Dualism hasn't met the burden of proof.

[Damaged Eagle]

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[Damaged Eagle]

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[Damaged Eagle]

Prove they're part of the body and don't affect conscious reality and thought.

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[Damaged Eagle]

Prove that subatomic particles which are part and yet are not part of the body, contrary to your macro visualization of reality, do not affect conscious thought.

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[Damaged Eagle]

View attachment 246662

Prove that subatomic particles which are part and yet are not part of the body, contrary to your macro visualization of reality, do not affect conscious thought.

*****CHUCKLE*****

If they affect conscious thought, since they're material, they'd be more evidence AGAINST dualism.....and align with my OP.

Consciousness being contingent on the material is an anti dualist argument, not sure you seem to understand what you're saying.

If subatomic particles affect conscious thought and are not part of the physical earthly body, as you speak of it (i.e brain, heart, arms, legs, etc,..), then subatomic particles are proof that consciousness is more than the body since subatomic particles are everywhere.

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[Damaged Eagle]

1. Subatomic particles do interact with the body.
2. Too much radiation will affect the way you think.
3. Therefore small amounts of radiation from outside the body will affect the conscious thought.

Prove that radiation from outside the body does not provide a guiding force in some unknown intelligent way to life itself.

Otherwise your opening OP is just a sham argument to prove that you don't believe in dualism because in the end you've not taken all factors that might affect conscious thought into consideration.

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[OldLady]

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.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

I see..... So now your argument is that the whole universe is inside the physical body, and most especially your brain, that you inhabit when you argue against the dualism.

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[OldLady]

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.