Page 49 of 49 FirstFirst ... 39474849
Results 481 to 487 of 487

Thread: Interaction Problem Involving the Soul and Body

  1. #481
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    275
    Amen (Given)
    2
    Amen (Received)
    16
    Quote Originally Posted by JimL View Post
    And what would that other underlying substance be? That's a bit like moving the goal post. We no longer need to try and figure out what consciousness is and how it relates to matter, we now need to figure out what the imagined underlying substance is. If there is no evidence of this thing we call consciousness as a thing in itself, and if there is no evidence of an underlying conscious substance out of which conscious material beings emerge
    We don't know. That's one of the problems with substance monism, and I assume why Bertrand Russell abandoned it. I guess the assumption is that it's beyond limits of human cognition to understand it. It wouldn't be an underlying conscious substance, BTW. The underlying substance would be neither physical nor conscious but somehow 'beyond' both of those things and yet it 'presents' under those two aspects. Kind of like the 'wave/particle' duality in physics.

  2. #482
    tWebber Tassman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Sydney/Phuket
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    10,931
    Amen (Given)
    2423
    Amen (Received)
    1738
    Quote Originally Posted by Jim B. View Post
    We don't know. That's one of the problems with substance monism, and I assume why Bertrand Russell abandoned it. I guess the assumption is that it's beyond limits of human cognition to understand it. It wouldn't be an underlying conscious substance, BTW. The underlying substance would be neither physical nor conscious but somehow 'beyond' both of those things and yet it 'presents' under those two aspects. Kind of like the 'wave/particle' duality in physics.
    If you don't know what the "underlying substance" would be, why do you assume that there is one? This is just an 'Argument from Ignorance'.
    “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

  3. Amen shunyadragon amen'd this post.
  4. #483
    tWebber shunyadragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Hillsborough, NC
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    13,778
    Amen (Given)
    1458
    Amen (Received)
    943
    Quote Originally Posted by Jim B. View Post
    No, an immaterial substance is not what I am describing. It is what a substance dualist would describe. I am describing the causal problem that dual aspect theory (substance monism) supposedly avoids. Panpsychism would be a problem for some versions of dual aspect theory, not for substance dualism.
    Too vague. You need to define 'immaterial substance' or 'underlying substance' for a dialogue to be meaningful. As far as I know dual aspect theory (substance dualism) does not necessarily involve an 'immaterial substance,' especially if one is an atheist or other advocate of materialism. An example of an 'immaterial substance' would be the soul.

    Most atheists and other material naturalists would advocate some form of 'physicalism,' 'identity theory,' or possibly 'predicate dualism' or 'property dualism.'
    Last edited by shunyadragon; 06-03-2019 at 08:02 AM.
    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

    go with the flow the river knows . . .

    Frank

    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

  5. #484
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    275
    Amen (Given)
    2
    Amen (Received)
    16
    Quote Originally Posted by Tassman View Post
    If you don't know what the "underlying substance" would be, why do you assume that there is one? This is just an 'Argument from Ignorance'.
    I'm not assuming that there is. I'm not defending dual aspect theory. Try to read more carefully.

  6. #485
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    275
    Amen (Given)
    2
    Amen (Received)
    16
    Quote Originally Posted by shunyadragon View Post
    Too vague. You need to define 'immaterial substance' or 'underlying substance' for a dialogue to be meaningful. As far as I know dual aspect theory (substance dualism) does not necessarily involve an 'immaterial substance,' especially if one is an atheist or other advocate of materialism. An example of an 'immaterial substance' would be the soul.

    Most atheists and other material naturalists would advocate some form of 'physicalism,' 'identity theory,' or possibly 'predicate dualism' or 'property dualism.'
    The problem is that you appear to have a reading comprehension problem. I keep stating the positions and you keep misreading them. I've posted links for you to read. Why pursue this any further if you are unable to parse the relatively simple posts I've put up so far? Once more, dual aspect theory IS NOT substance dualism. They are different positions. Dual aspect theory does not posit an immaterial substance such as a soul. That is substance dualism. Please read about it on your own.

  7. #486
    tWebber shunyadragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Hillsborough, NC
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    13,778
    Amen (Given)
    1458
    Amen (Received)
    943
    Quote Originally Posted by Jim B. View Post
    The problem is that you appear to have a reading comprehension problem. I keep stating the positions and you keep misreading them. I've posted links for you to read. Why pursue this any further if you are unable to parse the relatively simple posts I've put up so far? Once more, dual aspect theory IS NOT substance dualism. They are different positions. Dual aspect theory does not posit an immaterial substance such as a soul. That is substance dualism. Please read about it on your own.
    I have read your references as have others, and disagree with your line of thinking still waiting for you define and put in context 'immaterial substance' or 'underlying substance,' and how it fits in context of what atheists may or may not believe, or the context of 'How it is problem?'

    You failed to explain how panpsychism has anything to do with the discussion and how it is a problem for anyone else other than those that believe in 'panpsychism.'

    Again, atheists and other natural materialists believe in a strictly 'physicalism,' or 'identity theory,' and not substance dualism.

    Source: https://www.google.com/search?q=substance+dualism&oq=substance+dualism&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.6742j1j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8


    Substance Dualism is a variety of dualism in the philosophy of mind which states that two sorts of substances exist: the mental and the physical. Substance dualism is a fundamentally ontological position: it states that the mental and the physical are separate substances with independent existence.

    © Copyright Original Source

    Last edited by shunyadragon; 06-03-2019 at 01:13 PM.
    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

    go with the flow the river knows . . .

    Frank

    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

  8. #487
    tWebber shunyadragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Hillsborough, NC
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    13,778
    Amen (Given)
    1458
    Amen (Received)
    943
    Without complicating things from the atheist or other natural materialist perspectives, neutral-monism is just a rewording of physicalism. The Double aspect theory gets more complicated with the possibility of deism and variations of theism and pantheism.

    The Wiki reference cites an early view of Spinosa as follows:

    Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-aspect_theory


    Baruch Spinoza, who believed that the Existence had two aspects, Extension and Mind, which together were to be taken as two of an infinite set of attributes comprising God (or, Nature).

    © Copyright Original Source



    . . . which would not remotely reflect an atheist of other naturalist materialist view.

    In reality Spinosa originated a monist pantheist view described as follows:

    Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheism

    Spinoza held the monist view that the two are the same, and monism is a fundamental part of his philosophy. He was described as a "God-intoxicated man," and used the word God to describe the unity of all substance.

    © Copyright Original Source

    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

    go with the flow the river knows . . .

    Frank

    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •