refer to Waking Consciousness, as we still experience dreams; and during the dream, believe ourselves to be awake many times, and seem to have the same qualifications of being conscious. I refer to what has been called Subjective Experience, or Phenomenal Consciousness. Perhaps our lack of words in being able to describe it reaffirms the idea of it being different. This is what scientists call ‘The Hard Problem of Consciousness’.

As other philosophers of the mind have noted, if a theoretical women lived in a room with only black & white and no colour; and was able to learn everything about the universe, including reading about different colours. But then one day left the room, and actually saw what colour looked like (ignoring the technicality of early eye-development), would she not have learned something new? This is the argument that being conscious possesses it’s own form of knowledge, inaccessible to objective study.

Another example is that of the philosophical zombie. A philosophical zombie would have all the attributes as you do, except it would not have consciousness. But, if it had and behaved exactly as you do, what evolutionary advantage would this zombie then have? This is to ask, if it made you act no different, then how did consciousness survive natural selection? Some explanations is that it was unintentionally picked-up, and correlated with some other evolutionary component. Of course, the question would remain, that if the world were inhabited by zombies, would they be questioning something they do not have, as I am doing right now? This, it seems, the strongest argument against this idea.

In older forms of dualism, it was said consciousness, or the ‘mind’, was of a different substance from this universe; but the question remains: how could such different substances have effects on each other, as they obviously do? For instance, if you get drunk, the material substance will have an effect on your mind. With Modern Dualism, it is proposed that the ‘different substance’ is still of this universe, and therefore in tune with some of it’s rules (space and time, for instance). This different substance is the nonmaterial part of the universe--not part of physical matter. The joining of this nonmaterial and the brain perhaps did occur during evolution, in which consciousness demonstrated a slight advantage in survival. The material brain able to access this nonmaterial perhaps from it’s energy waves it puts out--brain waves are also associated with altered states of consciousness. However, the other substance in itself is not consciousness. Consciousness, rather, developed from the merging or the clashing of the two very different substances--like that of electricity. Instead of the idea of the brain being the filter for consciousness, as other scientists have speculated, this idea still puts consciousness in and originating from the brain. It would also perhaps explain some aspects of ESP, as the electricity during certain circumstances may be able to expand itself from the material aspects, to other material aspects in the world, as it also comes from the nonmaterial. Think of the way two telephones communicate by sending messages over a line--the nonmaterial being the line, and if it were telepathy, the two telephones would be two brains. In this way consciousness is indeed different from other aspects of the material world, as it might seem; but is also not completely alien to it, as it might also seem.

[Belinda]

ItDoesn'tmatter wrote

With Modern Dualism, it is proposed that the ‘different substance’ is still of this universe, and therefore in tune with some of it’s rules (space and time, for instance). This different substance is the nonmaterial part of the universe--not part of physical matter.

If it is in tune with some of the natural rules, then it is natural. Mind, which is the traditional alternative to extended matter, is in tune with causation, but a believer in Cartesian dualism denies that existence within the circles of causation is invariably the case with mind ; he believes that mind is detached, free from, causes.
I cannot see that within the possiblities of human consciousness there is other than a stark choice between monism and dualism. We have the two modes of being, mind and body, no others. Either we think that they are separate substances or we think that they are in one way or another the same substance.It's a choice between the same and not the same.If it's not the same, then the choice is substance dualism. if it's the same then the choice is substance monism. There is no logical possibility of n being the same and yet not the same. It's all or nothing.

Consciousness, rather, developed from the merging or the clashing of the two very different substances--like that of electricity. Instead of the idea of the brain being the filter for consciousness, as other scientists have speculated, this idea still puts consciousness in and originating from the brain.

But whether consciousness originates from the brain,or whether consciousness is a filter for brain processes, I find that ontological primacy is different from evolutionary primacy. For instance, to take a stage in the evolution of life forms on Earth. We can look at dinosaurs from within dinosaurs' perspectives where there were neither bodies nor minds:we can look at dinosaurs from our perspectives and claim that this is so, because we, but not dinosaurs,are able to conceive of body and mind.They cannot see us, but we can 'see' them. Ontological primacy is a concern for us , but not for any life form that cannot conceive of it.Therefore ontologocal primacy is irrelevant to considerations of evolution of mind and body.

[It doesn't matter]

ItDoesn'tmatter wrote

If it is in tune with some of the natural rules, then it is natural. Mind, which is the traditional alternative to extended matter, is in tune with causation, but a believer in Cartesian dualism denies that existence within the circles of causation is invariably the case with mind ; he believes that mind is detached, free from, causes.

If it is free from causes, then why do people feel different, if their drink has been drugged without their knowledge of it? There, a cause clearly affected the mind, without the mind having any part in it.

I cannot see that within the possiblities of human consciousness there is other than a stark choice between monism and dualism. We have the two modes of being, mind and body, no others. Either we think that they are separate substances or we think that they are in one way or another the same substance.It's a choice between the same and not the same.If it's not the same, then the choice is substance dualism. if it's the same then the choice is substance monism. There is no logical possibility of n being the same and yet not the same. It's all or nothing.

Yet, the universe is believed to have come out of nothing, and yet both matter and energy (two different substances) came from one, single substance. In this view of dualism, consciousness is like that of matter, simply coming out of another substance. By saying that n is both and same and not the same, you are ignoring the possibility that n is the result of a and b.

But whether consciousness originates from the brain,or whether consciousness is a filter for brain processes, I find that ontological primacy is different from evolutionary primacy. For instance, to take a stage in the evolution of life forms on Earth. We can look at dinosaurs from within dinosaurs' perspectives where there were neither bodies nor minds:we can look at dinosaurs from our perspectives and claim that this is so, because we, but not dinosaurs,are able to conceive of body and mind.They cannot see us, but we can 'see' them. Ontological primacy is a concern for us , but not for any life form that cannot conceive of it.Therefore ontologocal primacy is irrelevant to considerations of evolution of mind and body.

Being able to conceive of a concept has little to do with if it exists or not. For instance, dinosaurs probably had skin cells, but to them, they had no concept of skin cells; yet skin cells probably existed, and seem to exist in other lifeforms which do not seem to conceive of it. Besides, in terms of, to the dinasaurs there were neither bodies nor minds, I'm not sure if that if so. If the dinasaurs, simply for survival, distincted themselves as seperate from themselves and everything they saw around them; then, it would seem, they had the same concept of mind & body as we do.

[Belinda]

If it is free from causes, then why do people feel different, if their drink has been drugged without their knowledge of it? There, a cause clearly affected the mind, without the mind having any part in it.

Conscious mind might be one of the proximal causes of an event, or it might not. The drug would be one component cause among others of the event in question.

Yet, the universe is believed to have come out of nothing,

The universe (in the sense in which I think you mean 'the universe')is, as Spinoza noticed, the only substance that is the cause of itself.

and yet both matter and energy (two different substances) came from one, single substance.

Spinoza noticed this too, and called mind and matter two aspects of the same substance. This is dual aspect monism. S was an intellectual son of Descartes. Spinoza took the ball from Descartes and ran with it.

Being able to conceive of a concept has little to do with if it exists or not.

The theories of truth which claims that a thing is true only when it's true for both mind and matter imply that if a concept is not conceived of then it is not true.

Another main ,and probably the really popular,theory of truth is that something is true if it is true of material reality, and mind does not have to have a part in its truth. This is of course 'objective' truth. To thoroughly think through this proposition, as Bishop Berkeley did,one has to posit some consciousness which is a perspective outside of matter, for this 18th century Irish Bishop, and for many other people, this super-consciousness is called God.

If the dinasaurs, simply for survival, distincted themselves as seperate from themselves and everything they saw around them; then, it would seem, they had the same concept of mind & body as we do.

Yes, but they probably didn't.

[It doesn't matter]

The ideas are interesting, but as for the universe being the cause of itself, this doesn't exactly make sense to me. It's like answering the question of where God where caim from by saying 'God is the cause of itself'. It doesn't really explain anything. Also, you said you saw the mind/body problem as 'all or nothing', in terms of theories, yet Spinoza pretty-much says it's more of an in-between.

Also, I wanted to correct a typo I had. I meant to say 'If the dinasaurs, simply for survival, distincted themselves as seperate from the world and everything they saw around them'

Either way, if conscious, they most likely did. For instance, if they hunted, they saw their prey as separate from themselves.

[Keith Russell]

@it doesn't matter:
Yes, but "seeing something as separate", and having it actually be separate, are two different things.

I don't view consciousness as ontologically different from other types of existence. Consciousness (which all animals possess to a degree) is the result of a particular type of arrangement of matter and energy...

...but then, I'm no dualist.

[Lightmage]

Hello everybody. The locals of these forums stated recently to humble old me that you guys need a real girl to come in here and help you all out. The likes of this sound absurd for I am simply a humble female. Just kidding. I am a male. I have came across this forum before.

When it comes to the issue of dualism I have not read over this thread very well yet but at best I can say with regard to the distinction between dualism and other:

Dualism is one of the current thought out fallicies which people either attribute to a dignity of respect that is to say with regard to thought on the issue at any rate dualism is one of the current mindesets which is popularized or rather has been popularized. You'll read about how a current trend these days is that somebody is popularizing the fact that dualism can no longer contend with factual what is and instead must be "re placed" with a new idea of phenomonon in accordance with what is thought to be some dualistic theory of the phenomon - according to fashion anyway and the word on the street so to speak. That is what is going on also with regard to phenomonologicial theories of today and how people in general are going about ordering their buisness.

One would state to themselves,

"When it comes to dualism, there is a current trend underway that supports it, because of the failure of a present work to achieve the dignity to it".

Seen in this light, you can't reporach dualism for taking bad sides or negetive vibes if you see what I mean.


But you can do something else. You can state that it is a bad vibe and a negetive defination to a persons existence when he or she states that dualism is a negetive trend which should be taken in to perspective.

In this light or this regard you get the general feel so to speak;
that in a general kind of way or a category that you can comprehend you get the feel for it.

Kinda like saying:

I support dualism because it's two sided. That is a wrong approach!

Dualism in my opinion these days is reproached for taking the side that it's dual nature suggests two opposing laiers of the phenomonon which can only be supported by existing those laiers of the phenomonon- and that is a faulty distinction I feel. Probably because they do not want you to take two different lairs of the phenomonon.

It is hard to grasp, I know, that someone wants you to take two sides to the phemononon. But that is the way that the modern archelogicial movements not to mention psychological movements are going. When people think about it these days, dualism is reproached. It's looked down upon and spitted at for it's dual nature or dual herritige but it has an attractive quality to it and that's what distinguishes it from the real world: two faced no good fit for spitting mad cows I say flying through the sky! No no that is a no no.

So at least with respect to what "dualism is" you get a thinking. YOu say to yourself: Maybe dualism is simply something that's required? Or maybe yet they haven't discovered what dualism IS enough to understand what it can apply to. For it has been approached quite commonly enough in the past to be able to state that it's incorrect, although not misproven and always saught after in terms of not being able to find a coherant explaination of the individual self and the distinction of the mind and the body. As if the two were origionally seperate.

Dualism is like that it tends to seperate your self from your body or your mind from your thoughts which is to be entirely honest a little absud sounding although an attractive theory fails to account for any general absolute ideas and stuff.

So this is an introduction to the forum from me and an introduction on a thread about dualism.

Dualism dear lord by golly me why do I not simply go read about dualism now. It might give me a good lesson when it comes to what it "is". Dualism "is" what exactly. I don't know, it seems to have a reality like a meaning which is assertainable.

But it's pure ugly and I've lost my train of thought because one of my so called "friends" here with me has criticized me in the early half of the opening post. I suppose he expects me to blame dualism.

Highly unlikely.

lightmage

[Yahadreas]

The problem with substance dualism is that it's incoherent. Whether or not something is called 'physical' depends on whether or not it interacts with other things which we call 'physical'. For example, a gluon is only considered physical because it interacts with protons and neutrons. If there were no protons and neutrons -- let's say only electrons (and gluons) -- then substance dualism would be correct (albeit the two different substances being what we currently group together as physical); gluons and electrons.

There may very well be some substance which isn't physical. But by definition it cannot interact with the physical. Else it would simply be a new physical wave-particle. To say that the mind is a non-physical thing which interacts with the physical brain is to completely misunderstood and misuse language.