Dualism hasn't met the burden of proof.

[Damaged Eagle]

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.

No. It's an argument for Dualism. Especially if a thought, which has intelligent intent behind it, came from outside your mortal body in the from of radiation.

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[Dajjal]

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.

Daniel Dennett dismisses dualism in a couple of sentences in his book ' consciousness explained' I tweeted him on twitter telling him he had no right to call his book consciousness explained, and he should have called it consciousness explored. Then I would not have felt the need to waste my money on it in order to criticize it.

I told him I have had lots of messages from my dead relatives, through spiritualist mediums. Therefore dualism is correct, and consciousness survives without the brain.

The occult teaches we have a number of higher bodies, and they are connected to the physical body and brain through the etheric counterpart, and the chakras.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

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.

No. It's an argument for Dualism. Especially if a thought, which has intelligent intent behind it, came from outside your mortal body in the from of radiation.

*****CHUCKLE*****

Radiation forms thoughts, or affects them?

You should probably think about that for a little while, aside from contemplating if radiation is physical.

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*****

 

[Damaged Eagle]

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.

No. It's an argument for Dualism. Especially if a thought, which has intelligent intent behind it, came from outside your mortal body in the from of radiation.

*****CHUCKLE*****

Radiation forms thoughts, or affects them?

You should probably think about that for a little while, aside from contemplating if radiation is physical.

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.

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*****

 

[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.

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.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

No. It's an argument for Dualism. Especially if a thought, which has intelligent intent behind it, came from outside your mortal body in the from of radiation.

*****CHUCKLE*****

Radiation forms thoughts, or affects them?

You should probably think about that for a little while, aside from contemplating if radiation is physical.

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 **** 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.

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*****

 

[OldLady]

No. It's an argument for Dualism. Especially if a thought, which has intelligent intent behind it, came from outside your mortal body in the from of radiation.

*****CHUCKLE*****

Radiation forms thoughts, or affects them?

You should probably think about that for a little while, aside from contemplating if radiation is physical.

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 **** 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?

 

[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.

 

[OldLady]

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 **** 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.

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