To say what you said would be to completely ignore all the other evidence he presents against dualism in this video: the incoherence of physical and non-physical interaction, the problem of the correlation - and almost certainly causation - of brain regions to mental capacities (which makes the concept of a soul living after death absurd), and the complete lack of any evidence for this non-physical entity in the first place. It's like the phlogiston and "vital spirit" concepts.
This video doesn't specifically define what he's trying to describe. Consciousness is the presence or feeling of wakefulness. That would be the substance in substance dualism.
Can someone help me get this straight, he first talks about "physical substance" vs "non-physical substance," and explains the fallacy in that. But, what if someone described the non-physical part of dualism as just that, non-physical, instead of adding the word substance. Then this guy would have nothing to argue about.
@bigu236 "But, what if someone described the non-physical part of dualism as just that, non-physical, instead of adding the word substance."
The word "substance" is not the point of the argument. The point is that the entire dualist model has no evidence supporting it and that 100% of its content is an analogy to the physical, and then denying it's physical. That is just meaningless nonsense, and not an explanatory mechanism.
@bigu236 I suppose it was easy to be led in the direction you're thinking though, because of the mention of a contradiction. I don't think that's accurate. There's no contradiction inherent in other things having similar properties as physical things. It's mostly that the concept is useless, but also that there is necessarily interaction with matter, and that which interacts with matter is usually called matter. Such interaction would also be observable, but isn't observed.
@Gnomefro Language also restricts us here. If we symbolize everything through words, than there is no way to actually describe the "non-physical." I don't think that necessarily means we can throw out dualism. There is no evidence to support that dualism doesn't exist...nobody has come up with proven evidence of the soul, mind, or consciousness in a physical way, we just literally can't explain anything in non-phsyical terms.
@henkbress Just because "a bunch of travelling electrons do not necessarily imply any experience" doesn't mean dualism is true. Firstly, "a bunch of travelling electrons" are not all we look at to see if an experience is occurring (otherwise we could say that all matter is having an experience). Secondly, if electrical activity doesn't imply experience according to substance dualism, then what DOES? What would constitute evidence of experience?
@VannahWilson: "if electrical activity doesn't imply experience according to substance dualism, then what DOES? What would constitute evidence of experience?" For my own consciousness I need no evidence. The one thing I know for a fact is that I'm conscious and that I'm having experience. For others outside of me there can be no evidence that they are having experience. Others may or may not be philosophical zombies.
@henkbress "The idea is that when you look at a bunch of travelling electrons, there is no logical reason why this should correlate with experiences. It does, but it's not necessary, ergo dualism."
@syk0saje Great to know. I was watching another channel's video (profMTH) in which he mentioned and linked this video, so I was disappointed to see that it had been made private. I love Qualia's stuff.
@MimKoRn QS took them down because he's remaking them with new software he only recently obtained. He mentions it on his "about me" page. They'll be back up as soon as he gets around to making them.
I've always wondered something about "You are literally not the person you were 7 years ago." I've also heard that a girl is born with every egg cell she'll ever have - are egg cells an exception to the first statement? Are there any other exceptions?
Pacemaker cells on the heart aren't replaced, the ones you start with are the only ones you ever get. But the cells may remain the same that doesn't meant he atoms in the cells are the same.
@bigu236 We can "mark atoms", for instance water made with deuterium (which is almost exactly like hydrogen but detectably different), and follow their movement. Not saying that proves anything, just answering the question.
@xorthan If I remember correctly, nerve cells are rarely if ever replaced. And while single muscle cells might be recreated, muscle fibres are lost forever. And think of this: if a cell splits, has it been replaced at all? There is a lot of change going on in the body, but it doesnt all happen in the same time frame. A healthy layer of skin replaces in little more than a month.
There seems to be alot of tiny flaws in this argument, though it is a compelling one.
@xorthan Egg cells, muscle cells, neurons, and some others remain the same. But other than those few exceptions, every cell in the body has a maximum lifespan of ~7 years.
By extension non-conscious reactions, such as moving your hand away from a burning pot do not prove that brain activity precedes decision, merely that the decision happened without brain activity. I think we need to recognize that mental activity is not the same thing as consciousness.
Substance dualism holds that the mind is made of a substance that is different from normal matter, and thus there can be no direct physical evidence. If you find this somehow laughable, then quantum physics must be as well. Numerous quantum theories postulate the existence of particles of which there can be no direct physical evidence (such as the Higgs Boson). The existence of these things are assumed based entirely on their effect on what we CAN measure.
@AnduinX That is utter bullshit. There is nothing withint QuantuPhysics which confirms the existence of non-physical substances. The only people who would accept such a thing are woo woo physics gurus like Deepak Chopra, and their ilk.
@BigLundi: I wasn't trying to say that quantum physics did confirm the non-physical. My point was to bring up a parallel between quantum physics and the idea of the non-physical. Just because we can't directly observe something through materialist means does not mean that it can't be studied and confirmed.
In other words, the low-level mental activity and responses observed by the right hemisphere in these examples is not proof of consciousness, and thus, not proof that consciousness was split. You can have mental activity without consciousness. The dualist position here holds that there is still one consciousness.
The split-brain thing would be a more effective argument if this were the only way to interpret it. There's no proof that both hemispheres are 'conscious', and thus no proof that consciousness is 'split'. There are sleepwalkers who get up and drive to a store in their sleep, with no memory of the event. Sleepwalkers can even respond intelligently in their sleep - I know somebody who plays a mean game of chess in his sleep.
I'm open-minded. This video really does explain a lot but it doesn't explain everything. What about all the things science has yet to explain ? Mind can affect body , like in the placebo effect. Or even the "silly" concept of ghosts. It would be irrational to assume that all the apparitions and experiences made by humans since the beginning of time is fake. Whatever the case neither side of materialism or dualism is certain.
"The time has come for science to confront the serious implications of the fact that directed, willed mental activity can clearly and systematically altar brain function." -Jeffrey M. Schwartz
@FlyingFree333 Schwartz did experiments with OCD patients where this happened. Of course, there was a physiological aspect to it. Do not get me wrong, this in no way proves dualism in the Cartisian/substance sense. And to be honest with you, I think so many atheists object to that cause it includes the concept of an afterlife, which in turn leads extremists to use it as support for their belief systsem. Such can be harmful.
@metaldude82 Yes, very serious implications. Berlusconi sucks ! ! ! Unfortunately it still pays more to be in the denial for dollars mentality. It's interesting to watch how "mentalists" are verbal gymnastics around the subject. Thanks for not being an idiot.
"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions." Thomas Jefferson
You believe in fairies based on nothing but fables and criticize science ON A COMPUTER and you have the gall to lecture me on intellectual honesty? Fuck off.
Souls have not be proven to exist because it's simply outside the reach of science to even observe. Science has been a useful tool for centuries, but also has it's limitations. No amount of scientific("physical") observation can make any absolute claim regarding anything 'metaphysical'. The biggest fallicity in any scientific arguement regarding the metaphysical is just that.
Every aspect of the mind can be influenced by physically changing the brain, the mind is 100% a result of the physical brain, there is no soul. The concept of the soul is just an extension of the human tendency to attribute objects and beings with an 'essence' of itself, it's a fallacy and has no basis in reality. And claiming science has nothing to say about anything that actually exists and affects reality shows a lack of understanding of science.
You provided no concrete evidence asserting that souls do not exist. Only theory.
Science has indeed proven alot regarding physicality, however science is limited to just that construct.
Can I prove the soul? Yes, and no. To do so requires a metaphysical approach to existence, outside of the constructs of the information that science is currently able to provide, which you're probably not willing to consider. Only then can I prove to you that souls exist. In every living thing.
1) That's a fallacy of shifting the burden of proof, try providing concrete evidence pink flying elephants don't exist.
2) The FACT that science has demonstrated that NO part of the mind exists without the physical brain shows there is no mind independent of the physical brain, therefore when the brain dies the mind ceases to exist, hence no soul.
Metaphysical sophistry isn't proof of anything other than someone's need to justify their delusion with elaborate rationalizations.
@FlyingFree333 Science once thought that the atom was the indivisibly smallest part of matter. We now know that it isn't. The smallest indivisible part of matter is the quark. I wonder what it will be a hundred years from now. True scientists use the term intellectual honesty, which means that they are well aware that everything that we know now could, in the future, be proved wrong.
@FlyingFree333 Knowledge is only attainable when searched without a biased opinion. To REMAIN unbiased in our approach, we must look at all possiblities through humility (able to accept that we don't know everything and we can accept the information provided to us). That is the true basis for science in itself, or science would give up and only believe the very first conclusion. No one can say for sure how a single "thought" happens, and cannot be explained through a scientific approach alone.
@FlyingFree333 The mind can also be changed by subjective experiece that does not include tampering with the brain by means of surgery or drugs. This is why violent offenders without brain deficents are violent offenders.
The brain works by creating new pathways to store information, so all experiences change brain structure, that doesn't mean that metaphysical forces alter the brain, it just means the brain's functions all rely on it changing structure based on stimulus, repeat a type of stimulus often enough and the changes accumulate to cause significant structural differences based purely on experience. There is nothing mystical or intangible about the process.
@FlyingFree333 You need not equate dualism with something "mystical." Your dreams and thoughts are not the same as the neural pathways in your brain. When you dream, you are not doing such about your neurons. There you have an element dualism already. Schwartz's OCD patients were taught to basically think of their OCD as a defective neural pathway which eventually led to reduction of symptoms. Here I am more supporting mentalist dualism than substance, which is the focus of your video.
@metaldude82 "When you dream, you are not doing such about your neurons." Despite physical evidence that dreams do indeed engage neural activity in certain areas of the brain?
I think you need to review that statement, unless, of course, I misunderstood your statement.
@GermanChocolateCake You misinterpreted me big time. I met that when you dream, you are not dreaming about the neurons which are active during the process. Know what I mean?
@metaldude82 I gotcha. Unless, of course, you've had a very peculiar dream. I'm betting some neurosurgeon out there has probably had that dream. They probably just can't explain why a penguin told them to "slide" during the dream.
@AstralEtheric This is covered early on the video. Or had you already switched off ,when FF mentioned how things that DO have effects CAN be measured.
@AstralEtheric If you're going to discuss fallacies, you need to be aware of two:
Ad ignorantium: An argument from ignorance, that something must be true because we cannot prove it isn't. I can insist on the existence of unicorns and leprechauns. If you think I'm mocking you, try to disprove their existence.
Ad hoc (special pleading): A topic should be immune to logic or reason. You aren't capable of discovering unicorns and leprechauns because you don't believe, implying that I can, and I do.
Dualism is valid in the sense that your dreams, thoughts and such are not the same as the network of your brain. Basically, they are not some always changing diorama in your brain. As far as consciousness, it is definitely true that neuroscience has discovered that there are physiological aspect to it. However, this does not account for qualia and the why such matter even brings about consciousness.
So there is only one substance. But what is that substance? Is consciousness matter? Or is matter consciousness? Or is it both? Or is this question just a problem of language.
Consciousness is an emergent property of the network of the brain, just like the Internet is an emergent property of the network of computers globally.
The complaints in this video are extremely superficial and oversimplified. The person who made this video (QualiaSoup?) seems to have absolutely no understanding of the idea he's trying to discuss. His attacks are very cheap but not hard to counter. (e.g. "1+1 = 2 but also 1+1 = 10 that's so wrong")
For anyone who wants a better understanding of Dualism, watch the series of Lectures by Shelly Kagan (user: YaleCourses) who is himself a Physicalist, but gives a much better treatment of the issue.
I'm not a substance dualist. We can define substance without physical analogy as a unity able to act. You are attacking a straw man. If we could know a complete brain state it would not signify in the same way as a thought (my #25). There is a perfectly reasonable way for intent to control behavior (#22). Split brain patients do not report anomalous consciousness. Blind sight makes some of your assumptions problematic. None of this is problematic for a 2 subsystem theory of mind.
This isn't as much of a slam-dunk as you think it is. Sure, at the end of the day, effectively all things but solipsism and abstract math are based on an assumption that physical substances exist. Sure. But the alternatives, those being 'brain in a vat style' solipsism, or 'only the mental is real' solipsism, rely upon assumptions as well. One we can investigate; the others we cannot, meaningfully.
I take it that you 'know' what reality 'really' is?
just watched the vid bout this vid having no substance.jesus cmon dude. this is sop well put together when you dint even edit out the call from mom about ur dinner. you dont get to play in the big kids games yet
The Total Information Argument for Neutral Monism: watch?v=Rg0AxuDcoEE
Step 1: Ask if an object is made of matter or information. If matter go to Step 2.
Step 2: Ask all possible questions of the object, and receive all possible information from it. Is the information is equal to the object or is the object material? If material go to Step 3.
Step 3: Ask if the material object exists as matter. If yes, then you've just extracted more information from the object than by definition exists.
Fairly good video. I found that only your first argument against dualism has force. The other ones weren't very good. E.g., you said that because "migration", "metamorphosis", etc are physical things, but don't have texture et al, it doesn't follow that they are nonphysical. I think this is a disanalogy. Migration isn't a physical object, "migration" doesn't even exist. "Migration" is a useful fiction. This cannot be analogous to consciousness because consciousness is not a useful fiction.
I'd suggest watching the video again, because I don't think you understood it. He said: "Things we don't describe like physical objects don't have to be non-physical." When he was comparing thoughts and processes.
He never made the argument that you said he stated, which is: Because migration/metamorphosis are physical things, it doesn't follow that they are non-physical. I don't see that anywhere in this video.
Suppose I dream of watching this. All of the assertions can be true in the world of a realistic dream. So this argument asserts there can be no substance dualism between the dreamer and the dreamed self, and the dreamer is necessarily a product of the dreamed "substance". Further, any attempt within the dream to speak of the dreamer is a meaningless reference to a non-material substance. In that situation, we wake to find that the argument is demonstrably false, and thus it cannot be valid.
Simply asserting that substance is necessarily physical in order to demonstrate that the term, "substance dualism," is a self-contradiction amounts to defining it out of existence: "Monism is right; therefore, dualism is wrong." If dualistic philosophers assumed QS's physicalist definition of substance, they wouldn't be substance dualists. Also, I think his functionalist/"appearance" theory of personal identity runs into some serious problems.
he took it down because apparently he was going to make the exact same video with added content to it, though he hasn't done it in several months, so who knows if he will?..
First off, I want to say that this video was great.
Now i want to know why, even though humans know about all the information given here in this video.. why do we still have religion?
Is religion not tied-in with the theory of dualism?
That non-physical object that is you and is god (or many gods) cannot exist and this video clearly shows that. I dont see why anyone would believe in spirits or ghosts after this video.
I didn't create this video so I take no credit for it, watch my Psychology of Belief video to see the source of religious belief and I have many videos on indoctrination to demonstrate why religions remain in the face of contrary evidence.
@mooer007 You stated how someone can believe in ghosts or spirits. I guess you have never actually had an encounter with them. But there is metaphysical proof that things with no physical bodies do indeed exist and walk amoung us... undefined. The narrator used language to work for his own right because he said "conscious" instead of "soul". Animals don't have religion, yet humans do....now why would that be?
good work. great video
Savyn333 1 week ago in playlist religion/athiest stuff
Comment removed
sbsixson 2 weeks ago
Read Quantum Philosophy:meanings Answers and Promises
marjorienjanvier1 1 month ago
good points
marjorienjanvier1 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Qualiasoup Great video -- keep them coming!
zthomasack 2 months ago
@bigu236
To say what you said would be to completely ignore all the other evidence he presents against dualism in this video: the incoherence of physical and non-physical interaction, the problem of the correlation - and almost certainly causation - of brain regions to mental capacities (which makes the concept of a soul living after death absurd), and the complete lack of any evidence for this non-physical entity in the first place. It's like the phlogiston and "vital spirit" concepts.
ThatGuyWithHippyHair 2 months ago
This video doesn't specifically define what he's trying to describe. Consciousness is the presence or feeling of wakefulness. That would be the substance in substance dualism.
HomuncuIus 3 months ago
Can someone help me get this straight, he first talks about "physical substance" vs "non-physical substance," and explains the fallacy in that. But, what if someone described the non-physical part of dualism as just that, non-physical, instead of adding the word substance. Then this guy would have nothing to argue about.
bigu236 4 months ago
@bigu236 "But, what if someone described the non-physical part of dualism as just that, non-physical, instead of adding the word substance."
The word "substance" is not the point of the argument. The point is that the entire dualist model has no evidence supporting it and that 100% of its content is an analogy to the physical, and then denying it's physical. That is just meaningless nonsense, and not an explanatory mechanism.
Gnomefro 1 month ago
@Gnomefro There is no explanatory mechanism for something that is "non-physical"...how can you describe something with no description?
bigu236 1 month ago
@bigu236 I suppose it was easy to be led in the direction you're thinking though, because of the mention of a contradiction. I don't think that's accurate. There's no contradiction inherent in other things having similar properties as physical things. It's mostly that the concept is useless, but also that there is necessarily interaction with matter, and that which interacts with matter is usually called matter. Such interaction would also be observable, but isn't observed.
Gnomefro 1 month ago
@Gnomefro Language also restricts us here. If we symbolize everything through words, than there is no way to actually describe the "non-physical." I don't think that necessarily means we can throw out dualism. There is no evidence to support that dualism doesn't exist...nobody has come up with proven evidence of the soul, mind, or consciousness in a physical way, we just literally can't explain anything in non-phsyical terms.
bigu236 1 month ago
@henkbress Just because "a bunch of travelling electrons do not necessarily imply any experience" doesn't mean dualism is true. Firstly, "a bunch of travelling electrons" are not all we look at to see if an experience is occurring (otherwise we could say that all matter is having an experience). Secondly, if electrical activity doesn't imply experience according to substance dualism, then what DOES? What would constitute evidence of experience?
VannahWilson 4 months ago
@VannahWilson: "if electrical activity doesn't imply experience according to substance dualism, then what DOES? What would constitute evidence of experience?" For my own consciousness I need no evidence. The one thing I know for a fact is that I'm conscious and that I'm having experience. For others outside of me there can be no evidence that they are having experience. Others may or may not be philosophical zombies.
AnduinX 4 months ago
@henkbress "The idea is that when you look at a bunch of travelling electrons, there is no logical reason why this should correlate with experiences. It does, but it's not necessary, ergo dualism."
Holy non sequitur, batman.
VannahWilson 4 months ago
@henkbress How is determinism implied by materialism?
VannahWilson 4 months ago
Are there more videos, which QS created and then took them down? Does anyone know why he took it down? I'm pretty much interested...
MimKoRn 5 months ago
@MimKoRn
No idea.
FlyingFree333 5 months ago
@FlyingFree333 i sent QS a message some time ago as to why he took it down. he said that he's working on an improved and longer version.
syk0saje 3 months ago
@syk0saje Great to know. I was watching another channel's video (profMTH) in which he mentioned and linked this video, so I was disappointed to see that it had been made private. I love Qualia's stuff.
palerider1775 2 months ago
@MimKoRn QS took them down because he's remaking them with new software he only recently obtained. He mentions it on his "about me" page. They'll be back up as soon as he gets around to making them.
TheHeidelbergKid 1 month ago
I've always wondered something about "You are literally not the person you were 7 years ago." I've also heard that a girl is born with every egg cell she'll ever have - are egg cells an exception to the first statement? Are there any other exceptions?
xorthan 5 months ago
@xorthan
Pacemaker cells on the heart aren't replaced, the ones you start with are the only ones you ever get. But the cells may remain the same that doesn't meant he atoms in the cells are the same.
FlyingFree333 5 months ago
@FlyingFree333 that statement implies that atoms change with time...how do you know thats true?
bigu236 4 months ago
@bigu236 We can "mark atoms", for instance water made with deuterium (which is almost exactly like hydrogen but detectably different), and follow their movement. Not saying that proves anything, just answering the question.
bddemong 3 months ago
@xorthan If I remember correctly, nerve cells are rarely if ever replaced. And while single muscle cells might be recreated, muscle fibres are lost forever. And think of this: if a cell splits, has it been replaced at all? There is a lot of change going on in the body, but it doesnt all happen in the same time frame. A healthy layer of skin replaces in little more than a month.
There seems to be alot of tiny flaws in this argument, though it is a compelling one.
Kabitu1 4 months ago
Comment removed
AnduinX 4 months ago
@xorthan Egg cells, muscle cells, neurons, and some others remain the same. But other than those few exceptions, every cell in the body has a maximum lifespan of ~7 years.
TheHeidelbergKid 1 month ago
By extension non-conscious reactions, such as moving your hand away from a burning pot do not prove that brain activity precedes decision, merely that the decision happened without brain activity. I think we need to recognize that mental activity is not the same thing as consciousness.
AnduinX 6 months ago
Substance dualism holds that the mind is made of a substance that is different from normal matter, and thus there can be no direct physical evidence. If you find this somehow laughable, then quantum physics must be as well. Numerous quantum theories postulate the existence of particles of which there can be no direct physical evidence (such as the Higgs Boson). The existence of these things are assumed based entirely on their effect on what we CAN measure.
AnduinX 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AnduinX
the higgs boson is hypothetical. i.e. unproven, no one claims "there CAN be no direct physical evidence" for it
only that there currently isn't. in fact, one of the things colliders are trying to tbe used for is finding are higgs bosson.
pyr666 5 months ago
@AnduinX That is utter bullshit. There is nothing withint QuantuPhysics which confirms the existence of non-physical substances. The only people who would accept such a thing are woo woo physics gurus like Deepak Chopra, and their ilk.
BigLundi 4 months ago
@BigLundi: I wasn't trying to say that quantum physics did confirm the non-physical. My point was to bring up a parallel between quantum physics and the idea of the non-physical. Just because we can't directly observe something through materialist means does not mean that it can't be studied and confirmed.
AnduinX 4 months ago
In other words, the low-level mental activity and responses observed by the right hemisphere in these examples is not proof of consciousness, and thus, not proof that consciousness was split. You can have mental activity without consciousness. The dualist position here holds that there is still one consciousness.
AnduinX 6 months ago
The split-brain thing would be a more effective argument if this were the only way to interpret it. There's no proof that both hemispheres are 'conscious', and thus no proof that consciousness is 'split'. There are sleepwalkers who get up and drive to a store in their sleep, with no memory of the event. Sleepwalkers can even respond intelligently in their sleep - I know somebody who plays a mean game of chess in his sleep.
AnduinX 6 months ago
8:31 I'm a monist, but isn't it possible in order to transfer consciousness into a different physical entity, i.e. a digital one?
MethanolCH3OH 7 months ago
I'm open-minded. This video really does explain a lot but it doesn't explain everything. What about all the things science has yet to explain ? Mind can affect body , like in the placebo effect. Or even the "silly" concept of ghosts. It would be irrational to assume that all the apparitions and experiences made by humans since the beginning of time is fake. Whatever the case neither side of materialism or dualism is certain.
FiguringOutSecrets 7 months ago
@FiguringOutSecrets
"Mind can affect body , like in the placebo effect."
your brain is wired to your endocrine system, which effects just about everything.
"It would be irrational to assume that all the apparitions and experiences made by humans since the beginning of time is fake."
would it? after all, you probably dismiss the existence of fairies despite thousands of years of sightings.
pyr666 5 months ago
"The time has come for science to confront the serious implications of the fact that directed, willed mental activity can clearly and systematically altar brain function." -Jeffrey M. Schwartz
metaldude82 7 months ago
@metaldude82
1) Argument from authority, what someone says isn't proof no matter what their pedigree.
2) Correlation is not always causation.
FlyingFree333 7 months ago
@FlyingFree333 Schwartz did experiments with OCD patients where this happened. Of course, there was a physiological aspect to it. Do not get me wrong, this in no way proves dualism in the Cartisian/substance sense. And to be honest with you, I think so many atheists object to that cause it includes the concept of an afterlife, which in turn leads extremists to use it as support for their belief systsem. Such can be harmful.
metaldude82 7 months ago
@FlyingFree333 lol 9:52 - agere sequitur credere
fishybishbash 5 months ago
@metaldude82 Just as brain function can clearly alter willed mental activity as can be clearly demonstrated in brain damage.
GermanChocolateCake 7 months ago
@metaldude82 Yes, very serious implications. Berlusconi sucks ! ! ! Unfortunately it still pays more to be in the denial for dollars mentality. It's interesting to watch how "mentalists" are verbal gymnastics around the subject. Thanks for not being an idiot.
curesriches 6 months ago
@AstralEtheric
"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions." Thomas Jefferson
You believe in fairies based on nothing but fables and criticize science ON A COMPUTER and you have the gall to lecture me on intellectual honesty? Fuck off.
FlyingFree333 7 months ago
Souls have not be proven to exist because it's simply outside the reach of science to even observe. Science has been a useful tool for centuries, but also has it's limitations. No amount of scientific("physical") observation can make any absolute claim regarding anything 'metaphysical'. The biggest fallicity in any scientific arguement regarding the metaphysical is just that.
AstralEtheric 7 months ago
@AstralEtheric
Every aspect of the mind can be influenced by physically changing the brain, the mind is 100% a result of the physical brain, there is no soul. The concept of the soul is just an extension of the human tendency to attribute objects and beings with an 'essence' of itself, it's a fallacy and has no basis in reality. And claiming science has nothing to say about anything that actually exists and affects reality shows a lack of understanding of science.
FlyingFree333 7 months ago
@FlyingFree333
You provided no concrete evidence asserting that souls do not exist. Only theory.
Science has indeed proven alot regarding physicality, however science is limited to just that construct.
Can I prove the soul? Yes, and no. To do so requires a metaphysical approach to existence, outside of the constructs of the information that science is currently able to provide, which you're probably not willing to consider. Only then can I prove to you that souls exist. In every living thing.
AstralEtheric 7 months ago
@AstralEtheric
1) That's a fallacy of shifting the burden of proof, try providing concrete evidence pink flying elephants don't exist.
2) The FACT that science has demonstrated that NO part of the mind exists without the physical brain shows there is no mind independent of the physical brain, therefore when the brain dies the mind ceases to exist, hence no soul.
Metaphysical sophistry isn't proof of anything other than someone's need to justify their delusion with elaborate rationalizations.
FlyingFree333 7 months ago
@FlyingFree333 Science once thought that the atom was the indivisibly smallest part of matter. We now know that it isn't. The smallest indivisible part of matter is the quark. I wonder what it will be a hundred years from now. True scientists use the term intellectual honesty, which means that they are well aware that everything that we know now could, in the future, be proved wrong.
AstralEtheric 7 months ago
@AstralEtheric
No matter what science learns a rock will never be a bird and Mother Goose will never be real. Grow up.
FlyingFree333 7 months ago
@FlyingFree333 Knowledge is only attainable when searched without a biased opinion. To REMAIN unbiased in our approach, we must look at all possiblities through humility (able to accept that we don't know everything and we can accept the information provided to us). That is the true basis for science in itself, or science would give up and only believe the very first conclusion. No one can say for sure how a single "thought" happens, and cannot be explained through a scientific approach alone.
AstralEtheric 7 months ago
@FlyingFree333 The mind can also be changed by subjective experiece that does not include tampering with the brain by means of surgery or drugs. This is why violent offenders without brain deficents are violent offenders.
metaldude82 7 months ago
@metaldude82
The brain works by creating new pathways to store information, so all experiences change brain structure, that doesn't mean that metaphysical forces alter the brain, it just means the brain's functions all rely on it changing structure based on stimulus, repeat a type of stimulus often enough and the changes accumulate to cause significant structural differences based purely on experience. There is nothing mystical or intangible about the process.
FlyingFree333 7 months ago
@FlyingFree333 You need not equate dualism with something "mystical." Your dreams and thoughts are not the same as the neural pathways in your brain. When you dream, you are not doing such about your neurons. There you have an element dualism already. Schwartz's OCD patients were taught to basically think of their OCD as a defective neural pathway which eventually led to reduction of symptoms. Here I am more supporting mentalist dualism than substance, which is the focus of your video.
metaldude82 7 months ago
@metaldude82 "When you dream, you are not doing such about your neurons." Despite physical evidence that dreams do indeed engage neural activity in certain areas of the brain?
I think you need to review that statement, unless, of course, I misunderstood your statement.
GermanChocolateCake 7 months ago
@GermanChocolateCake You misinterpreted me big time. I met that when you dream, you are not dreaming about the neurons which are active during the process. Know what I mean?
metaldude82 7 months ago
@metaldude82 I gotcha. Unless, of course, you've had a very peculiar dream. I'm betting some neurosurgeon out there has probably had that dream. They probably just can't explain why a penguin told them to "slide" during the dream.
GermanChocolateCake 7 months ago
@AstralEtheric This is covered early on the video. Or had you already switched off ,when FF mentioned how things that DO have effects CAN be measured.
MrRouXRenard 7 months ago
@AstralEtheric If you're going to discuss fallacies, you need to be aware of two:
Ad ignorantium: An argument from ignorance, that something must be true because we cannot prove it isn't. I can insist on the existence of unicorns and leprechauns. If you think I'm mocking you, try to disprove their existence.
Ad hoc (special pleading): A topic should be immune to logic or reason. You aren't capable of discovering unicorns and leprechauns because you don't believe, implying that I can, and I do.
rlquinn1980 7 months ago
Dualism is valid in the sense that your dreams, thoughts and such are not the same as the network of your brain. Basically, they are not some always changing diorama in your brain. As far as consciousness, it is definitely true that neuroscience has discovered that there are physiological aspect to it. However, this does not account for qualia and the why such matter even brings about consciousness.
metaldude82 7 months ago
So there is only one substance. But what is that substance? Is consciousness matter? Or is matter consciousness? Or is it both? Or is this question just a problem of language.
NondualityAndScience 7 months ago
@NondualityAndScience
Consciousness is an emergent property of the network of the brain, just like the Internet is an emergent property of the network of computers globally.
FlyingFree333 7 months ago
@FlyingFree333 So consciousness is matter
NondualityAndScience 7 months ago
Who did you take this from?
mtdeezy 10 months ago
The complaints in this video are extremely superficial and oversimplified. The person who made this video (QualiaSoup?) seems to have absolutely no understanding of the idea he's trying to discuss. His attacks are very cheap but not hard to counter. (e.g. "1+1 = 2 but also 1+1 = 10 that's so wrong")
For anyone who wants a better understanding of Dualism, watch the series of Lectures by Shelly Kagan (user: YaleCourses) who is himself a Physicalist, but gives a much better treatment of the issue.
hasenj 11 months ago
I'm not a substance dualist. We can define substance without physical analogy as a unity able to act. You are attacking a straw man. If we could know a complete brain state it would not signify in the same way as a thought (my #25). There is a perfectly reasonable way for intent to control behavior (#22). Split brain patients do not report anomalous consciousness. Blind sight makes some of your assumptions problematic. None of this is problematic for a 2 subsystem theory of mind.
dfpolis 11 months ago
@V0NDAGE "you assume . . ."
This isn't as much of a slam-dunk as you think it is. Sure, at the end of the day, effectively all things but solipsism and abstract math are based on an assumption that physical substances exist. Sure. But the alternatives, those being 'brain in a vat style' solipsism, or 'only the mental is real' solipsism, rely upon assumptions as well. One we can investigate; the others we cannot, meaningfully.
I take it that you 'know' what reality 'really' is?
tpmooney1 11 months ago
QualiaSoup should update a revised version of this, this video makes alot of things clear.
MrBigEnchilada 11 months ago
this video blows my brain to pieces.
am i too stupid?
Th0usandMaster 1 year ago
Can I just add a quick caveat - QS may have taken it down due to some factual error. I'm not saying this is the case, just be prepared.
ImposingSumo 1 year ago
Comment removed
vaguelyhumanoid 1 year ago
Substance isn't necessarily physical. QS is confusing an ordinary, everyday use of the word "substance" with a philosophical sense of the term.
vaguelyhumanoid 1 year ago
@vaguelyhumanoid Thats right. An idea can have substance for example. No point in listening to it beyond that point. Load of rubbish.
fishybishbash 1 year ago
Pretty much useless
CheungTakWah 1 year ago
just watched the vid bout this vid having no substance.jesus cmon dude. this is sop well put together when you dint even edit out the call from mom about ur dinner. you dont get to play in the big kids games yet
adzug 1 year ago
@henkbress
Well, good sir, I believe you are a moron. The lust to misunderstand is overwhelming when you're weak, isn't it?
elentarilol 1 year ago
@elentarilol insults... the next best thing to being right.
adzug 1 year ago
I like the door animation.
Daghead 1 year ago
The Total Information Argument for Neutral Monism: watch?v=Rg0AxuDcoEE
Step 1: Ask if an object is made of matter or information. If matter go to Step 2.
Step 2: Ask all possible questions of the object, and receive all possible information from it. Is the information is equal to the object or is the object material? If material go to Step 3.
Step 3: Ask if the material object exists as matter. If yes, then you've just extracted more information from the object than by definition exists.
JohananRaatz 1 year ago
Fairly good video. I found that only your first argument against dualism has force. The other ones weren't very good. E.g., you said that because "migration", "metamorphosis", etc are physical things, but don't have texture et al, it doesn't follow that they are nonphysical. I think this is a disanalogy. Migration isn't a physical object, "migration" doesn't even exist. "Migration" is a useful fiction. This cannot be analogous to consciousness because consciousness is not a useful fiction.
lifeandphilosophy 1 year ago
@lifeandphilosophy
I'd suggest watching the video again, because I don't think you understood it. He said: "Things we don't describe like physical objects don't have to be non-physical." When he was comparing thoughts and processes.
He never made the argument that you said he stated, which is: Because migration/metamorphosis are physical things, it doesn't follow that they are non-physical. I don't see that anywhere in this video.
FilthyIcon 1 year ago
never even heard of this til now...but yeah,i guess it's pretty thoroughly debunked
warpedwiselegoman 1 year ago
Comment removed
scribb7 1 year ago
Comment removed
scribb7 1 year ago
Comment removed
scribb7 1 year ago
Suppose I dream of watching this. All of the assertions can be true in the world of a realistic dream. So this argument asserts there can be no substance dualism between the dreamer and the dreamed self, and the dreamer is necessarily a product of the dreamed "substance". Further, any attempt within the dream to speak of the dreamer is a meaningless reference to a non-material substance. In that situation, we wake to find that the argument is demonstrably false, and thus it cannot be valid.
shacktoms 1 year ago
Simply asserting that substance is necessarily physical in order to demonstrate that the term, "substance dualism," is a self-contradiction amounts to defining it out of existence: "Monism is right; therefore, dualism is wrong." If dualistic philosophers assumed QS's physicalist definition of substance, they wouldn't be substance dualists. Also, I think his functionalist/"appearance" theory of personal identity runs into some serious problems.
ElasticGiraffe 1 year ago
@ElasticGiraffe lol
theantithesis1 1 year ago
Thanks for the mirror. I can't this vid on QS's channel anywhere.
MasterAdam100 1 year ago 5
@MasterAdam100
I don't know why he took it down, he has not requested that I delete this one so it's still here for now.
FlyingFree333 1 year ago 4
@FlyingFree333
he took it down because apparently he was going to make the exact same video with added content to it, though he hasn't done it in several months, so who knows if he will?..
anyway thanks for the mirror :)
FilthyIcon 1 year ago
@MasterAdam100 4:59
samelitan 1 year ago
@MasterAdam100 i sent him a message and he said that he's working on releasing a longer copy
syk0saje 7 months ago
First off, I want to say that this video was great.
Now i want to know why, even though humans know about all the information given here in this video.. why do we still have religion?
Is religion not tied-in with the theory of dualism?
That non-physical object that is you and is god (or many gods) cannot exist and this video clearly shows that. I dont see why anyone would believe in spirits or ghosts after this video.
mooer007 1 year ago
@mooer007
I didn't create this video so I take no credit for it, watch my Psychology of Belief video to see the source of religious belief and I have many videos on indoctrination to demonstrate why religions remain in the face of contrary evidence.
FlyingFree333 1 year ago
@FlyingFree333 Thanks, thats really helpful
mooer007 1 year ago
@mooer007 It often is, though one could be religious and neutral monist or religious and mentalist as well.
JohananRaatz 1 year ago
@mooer007
probably because religious people have not seen or understood this video......
jannemannetjens 10 months ago
@mooer007 You stated how someone can believe in ghosts or spirits. I guess you have never actually had an encounter with them. But there is metaphysical proof that things with no physical bodies do indeed exist and walk amoung us... undefined. The narrator used language to work for his own right because he said "conscious" instead of "soul". Animals don't have religion, yet humans do....now why would that be?
fyahmoon 10 months ago
Comment removed
fyahmoon 10 months ago
Thanks for mirroring this.
AdamLore 1 year ago
I can't imagine why Q-Soup would take this video down. It makes a good argument for why the soul is a non-scientific concept.
cadman2300 1 year ago
Do you know why qualia took his down?
MightyGoldenBoy 1 year ago
@MightyGoldenBoy
Nope, no idea.
FlyingFree333 1 year ago
Really good video - I've always hated it when Christians trot out crap like "Can you see love?"
templarart 2 years ago
@templarart I can see oxytocin molecules, from conformational analysis.
OspacemarineO 1 year ago
@templarart Love is a chemical in the mind right?
demonjacobs666 1 year ago
@demonjacobs666 Yeah, chemicals and electricity, why?
templarsworld 1 year ago
@templarsworld Just trying to wrap my head around the whole "chemicals in my brain" thing.
demonjacobs666 1 year ago