Defense of Substance Dualism against QualiaSoup, part 1

[MrCraniumExplosion]

determinism flaw?

The only way that you could possibly know that you will not accept determinism is if you could see the future (which would in itself provide support for determinism) determinism does not state that ANYBODY will know anything about anything, your acceptance or rejection of determinism is already determined but as of this moment you are as unsure of your future as every other primate is unsure of theirs.

[pumpkinghead15]

saying that ghosts would be non-physical if they existed is like me saying "if cube-shaped planets existed they would be cube-shaped" it's redundant.

[Andy152R]

@pumpkinghead15 I agree. Although substance dualism holds no water with me, from an atheist perspective, I believe spirits and ghosts can physically exist. This is due partially to the law of conservation of energy which states energy cannot be created nor destroyed, but may change form. Therefore, spiritual entities may be energy that has not yet changed completely. Since we know energy is a physical manifestation, there's a possibility of this explanation holding truth.

[pumpkinghead15]

@Andy152R where do you propose this energy comes from? O_o surely you aren't referring to the energy humans still have when they die because i can explain where that goes.

[Andy152R]

@pumpkinghead15 That one I can't answer. All I was saying is it is a mere possibility, albeit not proven. There are a few different ways death can transfer energy depending on the decomposition method I would suppose.

[Alaylyl]

if ghost or spirits exist, because you experienced them, that means that a non-physical object interacted in some ways with physical object (sounds, light or someone even claim physical force). then why you say that an object is non-physical when it can interact with physical objects? i see the first contraddiction here ,)

[manon4276]

Sorry, no cigar mate - that was possibly the most convoluted uninformed rebuttle to substance dualism I have bothered to sit through. Have you just finished first year? Don't give up.

[KWrestler21]

I don't think you understand the term "deconstruct".

[CrazyBluePrime]

Alright, I watched.

Care to define substance?

What's your point in referring to the statement of red light being a certain measurement of wavelength? I don't really see anything pertinent being suggested here.

On the concept of subjective personal reality, where are you going to be when neuroscience is able to tell what people are thinking? You're fighting a losing battle against time.

[CrazyBluePrime]

It seems like you're creating definitions and then declaring that your opposition has not explained them rather than giving an account to support your views. I'll continue watching, but this is my initial impression given the three 'discrepancies' that you list.

[beastzerkerjet]

substance dualism is a very naive position to hold; for instance to hold it you are denying that there is a problem in the interaction between 2 different substance, one which is extensible and can be broken down, and another which is inextensible and is fundamentaly so different that it may as well not exist for all the interacting with the physical substance it can do.

[OrmazdX34]

Garbage video.

[hetgroenegif]

Boy, with defenders like this, substance dualism needs no enemies.

[Venaloid]

Nobody's saying you OUGHT to adopt determinism, simply that it's true.

[dfpolis]

Well done. For a different take on this you might want to see my #22, and #25. However, just because the attack on substance dualism is fallacious does not mean that we are 2 entities. Rather the human person is a unity with material and immaterial aspects. Peace, DP

[ryan4144]

this is stupid

[12InchesUnBuffed]

@migkillertwo Your arguments and points are flawed. Nice try though. Trying to refute QS will take more than just that.

[drewski898]

this guy isn't very bright lol

[LordZentei]

@DrDeist

"If you opt for that model the onus is on you to demonstrate that subjective exerience is made of the same stuff as something else in the world that is not subjective experience; else subjective experience is unique and we have dualism based on a differentiation."

I disagree: the onus is on you to describe how substance dualism is required to explain subjective experience, else the substance of consciousness is an non-parsimonious model which doesn't advance our understanding.

[DrDeist]

@LordZentei: I wiped all my previous entries because I'm dissatisfied with their quality. You argue well and I have to devote more time to my responses. Right now I'm pressed for time so I'll have to leave this for the time being. I'll get back to you in the very near future; you're a challenging thinker and fun to debate. Au revoir and auf Wiedersehn.

[LordZentei]

@DrDeist

Thanks, it was an interesting debate. I quite enjoyed it. :)

PS: actually it's a good thing you said that, since technically I should be in the process of studying for an important test myself. (oops) Some other time, perhaps.

[LordZentei]

Substance is a physical concept, it refers to the constituent which some composite thing consists of, a thing which is not merely abstract, but an extant entity. Therefore, while "spiritual substance" is not matter of the usual sort (the kind made of atoms), it is nonetheless supposedly a set of objectively extant things/components which can be used to make things with properties dependent on the configuration of said things/components. In other words, effectively a different "kind" of matter.

[LordZentei]

@DrDeist

It is not an intellectual cheat, nor is it evading the issue: the incorporeal must be composed of something in order for the information it encompasses to be manifest. Basic information theory. As for your counterargument, as far as I can see you have offered nothing except your say so.

[LordZentei]

@DrDeist "mind can't be described in terms of thermodynamics, conservation of matter/energy, etc."

That's a pretty massive claim you're making. Do you mind backing it up with evidence of some kind? Note that the mind would be an information-processing algorithm under the materialist view (and taking place through the biological processes of the brain), so I don't really see how you come to this conclusion.

[LordZentei]

@DrDeist

I noticed that you completely ignored my challenge. Are we having a discussion here or not?

How is the claim that the mind is an information processing algorithm "arbitrary"? In what sense do you deem that the nature of the mind is "subjective", and how does that support your position and not mine?

BTW, I am not confusing the cause of the mind with the mind itself, the mind is the algorithm, the cause of this algorithm are the processes of the brain. See: neuropsychology.

[LordZentei]

@DrDeist

"Is that all it is? IP algorithms are omnipresent - even in vacuum cleaners - but even the most exalted computer is incapable of doing better than merely simulating awareness."

I did not say that all information processing algorithms are minds, merely that minds are subsets of them.

"What - you're unfamiliar with subjective experience? I'm debating a computer?"

Good grief. The fact that experience is subjective says nothing about the nature of mind in the general sense.

[LordZentei]

BTW: you're still ignoring my challenge.

[LordZentei]

@DrDeist

OK, so just how is subjectivity essentially different from mere information or the processing thereof or anything else that we know to exist?

[LordZentei]

@DrDeist

We don't see information capable of subjectivity, except in the case of the information processing of a mind. ;)

See, this is the problem I have with the "subjectivity" argument: it seems too much like begging the question. Minds have subjectivity, and subjectivity isn't A, B or C, by definition, therefore minds cannot consist of A, B or C.

Personally, I cannot know for certain that anyone other than myself experiences subjectivity. I give them the benefit of the doubt because they...

[LordZentei]

(cont)

have brains structured similarly as my own. If I did not give this benefit of the doubt, then I might conclude that they're just automata programmed to act as if they experienced subjectivity. However, if I give the benefit of the doubt to other humans because their brains are similar to mine, it follows that I must give the same benefit of the doubt to a construct with similar structure. Hence my assumption that something thinks as I do is dependent on the physical.

[LordZentei]

@DrDeist

OK, I posted my response before your second post. If the subjective is emergent from the physical, then there is no need for dualism, since we can derive the description of our subjective experiences from the properties of the physical from which it emerges. I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "once it comes into its own being" in this context.

[LordZentei]

@DrDeist

And that's the problem I have with Dualism. It's basically an altered form of the theistic argument from ignorance in disguise: "we cannot understand this mind business in physical terms, therefore dualism". But it doesn't actually provide a testable explanatory framework for a theory of the mind, and asserts that we shouldn't be looking in the physical. It's AT BEST level with the physical explanation in terms of explanatory power, but with the added defect of not being parsimonious.

[LordZentei]

(cont)

At worst, its beginning to increasingly lag behind new studies into neuropsychology.

BTW: The fact that our subjective experience does not work in the same way as the matter of which our brains are composed doesn't mean anything: see how the world of quantum mechanics is radically different from the physics of macroscopic objects, and yet the macroscopic is not only emergent from QM but can be inferred from it.

[LordZentei]

@DrDeist "The macro world is reducible to QM; subjectivity isn't reducible to the physical."

Prove it.

[LordZentei]

@DrDeist

Um, what? This wasn't my argument at all. Please review my post. And you misunderstand science if you think that it somehow claims that subjectivity doesn't exist. Obviously we have subjective experiences, and science wouldn't bother insisting on objective methodology if it claimed subjectivity didn't actually exist. That we have different subjective experiences does not negate the idea that the mind is emergent from the physical, since our brains are separate entities.

[LordZentei]

@DrDeist

Subjective experience is very much a subject for study in neuropsychology and other cognitive sciences, though it is still relatively young as far as sciences go. Subjectivity is not considered reliable as a guide for investigation because its conclusions differ so radically between investigators, whereas objective study does not differ this way. Objectivity is not subjective just because we each experience it individually: that smacks rather of word-play if you don't mind my saying so.

[LordZentei]

@DrDeist "Neuropsychology is interested in subjective experience as event but has no hope of knowing its essence since its essence is not describable in material terms."

This again.

"I'm not engaging in word-play. All the knowable world is phenomenal; science is no exception to this rule. All phenomena are subjective. True objectivity is a myth."

Good grief. You're actually ignoring the reality of consistency of independent measurements? It is indeed word play you're guilty of.

[LordZentei]

You do not need perfect accuracy to claim that you are making objective measurements. This argument of yours is basically a black white fallacy of the highest order. Moreover, it has nothing to do with the question of the nature of the mind nor the idea that objectivity itself is a myth.

"QT is already indicating to us that there are limits to the ambit of our knowing."

Classical misconception of QT: nature is *inherently* random, its not simply a veil to our detection capabilities.

[LordZentei]

@DrDeist

And in return I can say that subjectivity doesn't really exist: after all, as soon as you have made any measurement at all you have some knowledge and therefore perfect subjectivity doesn't exist. Or rather, the subjective is a manifestation of the objective, only with more or less information available.

More to the point of our discussion, the imperfection of measurements doesn't prove in any way, shape or form that the mind cannot be understood without substance dualism.

[LordZentei]

Video: "you can't say we ought to adopt hard determinism if hard determinism is true ... because ought implies can".

Silliest argument ever. That we "ought" to adopt hard determinism simply means that it is the logical view to adopt. That has nothing to do with whether we have "free will" to do so. Determinism might require us to reach that conclusion. That we "can" do something =/= free will. Neither does determinism require that we adopt one specific answer: see analytical computer programs.

[bobplatypus]

2:05 is that auto-tuned?

[clcoc20s]

Way to load up on Burden of Proof arguments. There's so much wrong with your argument. You dicing up two sound bites and turning into a 10 minute yawnfest is just the beginning.

[STFUNOWlol]

What's the difference between mental and physical? Who says we have free will? Who says identity is preserved?

Where are you getting this stuff from?

[mindhypnotized]

You appear to be assuming that all physicalism is reductive physicalism. You are aware that there are such things as non-reductive physicalisms, right? A reductive explanation is not required for the truth of all types of physicalism.

[greyeyedfire]

If ghosts and spirits are real, they don't necessarily need to be physical.

[IsometricCube]

"Hard determinism is true"

is a statement made by me without free will. It is not necessary to say that we "ought" to adopt it. I don't care if you do. I'm just saying its true.

[AdamLore]

Excellent response.

[TheIlluminerdi]

You're using 380 year old philosophy to try and rebut extremely current scientific findings. The mind is what the brain does and there are countless recent examples of brain lesions; psychotropic substances; and EEG, fMRI, and CT scans to show us this.  Your brain contains your personality, your body, your thoughts and intentions, and everything that is you.

[alexkidd3d]

hmm, feels weak, I don't see any of the arguments of this video really being addressed.

[martiangrundy]

NO, you're NOT the same person you were 20 years ago.

You have changed BOTH mentally, AND physically.

You do not think the same way. Or I rather hope you don't.

Your own physical body is also different, it has grown, and is no longer made from the same material it was back in the past.

Further, to suggest that substance is NOT physical surely needs a little more than merely asserting it?

Do we have ANY evidence at all to suggest this? To posit "IF ghosts and spirits" exist, needs some evidence

[sciocont]

This video relies on the flawed assumption that we have free will. We don't. Everything in this universe is an effect of something else happening, even acts of a conscious observer.

[sciocont]

Your argument against is is completely invalid to the explanation for it. The argument isn't that we can't make decisions, because obviously we can, the argument is that we can only possibly decide one way based on effects of past events.

[fygquas]

ok?

[fygquas]

"If physicalism's true, we should be able to reduce the subjective nature of experience to objective, thirdperson terms".

Experience's created by associations in the subject's brain. In order to make whatever the subject is experiencing in his brain accessible for you or me, we need a scientist to create a subject (have a human born) and then have his neural networks connected to your brain or the brain of anyone who wanted to experience this subject's experience? We ought to be able to do it

[ElectricM]

Poorly reasoned, even more poorly argued. A mealy mouthed mumbler who has nothing coherent or relevant to say.

[Smidge204]

Are you REALLY the same person you were ten years ago?

I know I'm not. If I dig around and find my old school assignments, drawings, writings, etc. it's quite clear to me that both my preferences, ideals, manners and views are all markedly different today. Sometimes dramatically so.

If you've been on the internet for more than 5 years or so, try Googling your own name/handles and read the stuff you wrote way back when and tell me you're still that same person.

[snownet]

I like how in your begging the question slide, you beg the question for the existence of ghosts.

[jcadwell1172]

qualia soup owns you.

[grandslam841]

ur arguments are bullshit. compatibilism is true! accept the facts, Natzi.

[Lazzzyeye]

Just a suggestion, your arguments would sound more convincing if you rehearsed them and did retakes on the lines you didn't nail. Ums, ahs and breaks give the subconscious impression that you're not sure what you're talking about.

I'm still yet to be swayed from Qualia soups position, but keep up the fight :)

[Chuichupachichi]

You've approached this matter from the wrong angle. By definition "substance" is indeed "physical" or "material". Thus, that is not truly where the argument is at. "QualiaSoup" is still incorrect but not regarding substance being only material. You have to correctly identify his incorrectness. It lays in the fact that he argues against something which the Monist must also recognize. He says "non physical substance is literally meaningless". But in this context, that's referring to the mind

[Chuichupachichi]

Thus, by default, his argument unwittingly implies that the mind or consciousness is material or substance. He can't deny the existence of the mind and he can't assert that the mind is material. Thus, he must also recognize it's non physical, actual existence... precisely what he argued against

I've posted comments on his video where you can obtain more info to add to what you currently know. Keep taking the fight to them... Monists are simply wrong! It stems from Humanism, thus, predetermined

[Chuichupachichi]

Always approach any matter by reducing it to its simplest form. This will guide you in clearly understanding the truths to the matter from which you can build your argument

This particular matter reduced to its simplicity is that Monists are materialists. The fact is that the mind is immaterial. That should tell you everything that's wrong with their picture. Yet, they're trying to claim the mind as their own. Meaning that its state of existence is in accordance with their world view

[Towelietowel]

@Chuichupachichi

"he can't assert that the mind is material"

I'm sorry, but if you think Neurobiology cannot assert that the mind is material, you just haven't done your research.

What evidence do you have to assert that the mind is incorporeal?

[GBart]

"The difference between mental and physical states" - what difference? Computer software is ultimately a set of physical states too.

Free agency exists insofar as the consequences of the minutia of neural activity cannot be determined w/o affecting them.

ought doesn't necessarily imply can, but inability does render an ought moot.

Regarding personhood - Are the "America" of the past and of the present the same? The people are different, the government has changed, the land has changed.

[VeryEvilPettingZoo]

There are a few points in here I take issue with. But rather than jumping in with an argument, there's something really irksome about this video that I want to comment on.

It's ridiculous that this video has 2 1/2 stars on 66 ratings. I disagree with it too, but that's not a good reason to one-star a video (unless it's really offensive - Holocaust deniers and such). Agree or not, Mig did research, had good production values, and put forth a clear and cogent argument.

5 stars... bitches

[shlockofgod]

The reasoning here gives me a headache from the start. It's hard just trying to keep up with some of the assertions you make you just as asides.

Qualiasoups arguments are much simpler and explain the same things without all these contortions.

[WannabeTesla]

If you want to show hard determinism is self-refuting, you definitely should create another video. Your criticism only applies to moral judgments made by a hard determinist. You may be able to argue that a hard determinist has no logical foundation on which to make moral judgments in which he or she claims something "ought" to be done, but this does not demonstrate a self-contradiction, merely an inconsistency between the individuals ontology and ethics.

[LordKilmir]

Non-physical substances are meaningless. If ghosts or spirits exist they would have to interact with something physical, making them physical entities as well. If there is no interaction at all then there is no way to observe them and that is as much non-existence as we can define.

Your argument for subjective experience also fails. It *is* theoretically possible to reconstruct your experience. Practically this is not possible because it entails knowing every neuron and connection in your brain

[LordKilmir]

You have a flawed perception of determinism. It states that everything follows from the previous state. What you call Free Agency is just an illusion, whatever you do is actually determined by everything that has lead up to that point. There is quite good evidence for this.

Personal Identity does change over time as you accumulate more experience. You can observe direct identity changes by serious brain damage or alteration (drugs). This is evidence that Personal Identity is not separate.

[ra0912]

"Hard determinism...is self-refuting..."

Really? This I gotta hear.

"...because ought implies can."

What? How is that relevant? And then you follow with this crazy non sequitur analogy about the civil war. Yeah, not gonna bother with the rest of this video.

[teo64x]

Your thinking is highly flawed.

Free will is not an argument for dualism, because monist philosophies (at least mine) can account for it (for example, that it is simply an illusion of our conscious mind).

Then you claim that a purely physical world view does not explain things like spirits and ghosts. Well, again, it does: It suggest that they do not exist.

[teo64x]

Then, in the end, you say that nobody can perceive your mental states the way you do. Well, yes again. This is a matter of a point of perception.

You are a function of your own brain, while others are functions of their own brains. You cannot expect anyone to experience it the way you do (from the inside). But, given the required technology, others can definitely experience your thoughts and mental states in some visual (or other) format, even if it's not the same format you perceive them in.

[Finkeren]

Wow this is really weak sauce:

1. QS's video did account for the difference between the mental and physical.

2. You never present an argument for what constitutes free will.

3. Personal identity is not static by any means. I certainly hope that you're not the same person you were when you were 3 years old.

4. QS criticised the fact that dualists always rely on terms normally used to describe the physical world, it was not an argument against the dualist concept as such.

[Finkeren]

5. You don't even adress QS's central point, that any explanation of what "non-physical substance" is explains nothing.

6. No, "redness" is NOT a certain wavelenght of light, it is our nervous-systems interpretation of that wavelength.

7. The fact that we can now build digital hearing (and seeing) aides that can make people who are born deaf or blind experience sights and sounds more or less destroys your argument.

[soultorment27]

@migkillertwo:

you are conflating determinism with fatalism. i would agree that fatalism is self refuting. but determinism on the other hand, is not. determinism is not self refuting because unlike fatalism, the future is not already 'predetermined'. fatalism is within the philosophy of time, and that's the big difference...

[enotdetcelfer]

In determinism, the localized attribution of patterns to your body as an autonomous (ie not attached to anything) effect is all that is required to define a personhood. Determinism doesn't require you to "do" anything different, just recognize that the language of choice is a convenience that merely recognizes a calculation in progress, not a separation of effect and cause. I'd love to see your video on determinism. Is it on the to do list? I have not yet checked your channel. Cheers.

[derre98]

I would like to hear your objections to hard determinism as so far I haven't heard any I like and I'm a determinist.

A comment about the nature of subjective experience... I believe it is possible to understand and image these states fully, however this task might be too large for human brain already occupied by another state. It might also be possible to copy/experience the state first hand however this would at some level overwrite the old state of the brain.

[greycloud24]

i beleive we simply do not have the words to express our subjective experience. however as evidence that even perception is physical i urge you to look into bionic eyes which are new in technology. we have replicated vision using physical laws in people who were previously blind. this says a lot about the fact that even our senses and perception are physical in nature.

[greycloud24]

i change every second and am no longer the same person i was a second ago. the illusion of identity persists because i retain memories of what i have done in the past.

[greycloud24]

i am a determinist. please refute me.

[MustbeTheBassest]

migkillertwo,

I really appreciate your approach to this argument. You're definitely going for logic and objective reasons here, but i really don't see any valid arguments... You just seem to be nitpicking on vocabulary.

For example, the idea of whether or not a mental state is physical or not, is a non-issue... We all agree an 'idea' isn't physical, though that doesn't proof the existence of a soul.

You should focus more on providing evidence for your position, instead of semantics...

[88wDavidw88]

Why is an idea nonphysical? The electrons that make up the coded information of memories and ideas, the nerons and pathways of the brain all have mass. There is no part of your body or brain that isnt subject to the laws of physics and for a ''non physical'' idea to have any effect on a physical organ such as the brain it would have to be physical.

[MustbeTheBassest]

The reason I would consider an idea to be non-physical would be because there is no atomic signature for the idea itself...

I absolutely agree the 'process' of creating or interpreting an idea is a physical one, as you mentioned. Even the storage of an idea is a physical process. Though the concept itself has no physical matter...

(see next reply)

[greycloud24]

@MustbeTheBassest the atomic signature for the idea itself in 3+t dimensions and is difficult to conceptualize. the idea is a pattern of neural firing which is made up of the movement of sodium and potasium as well as neurotransmitters and calcium through the neural pathway of the brain, some of which must pass through the cerebral cortex.

[MustbeTheBassest]

Take a math concept like the number 0 (zero). Sure it takes a physical process to comprehend and recognize it. But the idea or concept of it can be stored and/or recreated anywhere or by anything.

The concept of zero, can be put on paper, a screen, or in a human brain. Or it can be completely forgotten or relearned by any creature capable of this level of math.

Again, I'm not saying this DOESN'T relate to the physical world. I'm simply stating that it not being physical doesn't prove anything

[88wDavidw88]

The comprehension and recogniton of an idea then does makes it a physical thing. The number zero doesnt exist without some physical thing to carry the physical information ie. before you held that information it was held somewere else in the physical world. I didnt mean to take an agressive tone, it is just my understanding that the information is always physically passed on or influenced in appearent inspiration and is never plucked from the ether so to speak.

[greycloud24]

@MustbeTheBassest oh but an idea is physical. an idea is made up of the impressions upon neurons and is recalled when the neurons fire in a particular pattern. an idea is made up of sodium and potasium, as these are the chemicals used in firing neurons.

i don't believe in non-physical entities. even ideas are physical, however we percieve them (likewise physical entities) to be something that they are not.

[urbster1]

You really have no idea how the brain works, do you?

[waterhud]

An organization of multiple people can have every single person replaced, but still be the same organization. The new people just have to learn how to be replacements.

A brain can have every one of it's neurons replaced, but still be the only thing that represents the same person that it has always represented.

You have wasted an hour of my life, I hate you >:(

[bamboo4tameshigiri]

Kid, you don't have the slightest clue.

[bigboy45454545]

"I defend Substance Dualism and deconstruct QualiaSoup's video point-by-point"

migkillertwo

______________________________

You did? All you did was make false assumptions about Metaphysics. Metaphysics has been busted years ago, for the bullshit that it is.

I guess you didn't get the email?

This video is just Philosophy bullshit, with no evidence.

[legodesi]

the content of QualiaSoup's video was also metaphysical arguments.

when did metaphysics get busted? i must have not attended school that day? how did it get busted?

[KabaneTheChristian]

I think someone needs to grow past the google phase.

[Pumbaelo]

mig, what if I'm an eliminatavist and deny what you think needs to be accounted for?

[migkillertwo]

@Pumbaelo I made it clear that you could outright deny them, and still account for them.

[xxxrokkstarrxxx]

@migkillertwo

Why do you even bother to make videos still when you pretty much get pwned own every point, every time, in every case? You might as well be arguing for geocentrism, I mean it is THAT bad.

Dualism is dead. Get over it and live your life, get over this grandiose obsession with living forever.

[Pumbaelo]

Thanks for telling us. We will all change our minds now.

[xxxrokkstarrxxx]

@Pumpaelo

No one will change their minds, that is the plight of stupidity. Combined with a morbid enthusiasm for never dying and it makes the perfect set-up for the substance dualist.

[Pumbaelo]

Of course. These are words of wisdom.

[KabaneTheChristian]

Shouldn't you be out living your life to the fullest?

[Pumbaelo]

That would be interesting.

What's your position? I think I recall you talking about hylemorphic dualism or something like that.

[ignatei]

I don't understand why your video is so down rated... :(

[notonewhit]

If you'd like a truly informed lecture on this topic, search Itunes Raymond Tallis: Darwin College lectures, Idenity and the mind.

[FatGermanBastard]

If you come accross convincing arguments for hard determinism then that means the underlying causal chain allows for the belief. This is not self refuting.

[tyrantslayer999]

Myonly problem with this video is that you called the civil war the civil war. The War for Southern Independence! Haha, great vid man.

[miregalobsoleshongib]

"i am the same person as i was ten years ago"

sure?

what about all the experiance you experienced in this 10 years did they realy didn't change you?

it's like if you touched a hot hotplate you propably won't touch it again so this experiance changed you're acting and so youre person

(sorry for my english its nor my mothertunge)

[MarcinP2]

The properties apparently changed, but there is nothing to suggest the person is not the same.

If I polish a spoon it's still the same spoon.

I think it is safe to assume you are not a person who was for example injected into the body when you woke up this morning with just the memories of person who died previous morning when he went to sleep.

Sure you could not prove the world was not created 5 seconds ago with false evidence of its past, but it's a good assumption. ;)

[GwydionMapDon]

If "you" are defined as your mental states, it is obvious that your mental states are not accessible to that which is not "you." That does not speak to whether or not those mental states are nonphysical. They would be equall inaccessible to other beings whether or not physicalism were true. Physicalism is sufficient, however, for accounting for mental states, and for the private nature of mental states. No dualism is required. Mental states are describable by physical states.

[GwydionMapDon]

...You don't have to possess that physical state to describe it.

[GwydionMapDon]

When I say that physical states are describable by physical states, I should say that they are actually equivalent. But you can point to one physical state and say, this is the "mental" state X.

[GwydionMapDon]

Your "redness" counterexample of SOR conflates the descriptive explanation for color with the phenomenological apprehension of it.

What is perfectly sound to do is to redefine "redness" that is a property of an object with "reflecting light with a wavelength of 650 nm."  No one is redefining phenomenological redness as wavelengths of light. That would be like arguing ad naseum about a tree falling in the forest without realising that the important factor is how you define sound.

[Antisyncretism]

So many atheists seem to hate philosophy as something meaningless.

People who thing philosophy is meaningless and cant tell us anything are misologists (haters of logic).

[Dhorpatan]

@Antisyncretism

Hahaha! That's what Christianity is; Misology. See Proverbs 1:7

It is irrational to begin knowledge on fear.

[Antisyncretism]

To fear YHWH is in this verse means also to reverently acknowledge Him a basic from which to gain knowledge from.

"but fools despise wisdom and discipline".

Dhorpatan why do you love being so irrelevant, you didnt even say anything about the fact that most atheists on youtube in a bout of 'misology' show contempt towards philosophical discussion.

[Dhorpatan]

@Antisyncretism

Where in the verse does it say "to reverently acknowledge him a basic from which to gain knowledge from"? If you can't show where it explicitly says that, then your Ad Hoc rationalization of it fails.

[Antisyncretism]

No Dhorpatan its not a rationisation, its a proper exegesis, i study the Bible you dont, i care about what the Bible says, you dont.

I also prefer REAL discussions and you dont im not going to reply again i know what you are like

[Dhorpatan]

@Antisyncretism

It's an Ad Hoc Rationalization. You cannot make assumptions on something, where your claims have no explicit basis whatsoever.

it's just a retcon, and fails accordingly. Who cares if you don't reply again. You're just another Christan Occultist who believes in Invisible magic beings and nonsense about the world ending when some all powerful God feels like it. You can hardly be trusted with logical and reasonable extrapolation.

[sum1unxpected]

"So many atheists seem to hate philosophy as something meaningless."

no, we just hate bullshit.

[Antisyncretism]

nup i think what i said the first time seems to fit youtube atheist behaviour better, besides is you were so interested you would properly implicate certain conclusions from the premise of Atheism, certain conclusions which no atheist i have ever spoken to has come to.

LOL point in fact as seen from yet another example of this misology from bigboy "This video is just Philosophy"

I have spoken the truth.

[Antisyncretism]

nup i think what i said the first time seems to fit youtube atheist behaviour better, besides if atheists wre so interested they would implicate certain conclusions from the premise of atheism, certain conclusions which NO atheist i have ever spoken to has come to (at least that they made known).

LOL just scroll down for a point in fact as i've seen yet another example of this misology, this time from bigboy "This video is just Philosophy"

I have spoken the truth.

[sum1unxpected]

"if atheists wre so interested they would implicate certain conclusions from the premise of atheism, certain conclusions which NO atheist i have ever spoken to has come to"

what conclusions?

bigboy is wrong. this video isn't just philosophy bullshit, it's just bullshit.

[Antisyncretism]

never you mind about these conclusions sum1, im not expecting you to come to them either, after all you do seem to be just another hater of philosophy, and this is indeed to hate logic.

[GwydionMapDon]

The only way you can assert that ghosts are nonphysical is if you define them that way.

[GwydionMapDon]

Why must there be a difference between mental and physical states? Why can't mental states be a subset of physical states?

[GwydionMapDon]

On determinism, that was no refutation you offered. You introduced "ought," a normative term when determinism in itself is descriptive.