Originally posted by JimL
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Philosophy 201 Guidelines
Cogito ergo sum
Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!
Forum Rules: Here
Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
Interaction Problem Involving the Soul and Body
Collapse
X
-
-
Originally posted by Jim B. View PostWe 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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Jim B. View PostNo, 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.
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, 10:02 AM.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostToo 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.'
Comment
-
Originally posted by Jim B. View PostThe 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.
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.
Last edited by shunyadragon; 06-03-2019, 03:13 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
The Wiki reference cites an early view of Spinosa as follows:
. . . which would not remotely reflect an atheist of other naturalist materialist view.
In reality Spinosa originated a monist pantheist view described as follows:
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
|
172 responses
609 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seer
04-15-2024, 11:55 AM
|
Comment