@khaled
I agree with dualism.

But this is where those explaining dualism and the mind body situation mess up. Every energy is physical.

The mind is desire and desire is non material but physical.

And if we count our learned cultures as part of ourselves, then yes in that sense modern post-industrial people are better at living than hunter-gatherers, since our populations are larger and our lifespans are longer, often at the expense of peoples who still practice the hunter-gatherer lifestyle. — Pfhorrest

Oh well, your idea of what it means to live better is obviously very different from mine.

Any lab mixing of chemicals suddenly sprouting life? — Protagoras

Yes.

Creation of a Bacterial Cell Controlled by a Chemically Synthesized Genome

We report the design, synthesis, and assembly of the 1.08–mega–base pair Mycoplasma mycoides JCVI-syn1.0 genome starting from digitized genome sequence information and its transplantation into a M. capricolum recipient cell to create new M. mycoides cells that are controlled only by the synthetic chromosome. The only DNA in the cells is the designed synthetic DNA sequence, including “watermark” sequences and other designed gene deletions and polymorphisms, and mutations acquired during the building process. The new cells have expected phenotypic properties and are capable of continuous self-replication.

conserved — khaled

I suppose that's the draw of substance dualism: contrary to a process or an activity, a substance is conserved over time. So substance dualism implies the immortality of the soul, whereas process dualism implies no such thing.

@Michael

And that article full of jargon is proof that scientists turned matter into life?

Any actual real life tangible evidence that I don't have to take on trust?

Any actual real life tangible evidence that I don't have to take on trust? — Protagoras

Yes. Do the experiment. The method statement is quite clear.

@Isaac
Wheres the proof?

You think an experiment designed by Elitist scientism advocates Is something I wish to replicate!

Just as valid as asking the priest for some fairy dust or tips on how to levitate.

I heard yogis claim to levitate. The method statement is quite clear.

Try it. If it doesn't work its because you didn't replicate the method!!! Take it on trust!

And that article full of jargon is proof that scientists turned matter into life? — Protagoras

The jargon is individually very basic. You can look each piece up and it won't take you very long.

You not wanting to understand it that doesn't disqualify it as proof.

Or alternatively you can simply look up "Synthetic creation of bacteria" and you'll find many more articles with much less jargon.

The mind is desire and desire is non material but physical. — Protagoras

What is "material" for you because material and physical are synonymous for me. I don't know what "non material but physical means". And I don't know about "the mind is desire" either. Seems to me way more than that.

And that article full of jargon is proof that scientists turned matter into life? — Protagoras

Yes.

Any actual real life tangible evidence that I don't have to take on trust?

I'm not sure what you're asking for. You want me to visit you and physically present you with the evidence? Because I can't do that, and it's unreasonable to expect me to. All I can do is point you to an internet page that explains that what you're asking about has been done. Whether or not you believe it is your own issue to deal with.

I wonder, do you say the same thing about evolution? That we've landed on the Moon? That the Holocaust happened? That e = mc²?

The spontaneous appearance of living organisms in some sort of inanimate chemical soup would constitute pretty definitive evidence of abiogenesis, I think. Pending that, it's all theory.

What is "material" for you because material and physical are synonymous for me. I don't know what "non material but physical means". And I don't know about "the mind is desire" either. Seems to me way more than that. — khaled

Matter, strictly speaking, is any substance that has rest mass and volume. There are aspects of the physical world that do not have rest mass or volume, e.g. the photon, and so aren't considered matter. And if we consider materialism to be the view that everything that exists is matter and physicalism to be the view that everything that exists is physical then the two are slightly different.

Although for the most part the terms are used interchangeably, so I guess you need to ask what someone specifically means by materialism.

How would your brain know that? — Olivier5

Are you asking for an argument against dualism in particular, or an account of how brains can know anything in general?

In any case, am I misremembering that you were also a panpsychist much like me? Am I confusing you with somebody else?

Oh well, your idea of what it means to live better is obviously very different from mine. — Janus

You ignore the emphasized phrase "in that sense". We were discussing what it is to be biologically alive, and to be successful at doing that, i.e. to be "good at living", in that particular sense. You sound like you are conflating that with some kind of phenomenological or ethical notion of "living well" ala eudaimonia or such, which is a completely different sense.

No, I am not a panpsychist. Panpsychism is a form of idealism; doesn't cut my cake.

You said that dualism can be proven false a priori. Would you mind trying to do so?

Have you considered that, if better or worse brain structures makes for better or worse thinking as you were arguing above, it could well be that your brain structure is deficient, making it unable to properly understand dualism...

@khaled
My friend is an experienced scientist who works in biotech.
We have had long talks on these issues and he explained the jargon.

He finally admitted he couldn't square how life actually started from matter,or how DNA replicates.

If you want to know what non material but physical is raise your hand and observe.

@Michael

Extraordinary claims like that require very strong evidence. I can't take that on trust.

As @Olivier5 has said wouldn't that research constitute definitive evidence of abiogenesis?

Are you also aware that scientific research has a replication problem?

The sociology of scientific research and the sensationalism of scientific papers is also a fact.

Remember cold fusion and the hadron collider replicating the big bang?

And no I don't accept theories just because guys in white suits claims so.

You said that dualism can be proven false a priori. Would you mind trying to do so? — Olivier5

I'll sketch the argument for you, at least; I don't feel like spending a lot more time on this discussion.

- Dualism implies some kind of transcendentalism, as in supernaturalism, the existence of something of a kind ontologically different from the sort of stuff that can be empirically observed.

- Claims about such things cannot in principle be tested for falsity, since there's nothing we could tell to differentiate a world where they're true from a world where they're false, and thus they could only possibly be taken on faith, dogmatically.

- Accepting any such dogmatic claims, taking any claim without possibility of question, would leave one's views unchanging even if they're wrong, so if one should happen to start out with wrong views, one would stay with them forever instead of improving upon them.

- Presuming one aims to have correct views, it is thus prudent to leave all views open to question, which consequently demands rejecting any claims about things that cannot be questioned, including all claims about things that make no empirical difference, including all supernatural, transcendental things, like those implied by dualism.

- Dualism implies some kind of transcendentalism, as in supernaturalism, the existence of something of a kind ontologically different from the sort of stuff that can be empirically observed. — Pfhorrest

That's a strawman. Dualism only implies that he who does the empirical observing recognises said observing to be 1) fundamentally different from the observed thing; and 2) important or even critical to one's knowledge of the observed thing.

If you believe in 1 and 2, then you have a dualist mind set. The rest is strawmen banging heads.

Has "substance" and "property" been defined for this thread and an explanation provided as to why there would be specifically two substances/properties, as opposed to one or a thousand?

How do you define "physical substance" and "non-physical substance"? — Hanover

I wonder if an answer to this is even needed at this stage. Can the debate be reframed as "is the mind a property of the brain or a separate entity that is causally connected to the brain?" We might not then need to worry (yet) about substance or physical or non-physical.

I wonder if an answer to this is even needed at this stage. Can the debate be reframed as "is the mind a property of the brain or a separate entity that is causally connected to the brain?" We might not then need to worry (yet) about substance or physical or non-physical. — Michael

That seems like a pretty different question that then original debate. My position was of "substance" dualism, so how can we avoid the question of what substance is?

True, I suppose it could be argued that the mind and brain are distinct but that both are physical, so it would be neither substance nor property dualism.

Right, so if it is the case that the only argument for substance dualism is that we ought to expect reality to accord with the basic ways we understand things ... — Janus

First, we should not expect reality to accord with the way we understand things. The way we understand things changes over time. Second, substance dualism is not the basic way we understand things.

Second, substance dualism is not the basic way we understand things. — Fooloso4

Indeed, this idea of two different substances is not intuitive at all, it is something that came out of a certain culture. The intuitive idea (to me at least) is that our mind dies when our body dies; reason for which we are all naturally afraid of death.

If our mind was some special inalterable substance, it would be immortal and I think we would know it, we would remember our previous lives for instance. But we don't.

@Olivier5

But if somebody did feel or remember previous lives would you accept that?

He could be a liar, though.

@Olivier5

As have and do scientists. Lying is prolific in scientific research. Its like propoganda or a sales pitch.

What if it was someone you trusted and you knew they were being genuine?

Scientists are no better nor worse than other folks. They are regular folks. Why is everyone treating them either as devils or angels in beyond me.

What if it was someone you trusted and you knew they were being genuine? — Protagoras

If I had personal memories of my previous lives, and if while chatting with others, I would realize that they all (or most of them) had similar memories, then I would accept the immortality of the human mind.

One witness is too few. She could be mistaken.

@Olivier5
Yes,scientist are regular folks. But they work in an industry run by monied interests.

The more money and stakes involved in an industry the more deception.

What of all the numerous meditators and religious people who experience this?

Yes,scientist are regular folks. But they work in an industry run by monied interests. — Protagoras

Who doesn't? You gotta serve somebody.