On Dualism, a response to Nykytyne2

[GBart]

Saying neuroscience can't prove monism but it can prove a causal link between neurons and mental states is like saying that meteorology can't prove that lightning is the result of static electricity in clouds (and not Zeus, say), but that it can show a causal link.

[migkillertwo]

*bangs head on desk*

A better analogy would be "Saying neuroscience can't prove monism is like saying that meteorology can't prove that lightning is static electricity", which it can't, it can't prove the sort of identity relationship.

[GBart]

I don't feel like watching his video again, but I don't think the argument was that it violates energy conservation. It's that any effect this spiritual plane has on the physical world would necessarily have physical consequences that don't simply result from other things happening in the physical world (why else would a non-physical plane be invoked at all?). That, I would say, actually makes it physical by definition, even if it can observe the universe without changing it - impossible here.

[voidCaptain]

If Nykytyne2 isn't responding, perhaps you should try to get a video response to this guy:

watch?v=gcEV_HsIdBI

[Skabadadoosh]

The problem with your point about how atoms change is that it only serves against non-functionalist physicalist accounts of the mind. Functionalism, on the other hand, holds that the mind is constituted by a particular class of functional relations of the parts of a system, and thus if changing an atom bears no consequence on the functional dynamics, then the mind's identity is preserved.

It turns out that the functional dynamics of the neurons are in flux anyway. So, too, is the mind, though.

[otakurocklee]

Nice video. Your points illustrate why dualism is the most common sense position to take. Only a soul could explain personal identity over time.

[mbturner625]

As an INTP it is very hard for me NOT to correct inconsistencies even in casual conversation

[mbturner625]

it is always important to recognize logical fallacies in others arguments.

[emblemOFbeing]

The problem is our one size fits all theory of MATTER, as inherited from Newton. Structure and time must be taken into account, and then we're closer to a scientific solution without a reduction to materialism or opting for an impossible dualism (as in Cartesian dualism).

[theonlyway2truth]

off topic....isn't there an actually infinite amount of possible worlds?

[TheStig000]

"Pray tell" god what a stupid phrase.

[migkillertwo]

no rebuttal. How predictable.

[facilisdescenus]

Do you hold to Thomistic dualism like Moreland does? or a more traditional dualism?

[urbster1]

If dualism were true, why should you be more worried more about being shot in the head than being shot in the arm? Why would a bullet to the brain kill you instantly when a bullet to the arm would only kill you, by, for example, causing the loss of blood to your brain? Why should our brains be so important? What don't our brains do that our soul does do? Are there fairies that live inside my computer when it's on? Why can't I find this video when I look inside? Can you answer any of these?

[migkillertwo]

apparently you dont understand the words "causal relationship"

[urbster1]

Well that's not good enough! Please enlighten me, O master of languages, so that I may not wallow in ignorance forever, if ye be such a generous and kind man, etc etc

[nosoliciting0911]

migkiller is known for her corny one liners. you want her to produce evidence to support her position? shame on you. i bet you made itty bitty migkiwwah cry.

[urbster1]

Mig, I understand what it means for something to cause something. You didn't explain anything in that sentence. My brain causes the functions of my mind because of complex computations. There is NO REASON to believe in a soul, or a mind separate from the brain. Our brains are so complex that we don't understand every aspect of how they work YET, there is still work to be done, just like the weather is so complex that we can do basic weather predictions but can't predict accurately past ~5 days

[jaynkay100]

Mig...you wrote:

"We cannot use physics to comment on mind/body dualism."

And you wonder why neuroscientists don't believe in dualism? Are you aware that metaphysics isn't a legitimate science??

Imbecile...

[migkillertwo]

"Are you aware that metaphysics isn't a legitimate science??"

Moron, you're using science as a second-order discipline.

and no one says that metaphysics is a science.

[jaynkay100]

"Moron. You're using science as a second-order discipline."

How very christian of you...

To say the soul is by its very nature a meta-physical construct and not a matter of observable reality, is a tacit admission the soul is fictitious.

Also science cannot be used as a second order discipline, which would be required to make any proof for a soul.

Your assumptions are wrong by your own tacit admission.

[facilisdescenus]

[And you wonder why neuroscientists don't believe in dualism?]

This is patently false. I would name some neuroscientists and hilosophers of mind who accept some form of dualism but you would probably dismiss them.

[WizardofCalculus]

facil --This is correct, but that is not a logical problem, that's an evidence problem. Just because someone doesn't actually prove that authorities say "X is false" does not mean that it is an appeal to authority. The two are completely unrelated. An fallacious appeal to authority is only when you appeal to an authority which is not an actual authority; what you're talking about is only failing to substantiate a claim.

[Deliratio]

what's sort of interesting is that even a good number of atheists like to be dualists (but only few of them subscribe to cartesian dualism).

[hallcyon]

What do you understand about neuroscience? Answer what is a soul?

[hallcyon]

Soul? Wtf is that? Explain yourself. Read Damasio.

[plukethep]

or Gluck?

[WizardofCalculus]

(part2 of the last text)

A false appeal to authority only happens when the appeal is to an opinion of a person who's not an authority on the issue.

An appeal to popularity, or ad populum, fallacy only occurs when the topic at hand is not a relevant to the opinion of the majority. Nyk wasn't claiming that X group of people stated Y, and therefore he was right. He stated an authority agreed on a particular issue, and therefore counts as evidence against a particular belief.

[WizardofCalculus]

Almost correct. It is valid to appeal to authority (or in this case, an appeal to consensus of authorities) when the person(s) is an actual scholar or authority on a topic is not a logical fallacy.

It is not sufficient to end all doubts on the matter, but consulting and citing a nuclear physicist on radio active decay, for example, is an example of a valid appeal to authority.

[facilisdescenus]

But he didn't cite any sources for his claim.

[WizardofCalculus]

Oh, and that's not an ad populum. It's a (valid) appeal to authority.

[migkillertwo]

I suggest you watch JohnLArmstrong's "Debuking Christian apologetics: Scholars say". This is an appeal to authority and an ad populum fallacy. "Shut up, I'm the expert" isn't a valid argument.

[WizardofCalculus]

Dude, his name is nykotyne. As in "nicotine". As in "Nick-O-teen".

His argument is not an appeal to ignorance, also, by the by.

[Hooya2]

Why assume the mind uses physical energy to interact with the brain? Because that's the only energy we know of, and it's what every known process uses. You're using special pleading.

Again, it doesn't prove you're wrong--your special pleading could be correct--but again it's evidence against your case.

[Hooya2]

When you defended that lack of a supernatural-affecting-natural mechanism, I thought of an astrologer:

"How can the position of the stars...?"

"We don't know that, but that doesn't mean it's impossible."

Of course it doesn't prove anything, but your lack of a mechanism is still evidence against your position; pretending the argument can be effortlessly dismissed as a mere fallacy is disingenuous.

[Christus94]

you have an older brother?

[infinit888]

So what if the atoms get 'recycled'?

It's like you are arguing that the empire state building should collapse if we were to change a window.

[migkillertwo]

because if the identity is not found in the material which makes up the body, then we have 2 options

1: There is no identity, there is no enduring "self". But that flies in the face of our own personal experience

2: The identity is in something non-material

[infinit888]

"because if the identity is not found in the material which makes up the body, then we have 2 options"

First of all this is a false dichotomy. Second nobody is arguing that the identity is found 'in the material' (You would never argue that a processors calculation skills are found 'in the material'. Atoms can't calculate and they can't be conscious) but it emerges from these complex chemical interactions.

Kill the process kill the self - manipulate the process manipulate the self.

[Ishta5]

because if the identity is not found in the material which makes up the body, then we have 2 options

1: There is no identity, there is no enduring "self". But that flies in the face of our own personal experience

2: The identity is in something non-material

3: the personality is the sum of its parts, a house is not a nail or a brick it is the pattern you arrange it in.

[Ishta5]

emergence

watch?v=5E9DoN_5BjY&feature=re­lated

watch?v=HnO_MKHG_Lo

[TrenchantAtheist]

Nykytyne2 was merely playing Devil's advocate -- he wasn't agreeing with your presupposition about the soul's existence.

You still have to show that metaphysics is a valid line of inquiry and show that the actually soul exists before any of your arguments become coherent.

[TrenchantAtheist]

correction: "that the soul actually exists..."

[Mjhavok]

If there is such ignorance with regards to a causal mechanism in which immaterial will communicates with material and vice versa, why would you believe it?

[smpunditz]

It's not an appeal to ignorance if there is no evidence that there is any immaterial force such as a soul to begin with.

[Hez0]

Arguments for dualism are much like arguments for intelligent design, in the sense that there's no scientific argument to make for either, so proponents will try poke holes in neuroscience/evolution instead.

Also, neuroscience (being a science), deals with things that can be tested, not magical non-explanations like "the soul did it!". Which is why virtually all of neuroscience doesn't take dualism seriously.

Also, Occams Razor.

[Ishta5]

one person has separate experiences and not the same thoughts and the only thing in common is a common earlier history. One believes the other half dose not.

When a split brain person smells something and says I did not smell anything but is able to point out what he smelled. Who smelled it? Why is the magical mind cut in two along with the brain.

[8WholeThing]

It's as if the mind is a committee of brain functions. Severing the lines of communication creates separate committees which base their models of reality on the different inputs available to each committee. This implies that the mind is a product of the physical organ and not a separate entity.

[Ishta5]

You have the same brain cells, they evolve as you learn. That is why you change. They get new connections and other are lost. The nerves are the same as you were born with. You are the pattern of atoms, no singe atom is you. You can change every atom and retain the pattern. But you can not cut the electricity in the brain and still exist. neural computer interface, you can induce experience by stimulating the brain, and they are working on a bionic eye and mind controlled robotic limbs

[Ishta5]

why should one describe the brain state the same as the mental state. It is information. Your voice is not the same in wave patterns, as it was in lights on or off in the fiber optics or electricity in wires. nor would I describe the inside of this computer the same way I describe the video. dose this mean that my computer is magical

[Ishta5]

Have found two neuroscientist who are dualist they have also signed the "Scientific dissent from Darwinism" petition, they are also involved with the discovery institute. William Dembski, praised the work of Schwartz's as being "theoretical support for the irreducibility of mind to brain". Dembski is co-editing The End of Materialism with Schwartz and Beauregard.

[LotusGreenX]

Dualism is always possible because spiritual things can always be possible since they are defined in a way to avoid falsification. However dualism is a blank assertion that must appeal to ignorance in order to convince anyone that the brain is compatible or needs some immaterial substance to "control it."

[bearpaw72]

You pronounced Nykytyne2's name wrong.

His name actually has to do with an alkaloid found in the nightshade family of plants (Solanaceae) which constitutes approximately 0.63.0% of dry weight of tobacco, with biosynthesis taking place in the roots, and accumulating in the leaves.

[Nykytyne2]

"Why does the soul have to use physical energy?"

Because if it doesn't then how can it have any sort of interaction with the brain/body?

Also you say that you do not believe that the mind causes the brain. I take it that means you think the brain does in fact cause the mind. If this is what you believe then where does the metaphysical part come in?

[migkillertwo]

"I take it that means you think the brain does in fact cause the mind."

No actually I haven't defined my position. attack it after I define it.

"where does the metaphysical part come in?"

The lack of an identity relationship between the mind and the brain

[Ishta5]

there is a lack of identity relationship between the computations and the computer. Install a software, where dose it go, why can I not open my computer and see you video in there when it is there. How come information can be retained and remain the same as light, electricity, holes in plastic. electricity is not sound nor light then how come I can see your video. There is no identity relationship. You are the emergent property of the always changing pattern in your brain

[urbster1]

This is brilliant. Thank you for continuing the computer analogy in a way that makes sense!

[Ishta5]

Now if we were to synthesis human dna and implant it in a human surrogate to grow into a human, Would this human have a mind, where did it come from

[LennyBound]

I fully agree with your claim that rejecting Cartesian substance dualism because of our inability to currently conceive of how mind and body would interact is an Appeal to Ignorance (i.e. that we potentially lack the necessary conceptual apparatus to understand how an immaterial entity could effect a material one).

[LennyBound]

With that said, I think one must also admit that the fallacy goes both ways. In other words, the substance dualist cant fully write off the possibility that our subjective qualitative experiences are, in fact, identical to physical brain-states and that we currently lack the necessary conceptual apparatus to understand what that would really mean.

[Veritas48]

BTW when he said neuroscience doesn't take dualism seriously anymore he basically lied. I just finished a 25 page paper on the influence of dualism in modern neuropsychology for one of my Master's courses and I can assure you this is not true at all. Do a PsychINFO search on the topic and you will find ROBUST literature from both neuroscientists and philosophers of psychology.

[Ishta5]

A small of self-styled anti-materialist and dualist neuroscientists held a mind-body symposium at the UN last year, arguing that science has indeed been hijacked by dogmatic materialists, who wrongly discount evidence for categorically non-physical phenomena.

how can it have all these dualist scientist and be hijacked. Sounds like the ID and ben stein

[Veritas48]

Silly monists.

[migkillertwo]

trix are for kids!

[HonestDiscussioner]

I would say he played that tape for the reason that it shows that the two halves hold different positions. It's interesting that the right side can believe in God while the left doesn't, would you say? Even if it wasn't in any way a direct response to anything you said, I think doesn't bode well for dualism.

I also think that neuroscience can, at some point, debunk the soul, for if we can see that the way the chemical\electrical signals move is purely natural, then the soul is not directing

[migkillertwo]

again, neuroscience can only show a causal relationship between the brain and the mind. Further, the split brain hemispheres doesn't bode well with monism either. Nykytyne does believe in personal identity, and that personal identity is contingent upon the brain. Now if we ask nykytyne, we have 2 persons but also 1 person.

[HonestDiscussioner]

Not EXACTLY sure what monism is, but I'll say it does bode well for the idea that there is no soul. The idea that there is no intangible thing that is guiding the brain to do and\or think what it does. I think this shows its totally natural.

[Ishta5]

there is one person, it is in the same body. It has two personalities and dose not communicate with each other on the inside. If he sees something with his left eye, he will say I did not see anything. The left arm will disagree and draw what he saw, he can look at the drawing and say. Oh I saw a cat, the left arm gets angry and draws again and he says, never mind it was a toad. How can he not know what he is experiencing

[DevoutAtheist42]

I don't understand why you think it's problematic for monism.

That sense of personal identity is contingent on the normal operation of the brain, which entails communication between the various parts. In Ramachandran's study, the brain's internal communications had been disrupted, so each internal loop formed its own, incomplete identity--exactly what monists would expect.

Nykytyne recommended "Consciousness Explained" to you; I'd also recommend "The Mind's I," by Dennett and Hofstadter.

[DevoutAtheist42]

Another recommendation: "The Origin of Consciousness in The Breakdown of The Bicameral Mind," by Julian Jaynes. It's thought-provoking even if his view of consciousness is other than the prevailing.

[ourben]

4:45

Oh my god you're stupid.

[migkillertwo]

I actually acknowledged that my argument about the process of consciousness is irrelevant.

"Oh my god you're stupid'

try to be civil ourben or you will find yourself on my blocked list.

[ourben]

1. The mind would have to use the same energy as everything else if it were to be causally connected to the brain. E=MC2, understand it.

2. Consciousness is retrocausally connected to the brain. It's been tested already. Libet et al.

3. Modern psychology understands free will to be an illusion. D Kenrick et al.

Dualism is no longer taken seriously. It's not an ad pop fallacy, it's just the way it is.

[Knowntje]

"jake is the second eldest son of his mother"

does that mean there is also a migkillerone?

[migkillertwo]

no unfortunately there is no migkillerone

[Knowntje]

"how can one person be two persons"

Haha thats a very funny sentence to hear from a someone who believes in the trinity :p

[migkillertwo]

LOLZORS!

in all seriousness though, the classical concept of the trinity posits 3 persons, but one God.

[Knowntje]

I have listened to all the (I believe 9 parts?) of Wiliam Craig's defenders class on the trinity and to be honest, I still dont understand it

[migkillertwo]

oh well. I'm not absolutely certain about trinitarianism though to be honest. I was an arian for a little bit a few months ago.

[Knowntje]

ah migkiller is a heretic :p

[migkillertwo]

in all seriousness though, I'm leaning towards trinitarian.

[Knowntje]

Well I guess you would have to because if jesus wasnt devine, how could he have died in our place?

But I dont think at all that jesus himself claimed he was God, I think this was either invented by Paul or by John or whoever wrote his gospel

[migkillertwo]

no no no, Arians do not deny that Jesus was divine or that he was the sacrifice which atoned for our sins.

But furthermore, Jesus at the end of Matt's Gospel says "go baptize in the name of hte father, the son, and the holy spirit". The word for "name" though is singular, indicating some relationship. Furthermore, what makes you think that the trinity was invented by John?

[Knowntje]

I thought arians merely saw jesus as being a prophet of God, not as being God himself

No I dont think John invented the trinity but might have invented the idea of Jesus being God, because of the beginning of John's gospel (in the beginning was the word and the word was with god and the word was god and the word was made flesh to dwell among us or something like that)

But Jesus himself never claimed to be God if you ask me

[migkillertwo]

"I thought arians merely saw jesus as being a prophet of God, not as being God himself"

No no no absolutely not. Arians are polytheists, Jesus is one God among YHWH and the Holy spirit.

Furthermore, Jesus also seems to support some sort of trinitarianism in John's Gospel. "I and my father are one" "I go up now to my father"

[Knowntje]

You mean you used to believe that there are 3 gods?

Me and the father are one seems to be refering to his purpose since he says that we also can become one with god. And God is the father of all human beings. Jesus definitely thought he had a unique position but apart from that he was just one son of god among many sons of god (the angels are often called sons of god as well)

[ukchristian28]

You were an Arian for a while a few months ago? You mean you were trinitiarian and became arian?

[Kabane52]

Arian? Uh oh....

[migkillertwo]

have you forgotten my brief stint with arianism already?

[KabaneTheChristian]

I don't remember you being Arian.

[facilisdescenus]

I think what is recycled is the molecules within the brain cells.

Water leaves and minerals diffuse out ,

[migkillertwo]

So the actual atoms in the cells of brain cells are recycled?

[facilisdescenus]

yeah

[migkillertwo]

a source would be REALLY nice.

[facilisdescenus]

I read it on Bill Craig's site. I don't know where he got it from.

[migkillertwo]

well we know thanks to the turnover of radioisotopes in small animals

[Knowntje]

actually every 7 years all the atoms that made up your body are somewhere else in the universe

[facilisdescenus]

You hold to Thomistic dualism? I heard that is what Moreland defends

[Deliratio]

Have you read "The Spiritual Brain: A Neuroscientist's Case for the Existence of the Soul"?