On Dualism, a response to Nykytyne2

I defend Dualism against the supposed arguments of the fans of neuroscience

Category:

Education

Tags:

• neuroscience
• mind
• body
• dualism
• ramachandran

[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.

[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"

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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).

[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.