Dualism hasn't met the burden of proof.

[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.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[G.T.]

A neutrino is a particle.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[G.T.]

That's nice, can you discuss the OP or leave the thread, please? I wasn't soliciting spam you can do that in the flame zone.

 

[G.T.]

A Neutrino is a sub-atomic particle that has mass, this makes it material - it doesn't speak to the advancement of dualism. We can also create them in particle accelerators.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

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

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[G.T.]

View attachment 246657

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

Prove WHAT are part of the body, and don't affect thought?

Follow-up: How would this affect dualism?

Last: Prove they DO, as opposed to asking anyone to prove a negative.

Might help to have a coherent post, once in a while.

 

[G.T.]

Since Damaged Eagle doesn't understand the topic of dualism, I can help his particular misapprehension and save him some time.

Dualism doesn't say that neutrinos do, or don't affect consciousness.

Dualism says there's a mind that's separate from the body.

A neutrino, being a particle, having an affect on consciousness would go AGAINST dualism, as it further alludes to consciousness being a result of physical processes.

 

[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*****

 

[G.T.]

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.

 

[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*****

 

[G.T.]

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.

View attachment 246664

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.

*****CHUCKLE*****

1. Sub atomic particles interact with the body - that's a point against dualism and not for it. Physical interactions affecting thought. Dualism asserts non-physical consciousness, not physical. Sub-atomic particles are what "material" refers to, not "immaterial," which is what's involved in dualism. These particles have a mass. They're part of the physical world.
2. you haven't established that they affect thoughts, either....but thoughts likely depend on them since sub-atomic particles are part of their physical make-up -
3. You're still arguing against dualism, and not for it.

 

[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*****

 

[G.T.]

View attachment 246666

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*****

I'm not sure you read the OP correctly -

It asserts that dualism has not met its burden of proof. What you responded with were 4-5 posts putting dualism further into the hole and asserting that physical aspects of the world (sub atomic particles) affect consciousness - which would be counter to dualism and assist my point. You then made the above post, which asks that the burden of proof be shifted onto the proper skeptic, and that's called an argument from ignorance fallacy. You again asserted that physical forces affect the body, which affect thoughts, which again - - goes against dualism. Not for it.



Radiation does not affect the way that you think until it reaches and interacts with your physical body. That's yet ANOTHER point AGAINST dualism.

I think you should probably read a paper on what dualism entails because in THINKING you're arguing for it, you're arguing against it.

Dualism implies a spirit-realm, and you're asserting that physical things affect the physical mind and that's counter to a pro-dualist argument.

 

[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.

 

[G.T.]

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.

 

[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*****

 

[G.T.]

View attachment 246668

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*****

No. The argument is that physical things in the outside world reaching and interacting with your physical body, thus affecting your thoughts, is an argument for physicalism and against dualism.

 

[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.