Hanovers approach doesn't require any exposition beyond pointing to what we all know. — frank
It is undisputed that there are (1) minds and (2) bodies. I count two things, which means it is undisputed that dualism is the case.
Neither property nor substance has succeeded in the sense of putting the question to rest for philosophers or scientists. — frank
It is undisputed that there are (1) minds and (2) bodies. I count two things, which means it is undisputed that dualism is the case.
For instance, it isn't remotely obvious that this is good counting — Kenosha Kid
Then I guess Hanover was doomed, since his position is supposed to be that substance dualism succeeds. — Kenosha Kid
Is this really an accurate generalization? — Cheshire
It's obvious to your doctor. — frank
Succeeds at what? — frank
I hope not. Most doctors need to handle computers these days. I don't want mine falling to pieces because she thinks hers is either conscious or cannot possibly work. I can say nothing about your doctor except maybe keep an eye out for a better one. — Kenosha Kid
Is the program execution on my doctor's computer a mind or a body? — Kenosha Kid
Same sort of thing as a body. Quartz clock, registers, blah blah blah. Why? — frank
The physicalist description of mind is that it's something the brain _does_, so describing it in a way that fits in very well with that doesn't seem like a compelling argument against physicalism. But maybe there's better dualist arguments I haven't heard yet. — Kenosha Kid
floating in space like grapes in a Jello salad — T Clark
Because neurons, synapses, blah blah blah. — Kenosha Kid
There's the argument that the mind is something the brain _does_ and vice versa, the brain is something the mind does. The idea that it's a two-way street — Olivier5
And if there was any science to show that, you could go in that direction. There isn't. — frank
What makes property dualism worth the evil of being open-ended confusion? — frank
I have no idea, not a dualist, all sounds crazy to me. Property pluralism, fine, but that's nothing to do with minds and bodies. — Kenosha Kid
What makes property dualism worth the evil of being open-ended confusion?
— frank
I have no idea — Kenosha Kid
I'm not arguing against dualism per se, only against SD and thereby not undermining PD at all, especially as the latter is only epistemic whereas the former – your (Descartes') position – is extravagantly ontic. (Occam's, anyone?)
As Searle said, the man on the street is a Cartesian. — frank
What's the draw of property dualism? It takes a tiny bit of philomind to answer that. Last time I talked to 180 he came up pretty short in that area, so I don't expect much — frank
But that's an idealist argument, no? Not dualist. — Kenosha Kid
Not to my mind. It is dualist in that it postulates the existence of minds and bodies as two different things, provides a possible reason why bodies might have developed minds through evolution (because minds are needed, they do something that cannot be done without them) and describes a realistic relationship between bodies and minds. — Olivier5
What's a vox pop? — frank
Now that sounds like physicalist — Kenosha Kid
Why not 2 types of stuff. Stuff and the information about stuff. — Cheshire
Why yes, science is based on a dualist framework (empiricism + rationalism), so a logical form of scientism or physicalism would include the mind as the central place where science happens. — Olivier5
Does it happen in the mind, though? Yes, I see the results of the experiment or work out the theory. But that's not science yet. I need to get people to agree with it, ideally reproduce it, force me to defend it, in which case I'm dealing directly with objects not minds (although minds are the best explanation for those particular objects' behaviours). — Kenosha Kid
The validation you seek is from other minds. — Olivier5
I'm not a fan of simulation theory because it has a built in infinite regression. But, suppose you wanted to build it; you would have to have some way of informing matter how it is to be arranged. Supposedly we could vaporize an object and the information about what it was remains.Information _about_ stuff? Because all information about any system is in the system. Any copies of the system's information are, at best, just that -- copies -- at worst, erroneous, and typically incomplete. This is why simulation theory fails for me: the most efficient way to simulate a universe is to build it. — Kenosha Kid
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.