A Seldom Considered Argument for Dualism

[shunyadragon]

Among those who disagreed with the conclusion, ENeGMA and Von Smith clearly understood and engaged with the argument. Other posters (like Nightbringer) raised some interesting issues pertaining to the argument, clearly demonstrating that they understood it. In fact, I’d say that everyone who participated except for three individuals appeared to understand the argument.

I reviewed the posts of ENeGMA and Von Smith, and from their criticism I think it is presumptuous to assume they thought the argument made sense.

I may cite further the posts of ENeGMA and Von Smith, but despite different uses of language and phrases. I do not see a significant difference in their objections, and those posed by Jim and I.

[Kenny]

I may cite further the posts of ENeGMA and Von Smith, but despite different uses of language and phrases. I do not see a significant difference in their objections, and those posed by Jim and I.

I do. But I'm not suprised that you don't.

[Leonhard]

Hi Kenny, wanted to let you know that I've been thinking about your OP. I just didn't wanna bud in because usually when people are having a debate with Shunya an JimL they end up ignoring what I write, or (since they post a couple of times per day) I'll have to browse back and forth through over a hundred posts to figure out the thread of the conversation. Would you like to have an informal one on one discussion instead?

I'll try to be as fair as possible. I'm not a professional philosopher, so I guess the discussion would be mostly for my sake, I would love to know more about the reasons you have for holding something dualism to be true. Perhaps you could even interact with some of my questions?

[Kenny]

Hi Kenny, wanted to let you know that I've been thinking about your OP. I just didn't wanna bud in because usually when people are having a debate with Shunya an JimL they end up ignoring what I write, or (since they post a couple of times per day) I'll have to browse back and forth through over a hundred posts to figure out the thread of the conversation. Would you like to have an informal one on one discussion instead?

I'll try to be as fair as possible. I'm not a professional philosopher, so I guess the discussion would be mostly for my sake, I would love to know more about the reasons you have for holding something dualism to be true. Perhaps you could even interact with some of my questions?

Sure, we could set something up in the gym. I'm pretty busy with grading and stuff right now, but I should be able to contribute semi-regularly in a week or so.

ETA: You could go a head and get it started. I can't promise to post regularly for the next week, but I do welcome distraction tasks from time to time, and this might be a nice one.

[Leonhard]

Sure, we could set something up in the gym. I'm pretty busy with grading and stuff right now, but I should be able to contribute semi-regularly in a week or so.

ETA: You could go a head and get it started. I can't promise to post regularly for the next week, but I do welcome distraction tasks from time to time, and this might be a nice one.

Sounds great. I completely respect that your time is finite, just respond at the rate you prefer. I'll start the thread and create the opening post.

[Kenny]

Sounds great. I completely respect that your time is finite, just respond at the rate you prefer. I'll start the thread and create the opening post.

Cool. Just let me know when it is up.

[Teallaura]

And post a link here, puhleese...

Pretty please?

[Leonhard]

I will Teal, thinking about how to proceed.

Kenny, when you write "(1) At t1, Body-minus still exists (because nothing happened to Body-minus except that something external to it was detached from it)." Is this a typo? Perhaps you meant "(1) At t0, Body-minus still exists (because nothing happened to Body-minus except that something external to it was detached from it).". I'm assuming you believe that Body-minus together with the pinkie (if left at the correction position) would be identical to Body? But its not clear from the text if that's the way you meant it, if its the way you meant it.

This is just a clarifying question so I don't start a new thread on a wrong assumption. That never works out well.

[Kenny]

Kenny, when you write "(1) At t1, Body-minus still exists (because nothing happened to Body-minus except that something external to it was detached from it)." Is this a typo?

No. That was not a typo.

Perhaps you meant "(1) At t0, Body-minus still exists (because nothing happened to Body-minus except that something external to it was detached from it)."

At t0, the pinky hadn’t been annihilated yet. At that point, both Body and Body-minus existed.

I'm assuming you believe that Body-minus together with the pinkie (if left at the correction position) would be identical to Body?

Yes. ETA: Or, rather, the mereological sum of Body-minus and the pinkie would be identical to Body.

This is just a clarifying question so I don't start a new thread on a wrong assumption. That never works out well.

Hope that helped!

[Leonhard]

Alright, thanks for the clarification, I'll need to chew on it a little bit more and then I'll post.

[ENeGMA]

I reviewed the posts of ENeGMA and Von Smith, and from their criticism I think it is presumptuous to assume they thought the argument made sense.

I thought the argument made sense. I think it's flawed, in various ways, but it makes sense.

[shunyadragon]

I thought the argument made sense. I think it's flawed, in various ways, but it makes sense.

I guess I have a different view of what makes sense than you. As a simply argument it may make sense, but something is actually nonsensical with the basic argument. The main flaw is that it is rather disjoint and not connected to the issues of dualism itself, and in that way it does not make sense for an argument for dualism.

Here is the argument again, maybe you can explain it to me, how it makes sense . . .

(P1) If human persons are material objects, human persons can strictly survive the loss of some of their parts.

OK, but so what???

(P2) No material object can strictly survive the loss of some it its parts.

This is where things most definitely begin to not make sense. Complex material objects like humans can most definitely 'strictly survive' the loss of some of its parts unless those parts are critical to the function of being human like major organs such as the brain or heart. Simple objects like a solid sphere may have problems 'strictly surviving' with out some of its parts 'if the parts are sufficient' to compromise its function as a solid sphere such as a bearing in a motor.

This in a way depends on what is defined as 'strictly survive.'

(C)Therefore, human persons are not material objects.

I would love to hear how you think this makes 'sense' as logically following from the above.

[Kenny]

This is where things most definitely begin to not make sense. Complex material objects like humans can most definitely 'strictly survive' the loss of some of its parts unless those parts are critical to the function of being human like major organs such as the brain or heart. Simple objects like a solid sphere may have problems 'strictly surviving' with out some of its parts 'if the parts are sufficient' to compromise its function as a solid sphere such as a bearing in a motor.

This in a way depends on what is defined as 'strictly survive.'

I provided a definition of ‘strictly survive’ in the OP. Why can’t you (or JimL for that matter) simply look and see what I actually wrote?

Here’s the definition again: Something “strictly survives” an occurrence if and only if it exists before that occurrence and it exists after that occurrence.

This is just a stipulative definition. It tells you how I am using my own terms, which I am entitled to use in whatever way I like (so long as I make my meaning clear).

As for P2, I gave a deductively valid argument for that claim – the body-minus argument. Since the body-minus argument is deductively valid, in order to consistently deny its conclusion, one must deny one or more of its premises. To engage with the argument, then (without denying P1, which you might do instead of denying P2), it is not enough to deny P2; you need to tell me which of the premises of the body-minus argument that you deny.

I’ve said all this before. I don’t intend to keep repeating myself.

[shunyadragon]

I provided a definition of ‘strictly survive’ in the OP. Why can’t you (or JimL for that matter) simply look and see what I actually wrote?

Here’s the definition again: Something “strictly survives” an occurrence if and only if it exists before that occurrence and it exists after that occurrence.

This is just a stipulative definition. It tells you how I am using my own terms, which I am entitled to use in whatever way I like (so long as I make my meaning clear).

As for P2, I gave a deductively valid argument for that claim – the body-minus argument. Since the body-minus argument is deductively valid, in order to consistently deny its conclusion, one must deny one or more of its premises. To engage with the argument, then (without denying P1, which you might do instead of denying P2), it is not enough to deny P2; you need to tell me which of the premises of the body-minus argument that you deny.

I’ve said all this before. I don’t intend to keep repeating myself.

My request was for ENeGMA, and I am waiting for his response. I do not consider your definition as adequate for justifying its use to support dualism. No, there is no reason for you to repeat an inadequate definition and explanation.

[Kenny]

My request was for ENeGMA, and I am waiting for his response. I do not consider your definition as adequate for justifying its use to support dualism. No, there is no reason for you to repeat an inadequate definition and explanation.

Well, it's ENeGMA's time to waste, I suppose.