Dualism hasn't met the burden of proof.

[OldLady]

Thoughts were long thought (hah) to be immaterial, but if they're able to reduce them down to brain states then it's damning evidence for the assumption that "mind" is something separate from "brain."

The photographic printing of a memory (2014) and the ability to manipulate thoughts with the physical restructuring of the brain (usually observed via head trauma) is evidence, albeit not proof, that even thoughts are material.

Also, hormones and gut bacteria affect thoughts.

Science observes and labels. It doesn't actually define.

 

[G.T.]

Thoughts were long thought (hah) to be immaterial, but if they're able to reduce them down to brain states then it's damning evidence for the assumption that "mind" is something separate from "brain."

The photographic printing of a memory (2014) and the ability to manipulate thoughts with the physical restructuring of the brain (usually observed via head trauma) is evidence, albeit not proof, that even thoughts are material.

Also, hormones and gut bacteria affect thoughts.

Science observes and labels. It doesn't actually define.

Observation is what's being discussed....

 

[Ringel05]

Dualism is an interesting belief - that mind and body are separate and that there are material and immaterial realities in that sense.

Dualism cannot be ruled out; however, it's not currently established to be true, either. In this sense, I'm obligated to not hold the belief as true. It's a positive claim and it's yet to meet its burden of proof.

The number one hang-up that dualism seems to have is that the further neuroscience advances its knowledge of the brain, and how it works, the more beliefs seem to be reducible to brain-states. Beliefs used to be one of the best arguments for mind and brain being separate; however, we've since learned that a person's beliefs can be altered by removing or altering certain parts of the brain. Also, neuroscientists in 2014 have printed a photographic image of a memory.

This suggests a contingency - that "beliefs" reduce to brain-states.


I wouldn't suggest that dualism is ruled out, but I don't see good enough reason to hold it as a "belief," no pun intended.

You're making your "hang up" assertion based solely on material observation, altering certain parts of the brain is simply altering neuro-pathways hence blocking some possible vital communication streams. Just because the mind and body are supposedly separate doesn't mean they're not symbiotic. A voice is a voice but can be carried over cellular systems and phone lines. Doesn't make them one but does make them symbiotic in nature, that said the brain may be nothing more than a necessary conduit for the mind to manifest itself.
Either could be true, separate or one or possibly an amalgamation of the two.

Right, either could be true and that seems to just re-establish the hang-up, Ringel. I'm not asserting that dualism is false, but that it's un-established as being true.

If one's going to make the claim that dualism is the case, the burden of proof would be on the dualist. So far, the evidence is, in my opinion, inadequate and especially so when advances in neuroscience are considered. A symbiotic relationship may be the case, but I'm not compelled to assume a separation to begin with.

As I see it the question lies within the realm of metaphysics hence cannot be proven or dis-proven. Asserting a physical association establishes doubt is nothing more than two dimensional, linear thinking just as asserting the opposite is true so no one really has a burden of proof per se or both sides have the burden of proof. Ain't metaphysics fun........

 

[G.T.]

Dualism is an interesting belief - that mind and body are separate and that there are material and immaterial realities in that sense.

Dualism cannot be ruled out; however, it's not currently established to be true, either. In this sense, I'm obligated to not hold the belief as true. It's a positive claim and it's yet to meet its burden of proof.

The number one hang-up that dualism seems to have is that the further neuroscience advances its knowledge of the brain, and how it works, the more beliefs seem to be reducible to brain-states. Beliefs used to be one of the best arguments for mind and brain being separate; however, we've since learned that a person's beliefs can be altered by removing or altering certain parts of the brain. Also, neuroscientists in 2014 have printed a photographic image of a memory.

This suggests a contingency - that "beliefs" reduce to brain-states.


I wouldn't suggest that dualism is ruled out, but I don't see good enough reason to hold it as a "belief," no pun intended.

You're making your "hang up" assertion based solely on material observation, altering certain parts of the brain is simply altering neuro-pathways hence blocking some possible vital communication streams. Just because the mind and body are supposedly separate doesn't mean they're not symbiotic. A voice is a voice but can be carried over cellular systems and phone lines. Doesn't make them one but does make them symbiotic in nature, that said the brain may be nothing more than a necessary conduit for the mind to manifest itself.
Either could be true, separate or one or possibly an amalgamation of the two.

Right, either could be true and that seems to just re-establish the hang-up, Ringel. I'm not asserting that dualism is false, but that it's un-established as being true.

If one's going to make the claim that dualism is the case, the burden of proof would be on the dualist. So far, the evidence is, in my opinion, inadequate and especially so when advances in neuroscience are considered. A symbiotic relationship may be the case, but I'm not compelled to assume a separation to begin with.

As I see it the question lies within the realm of metaphysics hence cannot be proven or dis-proven. Asserting a physical association establishes doubt is nothing more than two dimensional, linear thinking just as asserting the opposite is true so no one really has a burden of proof per se or both sides have the burden of proof. Ain't metaphysics fun........

"i dont know either way" doesn't require the burden of proof, positive claims do.

This was a challenge to the dualist, not a positing of non-dualism.

in terms of which makes the least assumptions, though - - -

so far, we've never observed a mind without a body.

if you're positing that the physical brain is one of the essential properties of the "mind," that's ontologically in-line with an anti-dualist view....mental states are physical states

 

[Ringel05]

Dualism is an interesting belief - that mind and body are separate and that there are material and immaterial realities in that sense.

Dualism cannot be ruled out; however, it's not currently established to be true, either. In this sense, I'm obligated to not hold the belief as true. It's a positive claim and it's yet to meet its burden of proof.

The number one hang-up that dualism seems to have is that the further neuroscience advances its knowledge of the brain, and how it works, the more beliefs seem to be reducible to brain-states. Beliefs used to be one of the best arguments for mind and brain being separate; however, we've since learned that a person's beliefs can be altered by removing or altering certain parts of the brain. Also, neuroscientists in 2014 have printed a photographic image of a memory.

This suggests a contingency - that "beliefs" reduce to brain-states.


I wouldn't suggest that dualism is ruled out, but I don't see good enough reason to hold it as a "belief," no pun intended.

You're making your "hang up" assertion based solely on material observation, altering certain parts of the brain is simply altering neuro-pathways hence blocking some possible vital communication streams. Just because the mind and body are supposedly separate doesn't mean they're not symbiotic. A voice is a voice but can be carried over cellular systems and phone lines. Doesn't make them one but does make them symbiotic in nature, that said the brain may be nothing more than a necessary conduit for the mind to manifest itself.
Either could be true, separate or one or possibly an amalgamation of the two.

Right, either could be true and that seems to just re-establish the hang-up, Ringel. I'm not asserting that dualism is false, but that it's un-established as being true.

If one's going to make the claim that dualism is the case, the burden of proof would be on the dualist. So far, the evidence is, in my opinion, inadequate and especially so when advances in neuroscience are considered. A symbiotic relationship may be the case, but I'm not compelled to assume a separation to begin with.

As I see it the question lies within the realm of metaphysics hence cannot be proven or dis-proven. Asserting a physical association establishes doubt is nothing more than two dimensional, linear thinking just as asserting the opposite is true so no one really has a burden of proof per se or both sides have the burden of proof. Ain't metaphysics fun........

"i dont know either way" doesn't require the burden of proof, positive claims do.

This was a challenge to the dualist, not a positing of non-dualism.

in terms of which makes the least assumptions, though - - -

so far, we've never observed a mind without a body.

Again, what does that matter in the realm of the metaphysical?
Oh and aren't you making assumptions based of the physical observances that may have nothing to do with the actuality? Observable phenomenon only tells us what we see but doesn't always explain the why and how. Just because we are unaware of something that is not "observable" doesn't automatically negate the possibility of it's existence or even throw doubt on said existence.

 

[G.T.]

Dualism is an interesting belief - that mind and body are separate and that there are material and immaterial realities in that sense.

Dualism cannot be ruled out; however, it's not currently established to be true, either. In this sense, I'm obligated to not hold the belief as true. It's a positive claim and it's yet to meet its burden of proof.

The number one hang-up that dualism seems to have is that the further neuroscience advances its knowledge of the brain, and how it works, the more beliefs seem to be reducible to brain-states. Beliefs used to be one of the best arguments for mind and brain being separate; however, we've since learned that a person's beliefs can be altered by removing or altering certain parts of the brain. Also, neuroscientists in 2014 have printed a photographic image of a memory.

This suggests a contingency - that "beliefs" reduce to brain-states.


I wouldn't suggest that dualism is ruled out, but I don't see good enough reason to hold it as a "belief," no pun intended.

You're making your "hang up" assertion based solely on material observation, altering certain parts of the brain is simply altering neuro-pathways hence blocking some possible vital communication streams. Just because the mind and body are supposedly separate doesn't mean they're not symbiotic. A voice is a voice but can be carried over cellular systems and phone lines. Doesn't make them one but does make them symbiotic in nature, that said the brain may be nothing more than a necessary conduit for the mind to manifest itself.
Either could be true, separate or one or possibly an amalgamation of the two.

Right, either could be true and that seems to just re-establish the hang-up, Ringel. I'm not asserting that dualism is false, but that it's un-established as being true.

If one's going to make the claim that dualism is the case, the burden of proof would be on the dualist. So far, the evidence is, in my opinion, inadequate and especially so when advances in neuroscience are considered. A symbiotic relationship may be the case, but I'm not compelled to assume a separation to begin with.

As I see it the question lies within the realm of metaphysics hence cannot be proven or dis-proven. Asserting a physical association establishes doubt is nothing more than two dimensional, linear thinking just as asserting the opposite is true so no one really has a burden of proof per se or both sides have the burden of proof. Ain't metaphysics fun........

"i dont know either way" doesn't require the burden of proof, positive claims do.

This was a challenge to the dualist, not a positing of non-dualism.

in terms of which makes the least assumptions, though - - -

so far, we've never observed a mind without a body.

Again, what does that matter in the realm of the metaphysical?
Oh and aren't you making assumptions based of the physical observances that may have nothing to do with the actuality? Observable phenomenon only tells us what we see but doesn't always explain the why and how. Just because we are unaware of something that is not "observable" doesn't automatically negate the possibility of it's existence or even throw doubt on said existence.

It matters in the discussion of philosophy, and what it's reasonable to assume as truth.

If dualism doesn't meet the burden of proof, it's unreasonable to assume as true but is a mere matter of faith. That's just coherent rationalism. That's why positive claims are those that harbor the burden of proof, agnosticism of a topic is the starting disposition. You're adding on more assumptions, getting farther away from dualism in your above post by implying that it's not falsifiable, which would be another argument against considering it the truth.

Claims that are not falsifiable are not provable, and can be dismissed on account of that.

Dualism is either true or false.

I'm not here to assert that it's false, I'm here to challenge that there's a reliable proof that it's true.

If that cannot be met, I see no rational reason to accept it as anything more than a faith claim.

 

[OldLady]

Dualism is an interesting belief - that mind and body are separate and that there are material and immaterial realities in that sense.

Dualism cannot be ruled out; however, it's not currently established to be true, either. In this sense, I'm obligated to not hold the belief as true. It's a positive claim and it's yet to meet its burden of proof.

The number one hang-up that dualism seems to have is that the further neuroscience advances its knowledge of the brain, and how it works, the more beliefs seem to be reducible to brain-states. Beliefs used to be one of the best arguments for mind and brain being separate; however, we've since learned that a person's beliefs can be altered by removing or altering certain parts of the brain. Also, neuroscientists in 2014 have printed a photographic image of a memory.

This suggests a contingency - that "beliefs" reduce to brain-states.


I wouldn't suggest that dualism is ruled out, but I don't see good enough reason to hold it as a "belief," no pun intended.

You're making your "hang up" assertion based solely on material observation, altering certain parts of the brain is simply altering neuro-pathways hence blocking some possible vital communication streams. Just because the mind and body are supposedly separate doesn't mean they're not symbiotic. A voice is a voice but can be carried over cellular systems and phone lines. Doesn't make them one but does make them symbiotic in nature, that said the brain may be nothing more than a necessary conduit for the mind to manifest itself.
Either could be true, separate or one or possibly an amalgamation of the two.

Right, either could be true and that seems to just re-establish the hang-up, Ringel. I'm not asserting that dualism is false, but that it's un-established as being true.

If one's going to make the claim that dualism is the case, the burden of proof would be on the dualist. So far, the evidence is, in my opinion, inadequate and especially so when advances in neuroscience are considered. A symbiotic relationship may be the case, but I'm not compelled to assume a separation to begin with.

As I see it the question lies within the realm of metaphysics hence cannot be proven or dis-proven. Asserting a physical association establishes doubt is nothing more than two dimensional, linear thinking just as asserting the opposite is true so no one really has a burden of proof per se or both sides have the burden of proof. Ain't metaphysics fun........

"i dont know either way" doesn't require the burden of proof, positive claims do.

This was a challenge to the dualist, not a positing of non-dualism.

in terms of which makes the least assumptions, though - - -

so far, we've never observed a mind without a body.

Again, what does that matter in the realm of the metaphysical?
Oh and aren't you making assumptions based of the physical observances that may have nothing to do with the actuality? Observable phenomenon only tells us what we see but doesn't always explain the why and how. Just because we are unaware of something that is not "observable" doesn't automatically negate the possibility of it's existence or even throw doubt on said existence.

Observable phenomenon only tells us what we see but doesn't always explain the why and how.
Agree.

But why can't a major branch of philosophy such as metaphysics be proven or disproven? That doesn't seem sensible.

 

[Ringel05]

You're making your "hang up" assertion based solely on material observation, altering certain parts of the brain is simply altering neuro-pathways hence blocking some possible vital communication streams. Just because the mind and body are supposedly separate doesn't mean they're not symbiotic. A voice is a voice but can be carried over cellular systems and phone lines. Doesn't make them one but does make them symbiotic in nature, that said the brain may be nothing more than a necessary conduit for the mind to manifest itself.
Either could be true, separate or one or possibly an amalgamation of the two.

Right, either could be true and that seems to just re-establish the hang-up, Ringel. I'm not asserting that dualism is false, but that it's un-established as being true.

If one's going to make the claim that dualism is the case, the burden of proof would be on the dualist. So far, the evidence is, in my opinion, inadequate and especially so when advances in neuroscience are considered. A symbiotic relationship may be the case, but I'm not compelled to assume a separation to begin with.

As I see it the question lies within the realm of metaphysics hence cannot be proven or dis-proven. Asserting a physical association establishes doubt is nothing more than two dimensional, linear thinking just as asserting the opposite is true so no one really has a burden of proof per se or both sides have the burden of proof. Ain't metaphysics fun........

"i dont know either way" doesn't require the burden of proof, positive claims do.

This was a challenge to the dualist, not a positing of non-dualism.

in terms of which makes the least assumptions, though - - -

so far, we've never observed a mind without a body.

Again, what does that matter in the realm of the metaphysical?
Oh and aren't you making assumptions based of the physical observances that may have nothing to do with the actuality? Observable phenomenon only tells us what we see but doesn't always explain the why and how. Just because we are unaware of something that is not "observable" doesn't automatically negate the possibility of it's existence or even throw doubt on said existence.

It matters in the discussion of philosophy, and what it's reasonable to assume as truth.

If dualism doesn't meet the burden of proof, it's unreasonable to assume as true but is a mere matter of faith. That's just coherent rationalism. That's why positive claims are those that harbor the burden of proof, agnosticism of a topic is the starting disposition. You're adding on more assumptions, getting farther away from dualism in your above post by implying that it's not falsifiable, which would be another argument against considering it the truth.

Claims that are not falsifiable are not provable, and can be dismissed on account of that.

I'm claiming dualism lies within the realm of the metaphysical which means it can't be substantiated or un-substantiated so I've added no assumptions. I'm simply stating that the belief in the existence of dualism and the belief that dualism doesn't exist are simply that, beliefs that no physical science or philosophical logic can prove, dis-prove, take away from or add too.
Now if ever definitive proof/evidence that can be directly linked then the subject moves from the metaphysical into the realm of the physical, current neuroscience observations have drawn a possible correlation but nothing more.
For all intent an purposes the subject is a moot point.

 

[Ringel05]

You're making your "hang up" assertion based solely on material observation, altering certain parts of the brain is simply altering neuro-pathways hence blocking some possible vital communication streams. Just because the mind and body are supposedly separate doesn't mean they're not symbiotic. A voice is a voice but can be carried over cellular systems and phone lines. Doesn't make them one but does make them symbiotic in nature, that said the brain may be nothing more than a necessary conduit for the mind to manifest itself.
Either could be true, separate or one or possibly an amalgamation of the two.

Right, either could be true and that seems to just re-establish the hang-up, Ringel. I'm not asserting that dualism is false, but that it's un-established as being true.

If one's going to make the claim that dualism is the case, the burden of proof would be on the dualist. So far, the evidence is, in my opinion, inadequate and especially so when advances in neuroscience are considered. A symbiotic relationship may be the case, but I'm not compelled to assume a separation to begin with.

As I see it the question lies within the realm of metaphysics hence cannot be proven or dis-proven. Asserting a physical association establishes doubt is nothing more than two dimensional, linear thinking just as asserting the opposite is true so no one really has a burden of proof per se or both sides have the burden of proof. Ain't metaphysics fun........

"i dont know either way" doesn't require the burden of proof, positive claims do.

This was a challenge to the dualist, not a positing of non-dualism.

in terms of which makes the least assumptions, though - - -

so far, we've never observed a mind without a body.

Again, what does that matter in the realm of the metaphysical?
Oh and aren't you making assumptions based of the physical observances that may have nothing to do with the actuality? Observable phenomenon only tells us what we see but doesn't always explain the why and how. Just because we are unaware of something that is not "observable" doesn't automatically negate the possibility of it's existence or even throw doubt on said existence.

Observable phenomenon only tells us what we see but doesn't always explain the why and how.
Agree.

But why can't a major branch of philosophy such as metaphysics be proven or disproven? That doesn't seem sensible.

Metaphysics is by definition specifically that, those subjects that are currently beyond our ability to prove or dis-prove and some subjects may always remain within the metaphysical.

 

[G.T.]

Right, either could be true and that seems to just re-establish the hang-up, Ringel. I'm not asserting that dualism is false, but that it's un-established as being true.

If one's going to make the claim that dualism is the case, the burden of proof would be on the dualist. So far, the evidence is, in my opinion, inadequate and especially so when advances in neuroscience are considered. A symbiotic relationship may be the case, but I'm not compelled to assume a separation to begin with.

As I see it the question lies within the realm of metaphysics hence cannot be proven or dis-proven. Asserting a physical association establishes doubt is nothing more than two dimensional, linear thinking just as asserting the opposite is true so no one really has a burden of proof per se or both sides have the burden of proof. Ain't metaphysics fun........

"i dont know either way" doesn't require the burden of proof, positive claims do.

This was a challenge to the dualist, not a positing of non-dualism.

in terms of which makes the least assumptions, though - - -

so far, we've never observed a mind without a body.

Again, what does that matter in the realm of the metaphysical?
Oh and aren't you making assumptions based of the physical observances that may have nothing to do with the actuality? Observable phenomenon only tells us what we see but doesn't always explain the why and how. Just because we are unaware of something that is not "observable" doesn't automatically negate the possibility of it's existence or even throw doubt on said existence.

It matters in the discussion of philosophy, and what it's reasonable to assume as truth.

If dualism doesn't meet the burden of proof, it's unreasonable to assume as true but is a mere matter of faith. That's just coherent rationalism. That's why positive claims are those that harbor the burden of proof, agnosticism of a topic is the starting disposition. You're adding on more assumptions, getting farther away from dualism in your above post by implying that it's not falsifiable, which would be another argument against considering it the truth.

Claims that are not falsifiable are not provable, and can be dismissed on account of that.

I'm claiming dualism lies within the realm of the metaphysical which means it can't be substantiated or un-substantiated so I've added no assumptions. I'm simply stating that the belief in the existence of dualism and the belief that dualism doesn't exist are simply that, beliefs that no physical science or philosophical logic can prove, dis-prove, take away from or add too.
Now if ever definitive proof/evidence that can be directly linked then the subject moves from the metaphysical into the realm of the physical, current neuroscience observations have drawn a possible correlation but nothing more.
For all intent an purposes the subject is a moot point.

The subject is "can dualism be rationally justified."

It's not "dualism is a false belief."

So far, you seem to be saying no - it cannot be rationally justified.

We agree. Agnosticism on dualism seems the most rational approach.

Neuroscience does proffer evidence in one direction, and that's because theistic dualism posits the mind as the body-less spirit that moves on when your physical body dies. Anything that correlates our thoughts, intentions and beliefs with the material world does run counter to that because it adds physical states as an essential property of the mind which counters the theistic dualists' view.

Gut bacteria alter intentional states(beliefs). Hormones alter intentional states(beliefs). This is evidence against theistic dualism, short of re-defining it which is special pleading.

 

[G.T.]

Right, either could be true and that seems to just re-establish the hang-up, Ringel. I'm not asserting that dualism is false, but that it's un-established as being true.

If one's going to make the claim that dualism is the case, the burden of proof would be on the dualist. So far, the evidence is, in my opinion, inadequate and especially so when advances in neuroscience are considered. A symbiotic relationship may be the case, but I'm not compelled to assume a separation to begin with.

As I see it the question lies within the realm of metaphysics hence cannot be proven or dis-proven. Asserting a physical association establishes doubt is nothing more than two dimensional, linear thinking just as asserting the opposite is true so no one really has a burden of proof per se or both sides have the burden of proof. Ain't metaphysics fun........

"i dont know either way" doesn't require the burden of proof, positive claims do.

This was a challenge to the dualist, not a positing of non-dualism.

in terms of which makes the least assumptions, though - - -

so far, we've never observed a mind without a body.

Again, what does that matter in the realm of the metaphysical?
Oh and aren't you making assumptions based of the physical observances that may have nothing to do with the actuality? Observable phenomenon only tells us what we see but doesn't always explain the why and how. Just because we are unaware of something that is not "observable" doesn't automatically negate the possibility of it's existence or even throw doubt on said existence.

Observable phenomenon only tells us what we see but doesn't always explain the why and how.
Agree.

But why can't a major branch of philosophy such as metaphysics be proven or disproven? That doesn't seem sensible.

Metaphysics is by definition specifically that, those subjects that are currently beyond our ability to prove or dis-prove and some subjects may always remain within the metaphysical.

Yupp, that's what makes it interesting to me to get to the core of why anyone would assert things like theism as true. Or false, because if one's to assert that theism is false then that's interesting to me, as well.

I haven't seen any reasonable arguments either way - but I keep a clean eye out.

 

[OldLady]

As I see it the question lies within the realm of metaphysics hence cannot be proven or dis-proven. Asserting a physical association establishes doubt is nothing more than two dimensional, linear thinking just as asserting the opposite is true so no one really has a burden of proof per se or both sides have the burden of proof. Ain't metaphysics fun........

"i dont know either way" doesn't require the burden of proof, positive claims do.

This was a challenge to the dualist, not a positing of non-dualism.

in terms of which makes the least assumptions, though - - -

so far, we've never observed a mind without a body.

Again, what does that matter in the realm of the metaphysical?
Oh and aren't you making assumptions based of the physical observances that may have nothing to do with the actuality? Observable phenomenon only tells us what we see but doesn't always explain the why and how. Just because we are unaware of something that is not "observable" doesn't automatically negate the possibility of it's existence or even throw doubt on said existence.

It matters in the discussion of philosophy, and what it's reasonable to assume as truth.

If dualism doesn't meet the burden of proof, it's unreasonable to assume as true but is a mere matter of faith. That's just coherent rationalism. That's why positive claims are those that harbor the burden of proof, agnosticism of a topic is the starting disposition. You're adding on more assumptions, getting farther away from dualism in your above post by implying that it's not falsifiable, which would be another argument against considering it the truth.

Claims that are not falsifiable are not provable, and can be dismissed on account of that.

I'm claiming dualism lies within the realm of the metaphysical which means it can't be substantiated or un-substantiated so I've added no assumptions. I'm simply stating that the belief in the existence of dualism and the belief that dualism doesn't exist are simply that, beliefs that no physical science or philosophical logic can prove, dis-prove, take away from or add too.
Now if ever definitive proof/evidence that can be directly linked then the subject moves from the metaphysical into the realm of the physical, current neuroscience observations have drawn a possible correlation but nothing more.
For all intent an purposes the subject is a moot point.

The subject is "can dualism be rationally justified."

It's not "dualism is a false belief."

So far, you seem to be saying no - it cannot be rationally justified.

We agree. Agnosticism on dualism seems the most rational approach.

Neuroscience does proffer evidence in one direction, and that's because theistic dualism posits the mind as the body-less spirit that moves on when your physical body dies. Anything that correlates our thoughts, intentions and beliefs with the material world does run counter to that because it adds physical states as an essential property of the mind which counters the theistic dualists' view.

Gut bacteria alter intentional states(beliefs). Hormones alter intentional states(beliefs). This is evidence against theistic dualism, short of re-defining it which is special pleading.

Well, however logical it is, monism is repellant, intuitively. Who wants to ascribe Beethoven's 9th or Leaves of Grass to GUT BACTERIA?
Jesus, G.T.
Spirits are used to explain what we don't understand. The more we understand, the less we need the spirit explanation. But for individual humans with talents and ideas and accomplishments, even if only the best belcher among your friends, it is still repugnant to be reduced to nothing but a bunch of chemicals flowing over an ugly two pound mass of tissue and GUT BACTERIA.

Just an observation.

 

[G.T.]

"i dont know either way" doesn't require the burden of proof, positive claims do.

This was a challenge to the dualist, not a positing of non-dualism.

in terms of which makes the least assumptions, though - - -

so far, we've never observed a mind without a body.

Again, what does that matter in the realm of the metaphysical?
Oh and aren't you making assumptions based of the physical observances that may have nothing to do with the actuality? Observable phenomenon only tells us what we see but doesn't always explain the why and how. Just because we are unaware of something that is not "observable" doesn't automatically negate the possibility of it's existence or even throw doubt on said existence.

It matters in the discussion of philosophy, and what it's reasonable to assume as truth.

If dualism doesn't meet the burden of proof, it's unreasonable to assume as true but is a mere matter of faith. That's just coherent rationalism. That's why positive claims are those that harbor the burden of proof, agnosticism of a topic is the starting disposition. You're adding on more assumptions, getting farther away from dualism in your above post by implying that it's not falsifiable, which would be another argument against considering it the truth.

Claims that are not falsifiable are not provable, and can be dismissed on account of that.

I'm claiming dualism lies within the realm of the metaphysical which means it can't be substantiated or un-substantiated so I've added no assumptions. I'm simply stating that the belief in the existence of dualism and the belief that dualism doesn't exist are simply that, beliefs that no physical science or philosophical logic can prove, dis-prove, take away from or add too.
Now if ever definitive proof/evidence that can be directly linked then the subject moves from the metaphysical into the realm of the physical, current neuroscience observations have drawn a possible correlation but nothing more.
For all intent an purposes the subject is a moot point.

The subject is "can dualism be rationally justified."

It's not "dualism is a false belief."

So far, you seem to be saying no - it cannot be rationally justified.

We agree. Agnosticism on dualism seems the most rational approach.

Neuroscience does proffer evidence in one direction, and that's because theistic dualism posits the mind as the body-less spirit that moves on when your physical body dies. Anything that correlates our thoughts, intentions and beliefs with the material world does run counter to that because it adds physical states as an essential property of the mind which counters the theistic dualists' view.

Gut bacteria alter intentional states(beliefs). Hormones alter intentional states(beliefs). This is evidence against theistic dualism, short of re-defining it which is special pleading.

Well, however logical it is, monism is repellant, intuitively. Who wants to ascribe Beethoven's 9th or Leaves of Grass to GUT BACTERIA?
Jesus, G.T.
Spirits are used to explain what we don't understand. The more we understand, the less we need the spirit explanation. But for individual humans with talents and ideas and accomplishments, even if only the best belcher among your friends, it is still repugnant to be reduced to nothing but a bunch of chemicals flowing over an ugly two pound mass of tissue and GUT BACTERIA.

Just an observation.

Truth is truth, regardless of the consequences!

If it IS all reducable to physical states, you're still your own unique set of physical states, and a rational enough agent to decide to place meaning onto anything you wish! Every day can be more valued than the last if you move towards your desires. Life's precious!

 

[Ringel05]

"i dont know either way" doesn't require the burden of proof, positive claims do.

This was a challenge to the dualist, not a positing of non-dualism.

in terms of which makes the least assumptions, though - - -

so far, we've never observed a mind without a body.

Again, what does that matter in the realm of the metaphysical?
Oh and aren't you making assumptions based of the physical observances that may have nothing to do with the actuality? Observable phenomenon only tells us what we see but doesn't always explain the why and how. Just because we are unaware of something that is not "observable" doesn't automatically negate the possibility of it's existence or even throw doubt on said existence.

It matters in the discussion of philosophy, and what it's reasonable to assume as truth.

If dualism doesn't meet the burden of proof, it's unreasonable to assume as true but is a mere matter of faith. That's just coherent rationalism. That's why positive claims are those that harbor the burden of proof, agnosticism of a topic is the starting disposition. You're adding on more assumptions, getting farther away from dualism in your above post by implying that it's not falsifiable, which would be another argument against considering it the truth.

Claims that are not falsifiable are not provable, and can be dismissed on account of that.

I'm claiming dualism lies within the realm of the metaphysical which means it can't be substantiated or un-substantiated so I've added no assumptions. I'm simply stating that the belief in the existence of dualism and the belief that dualism doesn't exist are simply that, beliefs that no physical science or philosophical logic can prove, dis-prove, take away from or add too.
Now if ever definitive proof/evidence that can be directly linked then the subject moves from the metaphysical into the realm of the physical, current neuroscience observations have drawn a possible correlation but nothing more.
For all intent an purposes the subject is a moot point.

The subject is "can dualism be rationally justified."

It's not "dualism is a false belief."

So far, you seem to be saying no - it cannot be rationally justified.

We agree. Agnosticism on dualism seems the most rational approach.

Neuroscience does proffer evidence in one direction, and that's because theistic dualism posits the mind as the body-less spirit that moves on when your physical body dies. Anything that correlates our thoughts, intentions and beliefs with the material world does run counter to that because it adds physical states as an essential property of the mind which counters the theistic dualists' view.

Gut bacteria alter intentional states(beliefs). Hormones alter intentional states(beliefs). This is evidence against theistic dualism, short of re-defining it which is special pleading.

Well, however logical it is, monism is repellant, intuitively. Who wants to ascribe Beethoven's 9th or Leaves of Grass to GUT BACTERIA?
Jesus, G.T.
Spirits are used to explain what we don't understand. The more we understand, the less we need the spirit explanation. But for individual humans with talents and ideas and accomplishments, even if only the best belcher among your friends, it is still repugnant to be reduced to nothing but a bunch of chemicals flowing over an ugly two pound mass of tissue and GUT BACTERIA.

Just an observation.

Ghosts, angels, werewolves, vampires, aliens are all manifestations of programs doing what they're not supposed to be doing........

 

[Damaged Eagle]

View attachment 246671

I'm not the one attempting to change the topic of the OP. You want to discuss Dualism so let's do so and not some subject that might overlap.

I studied physics in college and I'm a Pantheist so please do go on about what's physical and what's not, and where intelligence lies and where it doesn't, it should prove amusing.

*****CHUCKLE*****

You've been incoherent on the topic, so far.

A cartoon of a neutrino, which is a sub-atomic particle and is physical and has a mass, was your 1st post - with no commentary - to somehow affirm dualism which is the view that there exists an IMMATERIAL (non physical) realm of reality.

You then continued to assert, over and over again, that outside physical forces affect thoughts - which aligns with an ANTI dualist view as well, since it presumes that thoughts are the results of physical interactions with things. In your example, radiation. Thoughts interact with radiation, that's physicalism and not dualism.

So - I'm not sure you even understand the topic to begin with, let alone should be accusing anyone of changing the subject.

View attachment 246676

Dualism deals with the macro not the micro. I've suggested that forces outside the body might affect our perception of reality. If you can't stay on topic because you're confused about that concept then you should withdraw from your thread in defeat.

*****CHUCKLE*****

Dualism is material and immaterial co-existing in reality. Outside forces affecting the body are physical, and the ones you named so far, are material. Not immaterial. You're arguing against dualism, and being arrogant about it in the mean-time. It's doubly embarrassing for you.

I don't know why you're so arrogant in the face of the topic being so far the fuck over your head, but leave your little schtick in the flame zone and leave the topics like these to folks who are actually interested. You're just a lame troll.

The burden of proof of dualism is either something you can meet, or something you cannot. Everything else is minutia. Leave it alone.

View attachment 246677

If the radiation has intelligent intent prior to entering your body and affects your thoughts to preform by it's intent then it's meet the requirement of Dualism because it is not part of your mere physical body.

However I see now that you're resorting to name calling and abuse.... Typical for a loser.

*****CHUCKLE*****

So you've proven that radiation has intelligent intent?

lol! Get him a nobel prize!

Also - that's not dualism bud, I hate to break that to you again. That's physicalism - i.e. thoughts being contingent on material forces.

I'm not sure why that's so terribly difficult to understand.

You've proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the universe doesn't have coherent intent unknown to mankind?

The subject is Dualism which deals with the mind vs an external influence, not Physicalism, please stay on topic..... That's if your capable of such a thing since you can't can't seem to accept and understand the concept you're OP is about.

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[Damaged Eagle]

Has anyone attempted to prove dualism by citing chemical reactions where the actual chemical components interact and transform into something else? In lay speak, we become more than the sum of our parts?
I don't ask this because I am defending dualism; I am just curious.

I've not seen it, but placing a contingency on chemical reactions having to occur to form something..... would allude to physicalism, which is that everything reduces down to a physical state (such as those reactions, deconstructed).

""More" than the sum of our parts" versus the exact equivalent of the sum of our parts in a paper like that would probably be the crux of what needs to be sussed out.

Don't get hung up on the lay speak--that's why it's lay speak. Your rewrite is more accurate. But I don't think it could be an "exact equivalent" if it has transformed into an entirely different entity.

I guess I wouldn't know why chemical reactions forming something new, or the elements combining to create something different like hydrogen and oxygen forming water.....for instance, wouldn't be physicalism.. but instead point to something immaterial(dualism) existing?

Chemicals in our bodies combining to form something non-physical, like spirit, perhaps? The "spark of life," electrical impulses, are formed by physical entities rubbing together. Yet electricity isn't physical in itself, is it? It is a discharge, something different?

Well, I'm sure if my thoughts on this had any validity, you would have already heard of it. I'm sure you were hoping for someone more learned to respond. At least I've bumped it for you a few times.

Electricity is physical, itself..

Anyhoo, no your thoughts aren't invalid. Kicking ideas around is the whole idea - I'm not the authority and am just weeding things out.

The "forming spirit, perhaps?" question you just asked is the whole crux of the issue. It's not just a question, it's the question (of dualism). To me, it's not established its burden of proof, but at the same time, is not ruled out.

Neoruscience has put quite a dent in it; however, and I'm just fishing for thoughts on the topic that's all.

And yet it can be there and somewhere else far, far, away, affecting outcomes elsewhere.

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[G.T.]

You've been incoherent on the topic, so far.

A cartoon of a neutrino, which is a sub-atomic particle and is physical and has a mass, was your 1st post - with no commentary - to somehow affirm dualism which is the view that there exists an IMMATERIAL (non physical) realm of reality.

You then continued to assert, over and over again, that outside physical forces affect thoughts - which aligns with an ANTI dualist view as well, since it presumes that thoughts are the results of physical interactions with things. In your example, radiation. Thoughts interact with radiation, that's physicalism and not dualism.

So - I'm not sure you even understand the topic to begin with, let alone should be accusing anyone of changing the subject.

View attachment 246676

Dualism deals with the macro not the micro. I've suggested that forces outside the body might affect our perception of reality. If you can't stay on topic because you're confused about that concept then you should withdraw from your thread in defeat.

*****CHUCKLE*****

Dualism is material and immaterial co-existing in reality. Outside forces affecting the body are physical, and the ones you named so far, are material. Not immaterial. You're arguing against dualism, and being arrogant about it in the mean-time. It's doubly embarrassing for you.

I don't know why you're so arrogant in the face of the topic being so far the fuck over your head, but leave your little schtick in the flame zone and leave the topics like these to folks who are actually interested. You're just a lame troll.

The burden of proof of dualism is either something you can meet, or something you cannot. Everything else is minutia. Leave it alone.

View attachment 246677

If the radiation has intelligent intent prior to entering your body and affects your thoughts to preform by it's intent then it's meet the requirement of Dualism because it is not part of your mere physical body.

However I see now that you're resorting to name calling and abuse.... Typical for a loser.

*****CHUCKLE*****

So you've proven that radiation has intelligent intent?

lol! Get him a nobel prize!

Also - that's not dualism bud, I hate to break that to you again. That's physicalism - i.e. thoughts being contingent on material forces.

I'm not sure why that's so terribly difficult to understand.

View attachment 246740

You've proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the universe doesn't have coherent intent unknown to mankind?

The subject is Dualism which deals with the mind vs an external influence, not Physicalism, please stay on topic..... That's if your capable of such a thing since you can't can't seem to accept and understand the concept you're OP is about.

*****CHUCKLE*****

You just dont understand dualism, doesnt seem like you can at all, either. Dualism is that the mind is something separate from the brain.

Physicalism doesn't preclude there being outside forces acting on the body, thats your misapprehension of terms.

Especially if the outside forces are physical, which neutrons and radiation are.

Youre off topic.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

They wouldn't let me take physics. Please give me an example of something immaterial.

A mind without a brain.
A spirit without a body.
Ghosts, gods.

Patheist.

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[Damaged Eagle]

Anything immaterial - and/or things that are not a part of the Natural Universe - i.e. the Supernatural.

Electricity is material - it's tangible, we can measure it, we know what it's made up of. The term "electricity" in wiki has the words physical phenomena in the 1st sentence.

You just dont understand dualism, doesnt seem like you can at all, either. Dualism is that the mind is something separate from the brain.

Physicalism doesn't preclude there being outside forces acting on the body, thats your misapprehension of terms.

Especially if the outside forces are physical, which neutrons and radiation are.

Youre off topic.

You think all forms of radiation are material?

*****ROFLMAO*****

 

[G.T.]

You've been incoherent on the topic, so far.

A cartoon of a neutrino, which is a sub-atomic particle and is physical and has a mass, was your 1st post - with no commentary - to somehow affirm dualism which is the view that there exists an IMMATERIAL (non physical) realm of reality.

You then continued to assert, over and over again, that outside physical forces affect thoughts - which aligns with an ANTI dualist view as well, since it presumes that thoughts are the results of physical interactions with things. In your example, radiation. Thoughts interact with radiation, that's physicalism and not dualism.

So - I'm not sure you even understand the topic to begin with, let alone should be accusing anyone of changing the subject.

View attachment 246676

Dualism deals with the macro not the micro. I've suggested that forces outside the body might affect our perception of reality. If you can't stay on topic because you're confused about that concept then you should withdraw from your thread in defeat.

*****CHUCKLE*****

Dualism is material and immaterial co-existing in reality. Outside forces affecting the body are physical, and the ones you named so far, are material. Not immaterial. You're arguing against dualism, and being arrogant about it in the mean-time. It's doubly embarrassing for you.

I don't know why you're so arrogant in the face of the topic being so far the fuck over your head, but leave your little schtick in the flame zone and leave the topics like these to folks who are actually interested. You're just a lame troll.

The burden of proof of dualism is either something you can meet, or something you cannot. Everything else is minutia. Leave it alone.

Is there anything which is not "physical" in your eyes?

Anything immaterial - and/or things that are not a part of the Natural Universe - i.e. the Supernatural.

Electricity is material - it's tangible, we can measure it, we know what it's made up of. The term "electricity" in wiki has the words physical phenomena in the 1st sentence.

View attachment 246743

You think all forms of radiation are material?

*****ROFLMAO*****

You dont form very coherent arguments, stick to cartoons and videos bro.