What is “dualism” and why is it controversial?

_{Denyse O'Leary

August 19, 2018

Intelligent Design, Mind, Naturalism, Philosophy}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Most people think we are more than just live bodies but what is the “more”? Frank Turek explains,

2. Varieties of Dualism: Ontology

2.1 Predicate dualism

2.2 Property Dualism

2.3 Substance Dualism

3. Varieties of Dualism: Interaction

3.1 Interactionism

3.2 Epiphenomenalism

3.3 Parallelism

(Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy) More.

If you don’t think you are 99.44% chimpanzee nd that consciousness is an illusion, you might want to consider what sort of dualism you are.

Hat tip: Ken Francis

See also: Alternatives to dualism: Post-modern science: The illusion of consciousness sees through itself

and

From Scientific American: “we may all be alters—dissociated personalities— of universal consciousness.”

Comments

JDK, there are certain empirical controls tied to the problem of reduction to grand delusion. We observe a material world. If that is reduced to matrix-like delusion, then one self-undermines ability to perceive, understand and reason. Where rational, responsible consciousness is our first fact of experience, the one through which we access others. If on the other hand you try to reduce mindedness to in effect computation on a physical substrate, you undermine reason and responsibility. Thus, the plausible conclusion is we inhabit a reality where both mind and matter are actual and interact. The challenge is to identify and assess on comparative difficulties. Cutting to the chase scene, ethical theism is the option to beat. KFkairosfocus_{August 20, 2018
August
08
Aug
20
20
2018
02:20 PM
2
02
20
PM
PDT}

Sounds like you're a Taoist, ET! :-)jdk_{August 20, 2018
August
08
Aug
20
20
2018
02:16 PM
2
02
16
PM
PDT}

jdk- Consciousness does not exist in a vacuum. And ID is that underlying unitary substrate of reality from which both the physical and the mental arise.ET_{August 20, 2018
August
08
Aug
20
20
2018
02:05 PM
2
02
05
PM
PDT}

I'm not arguing for a physicalist monism. (I'm not actually arguing for any particular position: I'm mostly trying to establish that there are other possibilities than consciousness necessarily implying dualism.) See 36: "I am offering the idea that the “one kind of substance” is neither the physical nor the mental, but rather an underlying unitary substrate of reality from which both the physical and the mental arise."jdk_{August 20, 2018
August
08
Aug
20
20
2018
01:38 PM
1
01
38
PM
PDT}

JDK, the answer you seem to seek is right there already. Notice, the limits of computational substrates issue? That means that the world that contains rational, responsible creatures such as we are cannot be wholly material. A Physicalist monism fails as it cannot address our reality. The cosmos cannot wholly be physical. KFkairosfocus_{August 20, 2018
August
08
Aug
20
20
2018
01:33 PM
1
01
33
PM
PDT}

Deputy Dog:
I made my case against Substance Dualism: billions of examples of minds associated with physical brains and none that exist without them.
Except that isn't making a case. It's just you and your ignorant opinion. And I don't adhere to property dualism. You are confused.ET_{August 20, 2018
August
08
Aug
20
20
2018
01:16 PM
1
01
16
PM
PDT}

@ET #33 I made my case against Substance Dualism: billions of examples of minds associated with physical brains and none that exist without them. As for Property Dualism, I think I agreed with you on that.Deputy Dog_{August 20, 2018
August
08
Aug
20
20
2018
12:51 PM
12
12
51
PM
PDT}

jdk:
I am offering the idea that the “one kind of substance” is neither the physical nor the mental, but rather an underlying unitary substrate of reality from which both the physical and the mental arise.
That's Intelligent Design, Jack- ID is that underlying unitary substrate of reality from which both the physical and the mental arise.ET_{August 20, 2018
August
08
Aug
20
20
2018
12:37 PM
12
12
37
PM
PDT}

re 32, and DD: Property Dualism as explained by Wikipedia is the kind of thing I am referring to, with a further distinction. Wikipedia says,
Property dualism describes a category of positions in the philosophy of mind which hold that, although the world is composed of just one kind of substance—the physical kind—there exist two distinct kinds of properties: physical properties and mental properties. In other words, it is the view that non-physical, mental properties (such as beliefs, desires and emotions) inhere in some physical substances (namely brains).
What I would amend is the statement that the one kind of substance is the physical kind. I am offering the idea that the "one kind of substance" is neither the physical nor the mental, but rather an underlying unitary substrate of reality from which both the physical and the mental arise.jdk_{August 20, 2018
August
08
Aug
20
20
2018
12:31 PM
12
12
31
PM
PDT}

jdk:
If mind is not reducible to matter (the brain), then it is a separate part of reality.
OK so software is a separate part of reality than the hardware, re computers?ET_{August 20, 2018
August
08
Aug
20
20
2018
12:26 PM
12
12
26
PM
PDT}

re 30, to ET: We are saying, at least in part, the same thing. If mind is not reducible to matter (the brain), then it is a separate part of reality. I think we are saying the same thing about your position, which would be a form of dualism.jdk_{August 20, 2018
August
08
Aug
20
20
2018
12:22 PM
12
12
22
PM
PDT}

Deputy Dog:
So, it sounds like you are a proponent of Property Dualism, …
Then it should be easy for you to make the case and yet I doubt that you can.ET_{August 20, 2018
August
08
Aug
20
20
2018
12:15 PM
12
12
15
PM
PDT}

@ET #30 So, it sounds like you are a proponent of Property Dualism, but not Substance Dualism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dualism It was Substance Dualism that I was objecting to, in my original comment. I can get on board with Property Dualism, since I am a big fan of emergent properties.Deputy Dog_{August 20, 2018
August
08
Aug
20
20
2018
12:00 PM
12
12
00
PM
PDT}

jdk: The existence of consciousness does not necessarily imply dualism. You're kidding me? Consciousness necessarily and logically requires two opposite and complementary entities: a knower and a known.FourFaces_{August 20, 2018
August
08
Aug
20
20
2018
11:48 AM
11
11
48
AM
PDT}

Maybe that is your misunderstanding or misinterpretation of it. Or maybe I just don't understand what you are saying and we are talking past each other. My take is that they aren't necessarily separate parts of reality. It's just that the mind is not reducible to the brain. Similar to how computers are not reducible to its hardwareET_{August 20, 2018
August
08
Aug
20
20
2018
09:42 AM
9
09
42
AM
PDT}

Uh, that's what dualism means.jdk_{August 20, 2018
August
08
Aug
20
20
2018
09:28 AM
9
09
28
AM
PDT}

jdk:
We agree on my main point, then.
You mean this?:
That is, consciousness and physical may both be products of one underlying reality, not two separate parts of reality.
Was that ever a thing- that consciousness and the physical are two separate parts of reality, whatever that means?ET_{August 20, 2018
August
08
Aug
20
20
2018
09:06 AM
9
09
06
AM
PDT}

True, kf. It seems that you can expand virtually any conversation out to the biggest issues about reality, but that doesn't make discussions about specific issues very fruitful. If I specifically discuss a topic in the context of accepting design, and consciousness, and then move on to discussing whether the universe is dualist or unitary in respect, your responding with your standards points about "evolutionary materialist scientism" is not very relevant.jdk_{August 20, 2018
August
08
Aug
20
20
2018
05:47 AM
5
05
47
AM
PDT}

JDK, a discussion of dualism in our time and civilisation necessarily has those matters in its context. KFkairosfocus_{August 20, 2018
August
08
Aug
20
20
2018
05:24 AM
5
05
24
AM
PDT}

I wasn't discussing naturalism or "evolutionary materialist scientism", which I made clear.jdk_{August 20, 2018
August
08
Aug
20
20
2018
05:08 AM
5
05
08
AM
PDT}

JDK & DD: To produce comments as above, you acted intelligently, governed by principles of reason and responsibility (however modified such may be by your circumstances, perceptions, view of the world etc). Neither responsibility nor reasonableness/rationality are or can be properties of a blindly mechanical and/or chance-influenced computational substrate. Rocks, however refined or reshaped (our bodies, brains etc are formed of "the dust of the earth") as computational substrates, have no contemplative dreams. They are simply and inherently blind, GIGO-limited machines that are inherently non-rational. Whether a mechanical chain of ball and disk integrators, or electronic op amp networks or chains of neurons makes but little difference. If you doubt me, ponder the recalls on CPU chips found to be defective. The chips neither knew nor cared that they were defective, they just churned away, manipulating signals and codes per organisation and set up or programming. If you want a first-level elaboration, here is Reppert amplifying C S Lewis:
. . . let us suppose that brain state A, which is token identical to the thought that all men are mortal, and brain state B, which is token identical to the thought that Socrates is a man, together cause the belief that Socrates is mortal. It isn’t enough for rational inference that these events be those beliefs, it is also necessary that the causal transaction be in virtue of the content of those thoughts . . . [But] if naturalism is true, then the propositional content is irrelevant to the causal transaction that produces the conclusion, and [so] we do not have a case of rational inference. In rational inference, as Lewis puts it, one thought causes another thought not by being, but by being seen to be, the ground for it. But causal transactions in the brain occur in virtue of the brain’s being in a particular type of state that is relevant to physical causal transactions.
So, exhibit A on the need to transcend matter to account for mind is our own morally governed mindedness -- as in, do you or do you not hold yourself to be governed by duties to truth and to sound, prudent reasoning. On patent pain of reducing such to delusion and transforming the life of the mind into chaos. Going beyond, the world of life and the physics of the cosmos seen to be at a fine-tuned operating point for such C-chem, aqueous medium, cell based life, show many strong signs of design by intelligence. This is excellent grounds for inferring mind antecedent to matter and being the causal agent for the existence of such a world. Where, if mind or even Soul is antecedent to and the root cause of the material, natural world, it should be utterly unsurprising that creatures in that world can and should be minded and conscience-guided even in the practice of using minds. I have often suggested Eng Derek Smith's two-tier controller cybernetic loop model as a useful framework to ponder how say a brain can be an i/o controller supervised, influenced and guided by something more. With quantum level influences as keys to the interface. We need to re-think what the dominance of evolutionary materialist scientism tends to make seem plausible or implausible. Recognising that such views are inescapably self-referentially incoherent and so irretrievably self-falsifying would be a good beginning. One that clears the table for sounder thinking. KFkairosfocus_{August 20, 2018
August
08
Aug
20
20
2018
01:59 AM
1
01
59
AM
PDT}

Good, ET. We agree on my main point, then.jdk_{August 19, 2018
August
08
Aug
19
19
2018
08:25 PM
8
08
25
PM
PDT}

jdk:
The existence of consciousness does not necessarily imply dualism.
You mean we can't necessarily infer dualism from the existence of consciousness. Maybe not by itself but given everything that goes with it and the choices, it is a safe betET_{August 19, 2018
August
08
Aug
19
19
2018
08:20 PM
8
08
20
PM
PDT}

jdk @16, Hey, relax! jawa was joking. :) The only truth is this: Christ made everything that is. Anything else that conflicts with that truth is nonsense.PaoloV_{August 19, 2018
August
08
Aug
19
19
2018
08:12 PM
8
08
12
PM
PDT}

re-read 7, ET, in my reply to UB and JAD.: that is what I have to say on this topic. The existence of consciousness does not necessarily imply dualism. That's my point.jdk_{August 19, 2018
August
08
Aug
19
19
2018
08:05 PM
8
08
05
PM
PDT}

jdk:
I don’t think you are reading what I’ve written very closely, but are rather just jumping to conclusions about what you think I believe.
Then why don't you just say, Jack?ET_{August 19, 2018
August
08
Aug
19
19
2018
07:01 PM
7
07
01
PM
PDT}

jdk:
For instance, is “Designer Intervention” involved in electrolysis?
Electrolysis: In chemistry and manufacturing, electrolysis is a technique that uses a direct electric current (DC) to drive an otherwise non-spontaneous chemical reaction. According to that designer intervention is required.
Is Designer intervention involved in the exchange of gases in the lungs when you breathe?
Yes, Jack, the person breathing would be the designer and the exchange of gasses would happen per the design. Information is the immaterial part of the nature of the world. Are your thoughts physical, Jack? Do they actually weigh you down? And BTW, how the world got this way has everything to do with how it works and your dualism is expressed. So you really can't ignore it.ET_{August 19, 2018
August
08
Aug
19
19
2018
06:59 PM
6
06
59
PM
PDT}

ET writes,
The question is how did it come to be the way it is?
That is an interesting question, but I clearly said that it is not the question I am talking about right now. I will accept that it's all designed. What I'm trying to understand are your notions about how the world works: what role does this immaterial aspect play in the everyday course of events. You write,
I find it interesting that you would try to compare our existence to a common chemical reaction
I mentioned an organic process and an inorganic process in order to see what differences you see in the two: do both partake of the immaterial aspect in the same way, or not. I did not "try to compare our existence to a common chemical reaction." I'm asking you what you think the differences are. You write,
that you cannot account for the existence of those chemicals- matter, energy and information- the information necessary to produce the elements just the way they are so that they function as designed in this universe. Yes, Jack, it’s Intelligent Design all the way down. However designer intervention isn’t always required.
You're right, I can't account for the nature of the universe. As I've said, I'll accept that all the qualities of the world are designed. What I am asking questions about is the immaterial nature of the world, in your philosophy. For instance, is "Designer Intervention" involved in electrolysis? Is Designer intervention involved in the exchange of gases in the lungs when you breathe? Is the immaterial aspect of the universe only present when the Designer intervenes, or is it present at other times, or at all times in all events, organic and inorganic. Can you explain what you think about these questions? (And, to repeat, I'm not asking about how the world got this way - I will accept that it is designed. I'm interested in your understanding of how the world works, and especially you ideas about how dualism is expressed.)jdk_{August 19, 2018
August
08
Aug
19
19
2018
06:39 PM
6
06
39
PM
PDT}

re 14: I haven't said we live in a exclusively material world. I don't think you are reading what I've written very closely, but are rather just jumping to conclusions about what you think I believe. And the Madonna song is totally irrelevant, as she is using material in a different sense than the philosophical one.jdk_{August 19, 2018
August
08
Aug
19
19
2018
06:22 PM
6
06
22
PM
PDT}

jdk:
Let’s take a fundamental physical process: when you breath in air, oxygen is taken in and carbon dioxide is given out. The process by how this happens is fairly well know.
Many processes are known. The question is how did it come to be the way it is?
Is there an immaterial aspect to this process?
Do you think it just happens? And for dead people it just stopped happening? What about your heart? Does it beat properly just because it does? Is there a data punch card, magnetic tape or disk or how do you think it all just works?
This is a purely chemical process.
But it can't sing or dance and it don't walk. (HT Neil Diamond) It will never produce a work of art, nor music nor feel anything. It will never contemplate its existence. It will never hunger. In other words one of deese tings is not like the other. I find it interesting that you would try to compare our existence to a common chemical reaction, even given the fact that you cannot account for the existence of those chemicals- matter, energy and information- the information necessary to produce the elements just the way they are so that they function as designed in this universe. Yes, Jack, it's Intelligent Design all the way down. However designer intervention isn't always requiredET_{August 19, 2018
August
08
Aug
19
19
2018
06:14 PM
6
06
14
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply