Interaction Problem Involving the Soul and Body

[JimL]

Call it what you will, humans--those who have an underlying materialistic bias mostly--have been pushing the 'animals are moral' or 'can abstract' or some such for decades. Regardless, the evidence remains lackluster and controversial. It's easy to project higher intellectual capabilities on simple evaluation and comparison capacities. There's still a lot of material out in the ether that maintain animal behaviors are deterministic, instinct-derived evolutionary responses. Sometimes "archaic" is equal to "truth" you know.

I'd say it's called learned behavior, whether determined or derived of instinctively. Doesn't matter, the behavior not it's derivation, is what we thinking beings call moral or immoral.

Okay, but again: for those already convinced consciousness has only a scientific answer. There. We've both thrown unsubstantiated opinions at one another. The message board venue doesn't lend itself easily to in-depth debate, does it?

There is no absolute answer to the problem of consciousness as of yet, but there is little reason to believe that it is an existing entity unto itself apart from the material brain from which it arose.

Yes, and for the notion that science has a full explanation for consciousness or that animals are capable of abstraction. So it goes.

Science doesn't have all the answers, but what it has is actual verifiable evidence for the answers it concludes. The bible is simply the non empirically evidenced assertions of men.

[shunyadragon]

Methodological naturalism is just the epistemic version of what you call materialism. I see no fundamental difference between the two. Maybe I'm just too unlearned and ignorant to see the difference, or maybe you're pushing a narrative that is more soothing to you.

Again this reflects an anti-science perspective based on a religious agenda. It is not a matter of being 'unlearned' it is just a matter of reading and understanding academic references, and you appear to be literate. Well, because your assertions do not fit the actual academic references of science and what is Methodological Naturalism it appears 'you're pushing a narrative that is more soothing to you.'

Call it what you will, humans--those who have an underlying materialistic bias mostly--have been pushing the 'animals are moral' or 'can abstract' or some such for decades. Regardless, the evidence remains lackluster and controversial. It's easy to project higher intellectual capabilities on simple evaluation and comparison capacities. There's still a lot of material out in the ether that maintain animal behaviors are deterministic, instinct-derived evolutionary responses.

Being moral and having abilities of abstract thought are two different things.

A lot of material out there . . . is a rather vague and not meaningful reference. There is alot of material out there for many view points.

Sometimes "archaic" is equal to "truth" you know.

Actually, not concerning science.

Okay, but again: for those already convinced consciousness has only a scientific answer. We've both thrown unsubstantiated opinions at one another. The message board venue doesn't lend itself easily to in-depth debate, does it?

Science does not assert that 'only science' has the answer. Science only establishes the cause for mind/consciousness with the brain from perspective of Methodological Naturalism, and does not negate the possibility of consciousness and the existence of the soul beyond this. The relationship between the brain and mind/consciousness is not unsubstantiated. There is very real research on this that establishes this relationship. It is just not conclusive in eliminating the possibility of a spiritual relationship that also may exist.

Yes, and for the notion that science has a full explanation for consciousness or that animals are capable of abstraction. So it goes.

No one has claimed to have a full explanation for anything except possibly you. Science does not work that nor does it make such a foolish claim.

[Jim B.]

There's also the possibility of dual aspect theory. It says basically that all of the world is basically one substance but that we perceive this substance in two fundamentally different kinds of ways, intrinsically (as in conscious experiences) and extrinsically ( as physical stuff ). Whereas the reality is much bigger than our minds can comprehend.(It's in the Mind of God imo, but atheists wouldn't need to accept that. In fact, most dual aspect guys are atheists.) Dual aspect avoids the interaction problem, since you don't have two fundamentally different kinds of stuff interacting with each other, although it probably falls prey to other problems that substance dualism avoids and so on...

[shunyadragon]

There's also the possibility of dual aspect theory. It says basically that all of the world is basically one substance but that we perceive this substance in two fundamentally different kinds of ways, intrinsically (as in conscious experiences) and extrinsically ( as physical stuff ). Whereas the reality is much bigger than our minds can comprehend.(It's in the Mind of God imo, but atheists wouldn't need to accept that. In fact, most dual aspect guys are atheists.) Dual aspect avoids the interaction problem, since you don't have two fundamentally different kinds of stuff interacting with each other, although it probably falls prey to other problems that substance dualism avoids and so on...

Please explain 'most dual aspect guys are atheists.' It does not make sense.

[JonathanL]

Please explain 'most dual aspect guys are atheists.' It does not make sense.

I'm not really sure where your problem of understanding lies. 'most dual aspect guys are atheists' simply means 'the majority of people who hold to dual aspect theory also hold to an atheistic worldview'. What's so hard to understand about that?

[shunyadragon]

I'm not really sure where your problem of understanding lies. 'most dual aspect guys are atheists' simply means 'the majority of people who hold to dual aspect theory also hold to an atheistic worldview'. What's so hard to understand about that?

I do not believe that 'most dual aspect guys are atheists' is a simplistic statement that does not reflect what people believe from different beliefs, such as atheists. The view of non-theists and theists is not that simple, and there are a number of different philosophical views that are considered 'dual aspect.' The correct reference would probably refer to 'dual aspect monism.' The distinction between 'property dualism and 'substance dualism' needs to be clarified, before one makes the vague generalization of 'most dual aspect guys are atheists'.

For example look up 'Neural Monism' which I may refer to in more detail later.

[Jim B.]

I do not believe that 'most dual aspect guys are atheists' is a simplistic statement that does not reflect what people believe from different beliefs, such as atheists. The view of non-theists and theists is not that simple, and there are a number of different philosophical views that are considered 'dual aspect.' The correct reference would probably refer to 'dual aspect monism.' The distinction between 'property dualism and 'substance dualism' needs to be clarified, before one makes the vague generalization of 'most dual aspect guys are atheists'.

For example look up 'Neural Monism' which I may refer to in more detail later.

With respect to the philosophy of mind, "dual aspect theory" refers to substance monism, property dualism. You might mean "Neutral Monism" and not "Neural Monism"? It's traditionally thought to be a way around the causal efficacy problem that substance dualism has been associated with.

[shunyadragon]

With respect to the philosophy of mind, "dual aspect theory" refers to substance monism, property dualism. You might mean "Neutral Monism" and not "Neural Monism"? It's traditionally thought to be a way around the causal efficacy problem that substance dualism has been associated with.

My response was it was a simplistic generalization statement that needed more explanation.

[JimL]

There's also the possibility of dual aspect theory. It says basically that all of the world is basically one substance but that we perceive this substance in two fundamentally different kinds of ways, intrinsically (as in conscious experiences) and extrinsically ( as physical stuff ). Whereas the reality is much bigger than our minds can comprehend.(It's in the Mind of God imo, but atheists wouldn't need to accept that. In fact, most dual aspect guys are atheists.) Dual aspect avoids the interaction problem, since you don't have two fundamentally different kinds of stuff interacting with each other, although it probably falls prey to other problems that substance dualism avoids and so on...

That doesn't seem to clarify anything, Jim. Consciousness itself is not an aspect of the physical stuff itself, it's an emergent property of the physical stuff. A rock isn't conscious.

[Jim B.]

My response was it was a simplistic generalization statement that needed more explanation.

I'm not an expert. As I said, traditionally, substance dualism's problem has been thought to be a causal problem, that is, how does an immaterial substance causally interact with a material substance? Dual aspect monism has been thought to get around that problem by suggesting that there is only one kind of substance that presents under two aspects, physical and phenomenal. With one kind of yet unspecified substance, there would be no causal interaction problem. There are a lot of problems with these kinds of theory, however, such as panpsychism. I used to think it had some credibility, but I tend to think it presents more problems than it solves. I'll put up some links.

[Jim B.]

That doesn't seem to clarify anything, Jim. Consciousness itself is not an aspect of the physical stuff itself, it's an emergent property of the physical stuff. A rock isn't conscious.

The idea isn't that consciousness would be an aspect of the physical stuff, but that the physical stuff and consciousness would both be aspects of some other underlying substance.

[Jim B.]

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/neutral-monism/

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

[shunyadragon]

I'm not an expert. As I said, traditionally, substance dualism's problem has been thought to be a causal problem, that is, how does an immaterial substance causally interact with a material substance? Dual aspect monism has been thought to get around that problem by suggesting that there is only one kind of substance that presents under two aspects, physical and phenomenal. With one kind of yet unspecified substance, there would be no causal interaction problem. There are a lot of problems with these kinds of theory, however, such as panpsychism. I used to think it had some credibility, but I tend to think it presents more problems than it solves. I'll put up some links.

An immaterial substance (?) is this what you are describing the mind and consciousness? Even in my view as a theist the mind and consciousness as we experience it is emergent from the material brain.

Panpsychism is a philosophy all by itself that is based on assumptions that a mind is some sort of integral part of everything. Panpsychism is only a problem for those that believe in panpsychism. This would not be a problem with what you describe as substance dualism, which would assume mind and consciousness are simply emergent properties.

[JimL]

The idea isn't that consciousness would be an aspect of the physical stuff, but that the physical stuff and consciousness would both be aspects of some other underlying substance.

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

[Jim B.]

An immaterial substance (?) is this what you are describing the mind and consciousness? Even in my view as a theist the mind and consciousness as we experience it is emergent from the material brain.

Panpsychism is a philosophy all by itself that is based on assumptions that a mind is some sort of integral part of everything. Panpsychism is only a problem for those that believe in panpsychism. This would not be a problem with what you describe as substance dualism, which would assume mind and consciousness are simply emergent properties.

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.