What kind of dualist are you?

[Copernicus]

Dualism is the view that there is a non-physical aspect to human beings--a mental/spiritual aspect and a physical aspect. (See the Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on Dualism for reference.) The vast majority of people are dualists. More than that, they are what philosophers call "substance dualists" (aka Cartesian dualists) in that they believe in an immaterial spiritual plane of existence that is independent of physics. The major alternative to substance dualism is "property dualism"--the view that mental phenomena are not physical per se, but that mental/spiritual experience is a property of certain physical interactions. In modern terms, one might call it an emergent property.

Just out of curiosity, I would like to know whether you consider yourself a substance or property dualist. If not, why not? So I offer two choices and an option to decline either label (with explanation).

 

[fromderinside]

Monist. Couple language and emotion and you're on your way to religion. Doesn't work. Sensors, communicators, effectors (squirt, twitch), covers it.

 

[Copernicus]

Monist. Couple language and emotion and you're on your way to religion. Doesn't work. Sensors, communicators, effectors (squirt, twitch), covers it.

What is the difference between a monist and a property dualist in your mind? Property dualism is usually seen as a variety of physicalism, which seems to me to be nothing more than a different label for monism.

 

[untermensche]

"Physical" is just a word to describe everything we think has objective existence.

It is impossible for both physical and non-physical to exist.

If something exists it is physical. By definition.

 

[fast]

Given your explanation and a desire to pick the best fit between the options excluding the other category, I think I'll go with property dualist.

I'd like to share the thought that the very language we use underlies a major confusion that spawns our propensity to defensively deny the existence of immaterial objects. On the surface, there is the immediate thought that such a thing cannot in fact be a thing at all; however, it's only after a genuine effort to focus on what's actually meant can we open the door for true open-mindedness and come to see that what ordinarily drives the denial isn't of the concern that it might otherwise appear to be.

An idea is a mental object, but a mental object is not an object in the traditional sense that we've come to understand an object to be. That fact is the cornerstone of why there's such great resistance to the notion of abstract objects. Things are not as they appear, and what we want to communicate is not accurately perceived. Take an imaginary object for instance. That is not the assertion that there is an object and the kind of object that it is is imaginary. Instead, and counter intuitively, it's in fact a denial of an object. We must take great care not to treat the meaning of multi-worded terms as if they're always a product of the lexical meaning of its constituent words. Like a new life form evolving over time, two-worded terms take on a meaning that might evolve independently over their component parts.

The term "object" needs to be treated with extraordinary care, just like we should with the word, "thing." If there is some thing, then there is something, but the inverse is not true, as although we might discuss something, we are not necessarily discussing some thing. It's as though there is an ambiguity at play with the word, "thing," and so too it is the case with the word, "object."

Earlier, I said that an idea is a mental object, yet I also said that it's not an object. That is of the same vein as I deny that I speaking of some thing just because I'm speaking of something. Mental objects are not things at all, but if we're talking about an idea, we are talking about something. The word, "object" when used in the single two-worded term, "mental object," the scope is substantially increased to include non-objects--and in a way creates symmetry for distinction.

There's no way I would deny that physical processes is a necessary condition for mental objects, but it is inheriently apart of our language to describe such things as immaterial. From here I could continue through what might seem like an endless tunnel of underwater caves, but this post deserves a rest for the sake of reader attention span.

 

[Copernicus]

"Physical" is just a word to describe everything we think has objective existence.

It is impossible for both physical and non-physical to exist.

If something exists it is physical. By definition.

That definition doesn't work very well, given that most English speakers believe that spiritual entities have objective existence. All you are doing here is expressing the opinion that only things with physical properties can exist, but that is just one philosophical point of view.

 

[untermensche]

"Physical" is just a word to describe everything we think has objective existence.

It is impossible for both physical and non-physical to exist.

If something exists it is physical. By definition.

That definition doesn't work very well, given that most English speakers believe that spiritual entities have objective existence. All you are doing here is expressing the opinion that only things with physical properties can exist, but that is just one philosophical point of view.

No.

If it exists we call it "physical".

No matter what form it exists in.

It is impossible for something that exists to be "non-physical". The term makes no sense. It is just a negation of something that does make sense.

 

[bigfield]

Monist. The mind is reducible to the brain.

 

[LordKiran]

"Physical" is just a word to describe everything we think has objective existence.

It is impossible for both physical and non-physical to exist.

If something exists it is physical. By definition.

That definition doesn't work very well, given that most English speakers believe that spiritual entities have objective existence. All you are doing here is expressing the opinion that only things with physical properties can exist, but that is just one philosophical point of view.

Two millenia ago, everyone in Greece believed that the sun revolved around the earth. They were wrong irrespective of what they chose to believe.

 

[Copernicus]

That definition doesn't work very well, given that most English speakers believe that spiritual entities have objective existence. All you are doing here is expressing the opinion that only things with physical properties can exist, but that is just one philosophical point of view.

No.

If it exists we call it "physical".

No matter what form it exists in.

It is impossible for something that exists to be "non-physical". The term makes no sense. It is just a negation of something that does make sense.

You missed the point. Word meanings are based on conventional usage. Most people can be described as Cartesian (or substance) dualists. Religions are grounded in that assumption, and most people adhere to a religious belief of one sort or another. They use the word "physical" to describe the concrete reality that they can experience through bodily sensations, but they treat thought as a different type of experience--one that has a nonphysical origin. It does not matter whether they are mistaken in that belief. They can still adhere to a model of reality that allows for a plane of existence that is different from what they experience through physical senses. You believe that there is no other "spiritual plane"--that everything is rooted in physical existence. I have no problem with that. I am a physicalist myself in that sense, but I accept the logical possibility of a different model of reality.

Monist. The mind is reducible to the brain.

I understand what you are trying to say here, although I would prefer the expression "brain activity". I agree that mental states correspond to some kinds of physical brain activity, but to equate the mind with brain activity is a genetic fallacy. Water is reducible to H2O, but it has different properties that are not reducible to, or predictable from, the properties of the molecules. Daniel Dennet has referred to this kind of reductionism as  greedy reductionism.

That definition doesn't work very well, given that most English speakers believe that spiritual entities have objective existence. All you are doing here is expressing the opinion that only things with physical properties can exist, but that is just one philosophical point of view.

Two millenia ago, everyone in Greece believed that the sun revolved around the earth. They were wrong irrespective of what they chose to believe.

Technically incorrect, although most Greeks believed that in ancient times.  Aristarchus of Samos proposed a heliocentric model in the 3rd century BC and made some astonishingly accurate claims about astronomical concepts. He was cited by Copernicus for having first proposed heliocentrism. Aristarchus's ideas never really caught on, but they had a few followers, e.g.  Seleucus of Seleucia.

I understand your larger point, but I tried to explain my point to untermensche--that a nonphysical plane of existence is logically possible. There is also the point that emergent properties of systemic activity do not necessarily follow from the components of the system, although they supervene on them. That is, mental events supervene on physical events but are not necessarily equivalent to those physical events.

 

[PyramidHead]

My position is most similar to 'anomalous' or 'dual aspect' monism. I agree with untermensche that labeling something as 'physical' may have a folk meaning in accepted usage, but it doesn't refer to a coherent concept when you really break it down. When people say they can talk to spirits, then whether they know it or not they are saying the spirits are actually 'physical', because talking and listening require things ordinarily referred to as physical. Anomalous monism says that there are multiple ways of looking at or describing the same phenomenon, and at least two of these aspects (what we call physical and mental) are mutually irreducible--that is, they convey things that can't be reformulated in terms of the other aspect. This is perhaps only slightly different from property dualism, in that it doesn't ascribe properties to things in themselves; the physical/mental distinction isn't found in substances or their properties, but in the ways we observe and describe them. The 'actual substance' of the universe, if there is one, is neither physical nor mental and has an unknown nature that we don't need to worry about since we'll never know it. I am also a mysterian about the hard problem: it will never be solved.

 

[bigfield]

Monist. The mind is reducible to the brain.

I understand what you are trying to say here, although I would prefer the expression "brain activity". I agree that mental states correspond to some kinds of physical brain activity, but to equate the mind with brain activity is a genetic fallacy. Water is reducible to H2O, but it has different properties that are not reducible to, or predictable from, the properties of the molecules. Daniel Dennet has referred to this kind of reductionism as  greedy reductionism.

I see you point about brain activity, but how is it a genetic fallacy?

Using your water example, brain activity is analogous to the interaction of H₂O molecules. Ice, for example, is merely the interaction between H₂O molecules at temperatures below 0°C, while the mind is merely the interaction between parts of the brain.

Water is reducible to H2O, but it has different properties that are not reducible to, or predictable from, the properties of the molecules.

What properties does water have that cannot be reduced to "its parts and their interactions"?

 

[LordKiran]

No.

If it exists we call it "physical".

No matter what form it exists in.

It is impossible for something that exists to be "non-physical". The term makes no sense. It is just a negation of something that does make sense.

You missed the point. Word meanings are based on conventional usage. Most people can be described as Cartesian (or substance) dualists. Religions are grounded in that assumption, and most people adhere to a religious belief of one sort or another. They use the word "physical" to describe the concrete reality that they can experience through bodily sensations, but they treat thought as a different type of experience--one that has a nonphysical origin. It does not matter whether they are mistaken in that belief. They can still adhere to a model of reality that allows for a plane of existence that is different from what they experience through physical senses. You believe that there is no other "spiritual plane"--that everything is rooted in physical existence. I have no problem with that. I am a physicalist myself in that sense, but I accept the logical possibility of a different model of reality.

Monist. The mind is reducible to the brain.

I understand what you are trying to say here, although I would prefer the expression "brain activity". I agree that mental states correspond to some kinds of physical brain activity, but to equate the mind with brain activity is a genetic fallacy. Water is reducible to H2O, but it has different properties that are not reducible to, or predictable from, the properties of the molecules. Daniel Dennet has referred to this kind of reductionism as  greedy reductionism.

That definition doesn't work very well, given that most English speakers believe that spiritual entities have objective existence. All you are doing here is expressing the opinion that only things with physical properties can exist, but that is just one philosophical point of view.

Two millenia ago, everyone in Greece believed that the sun revolved around the earth. They were wrong irrespective of what they chose to believe.

Technically incorrect, although most Greeks believed that in ancient times.  Aristarchus of Samos proposed a heliocentric model in the 3rd century BC and made some astonishingly accurate claims about astronomical concepts. He was cited by Copernicus for having first proposed heliocentrism. Aristarchus's ideas never really caught on, but they had a few followers, e.g.  Seleucus of Seleucia.

I understand your larger point, but I tried to explain my point to untermensche--that a nonphysical plane of existence is logically possible. There is also the point that emergent properties of systemic activity do not necessarily follow from the components of the system, although they supervene on them. That is, mental events supervene on physical events but are not necessarily equivalent to those physical events.

Does dark energy/matter count as non-physical if we go by Unter's definition? We can detect it (I think?), but we cant really interact with it in any physically tangible way. We can't even say for sure what it actually is. So for all intents and purposes it might as well just be called Aether?

 

[Juma]

You missed the point. Word meanings are based on conventional usage. Most people can be described as Cartesian (or substance) dualists. Religions are grounded in that assumption, and most people adhere to a religious belief of one sort or another. They use the word "physical" to describe the concrete reality that they can experience through bodily sensations, but they treat thought as a different type of experience--one that has a nonphysical origin. It does not matter whether they are mistaken in that belief. They can still adhere to a model of reality that allows for a plane of existence that is different from what they experience through physical senses. You believe that there is no other "spiritual plane"--that everything is rooted in physical existence. I have no problem with that. I am a physicalist myself in that sense, but I accept the logical possibility of a different model of reality.

Monist. The mind is reducible to the brain.

I understand what you are trying to say here, although I would prefer the expression "brain activity". I agree that mental states correspond to some kinds of physical brain activity, but to equate the mind with brain activity is a genetic fallacy. Water is reducible to H2O, but it has different properties that are not reducible to, or predictable from, the properties of the molecules. Daniel Dennet has referred to this kind of reductionism as  greedy reductionism.

That definition doesn't work very well, given that most English speakers believe that spiritual entities have objective existence. All you are doing here is expressing the opinion that only things with physical properties can exist, but that is just one philosophical point of view.

Two millenia ago, everyone in Greece believed that the sun revolved around the earth. They were wrong irrespective of what they chose to believe.

Technically incorrect, although most Greeks believed that in ancient times.  Aristarchus of Samos proposed a heliocentric model in the 3rd century BC and made some astonishingly accurate claims about astronomical concepts. He was cited by Copernicus for having first proposed heliocentrism. Aristarchus's ideas never really caught on, but they had a few followers, e.g.  Seleucus of Seleucia.

I understand your larger point, but I tried to explain my point to untermensche--that a nonphysical plane of existence is logically possible. There is also the point that emergent properties of systemic activity do not necessarily follow from the components of the system, although they supervene on them. That is, mental events supervene on physical events but are not necessarily equivalent to those physical events.

Does dark energy/matter count as non-physical if we go by Unter's definition? We can detect it (I think?), but we cant really interact with it in any physically tangible way. We can't even say for sure what it actually is. So for all intents and purposes it might as well just be called Aether?

Bollocks. If we cant interact with it in ANY way then it doesnt exist to us.

 

[LordKiran]

You missed the point. Word meanings are based on conventional usage. Most people can be described as Cartesian (or substance) dualists. Religions are grounded in that assumption, and most people adhere to a religious belief of one sort or another. They use the word "physical" to describe the concrete reality that they can experience through bodily sensations, but they treat thought as a different type of experience--one that has a nonphysical origin. It does not matter whether they are mistaken in that belief. They can still adhere to a model of reality that allows for a plane of existence that is different from what they experience through physical senses. You believe that there is no other "spiritual plane"--that everything is rooted in physical existence. I have no problem with that. I am a physicalist myself in that sense, but I accept the logical possibility of a different model of reality.

Monist. The mind is reducible to the brain.

I understand what you are trying to say here, although I would prefer the expression "brain activity". I agree that mental states correspond to some kinds of physical brain activity, but to equate the mind with brain activity is a genetic fallacy. Water is reducible to H2O, but it has different properties that are not reducible to, or predictable from, the properties of the molecules. Daniel Dennet has referred to this kind of reductionism as  greedy reductionism.

That definition doesn't work very well, given that most English speakers believe that spiritual entities have objective existence. All you are doing here is expressing the opinion that only things with physical properties can exist, but that is just one philosophical point of view.

Two millenia ago, everyone in Greece believed that the sun revolved around the earth. They were wrong irrespective of what they chose to believe.

Technically incorrect, although most Greeks believed that in ancient times.  Aristarchus of Samos proposed a heliocentric model in the 3rd century BC and made some astonishingly accurate claims about astronomical concepts. He was cited by Copernicus for having first proposed heliocentrism. Aristarchus's ideas never really caught on, but they had a few followers, e.g.  Seleucus of Seleucia.

I understand your larger point, but I tried to explain my point to untermensche--that a nonphysical plane of existence is logically possible. There is also the point that emergent properties of systemic activity do not necessarily follow from the components of the system, although they supervene on them. That is, mental events supervene on physical events but are not necessarily equivalent to those physical events.

Does dark energy/matter count as non-physical if we go by Unter's definition? We can detect it (I think?), but we cant really interact with it in any physically tangible way. We can't even say for sure what it actually is. So for all intents and purposes it might as well just be called Aether?

Bollocks. If we cant interact with it in ANY way then it doesnt exist to us.

So what counts as interaction for the purposes of this discussion?

 

[bilby]

You missed the point. Word meanings are based on conventional usage. Most people can be described as Cartesian (or substance) dualists. Religions are grounded in that assumption, and most people adhere to a religious belief of one sort or another. They use the word "physical" to describe the concrete reality that they can experience through bodily sensations, but they treat thought as a different type of experience--one that has a nonphysical origin. It does not matter whether they are mistaken in that belief. They can still adhere to a model of reality that allows for a plane of existence that is different from what they experience through physical senses. You believe that there is no other "spiritual plane"--that everything is rooted in physical existence. I have no problem with that. I am a physicalist myself in that sense, but I accept the logical possibility of a different model of reality.

Monist. The mind is reducible to the brain.

I understand what you are trying to say here, although I would prefer the expression "brain activity". I agree that mental states correspond to some kinds of physical brain activity, but to equate the mind with brain activity is a genetic fallacy. Water is reducible to H2O, but it has different properties that are not reducible to, or predictable from, the properties of the molecules. Daniel Dennet has referred to this kind of reductionism as  greedy reductionism.

That definition doesn't work very well, given that most English speakers believe that spiritual entities have objective existence. All you are doing here is expressing the opinion that only things with physical properties can exist, but that is just one philosophical point of view.

Two millenia ago, everyone in Greece believed that the sun revolved around the earth. They were wrong irrespective of what they chose to believe.

Technically incorrect, although most Greeks believed that in ancient times.  Aristarchus of Samos proposed a heliocentric model in the 3rd century BC and made some astonishingly accurate claims about astronomical concepts. He was cited by Copernicus for having first proposed heliocentrism. Aristarchus's ideas never really caught on, but they had a few followers, e.g.  Seleucus of Seleucia.

I understand your larger point, but I tried to explain my point to untermensche--that a nonphysical plane of existence is logically possible. There is also the point that emergent properties of systemic activity do not necessarily follow from the components of the system, although they supervene on them. That is, mental events supervene on physical events but are not necessarily equivalent to those physical events.

Does dark energy/matter count as non-physical if we go by Unter's definition? We can detect it (I think?), but we cant really interact with it in any physically tangible way. We can't even say for sure what it actually is. So for all intents and purposes it might as well just be called Aether?

Bollocks. If we cant interact with it in ANY way then it doesnt exist to us.

Technically, dark matter interacts with electromagnetism via humans. #checkmate

 

[bilby]

You missed the point. Word meanings are based on conventional usage. Most people can be described as Cartesian (or substance) dualists. Religions are grounded in that assumption, and most people adhere to a religious belief of one sort or another. They use the word "physical" to describe the concrete reality that they can experience through bodily sensations, but they treat thought as a different type of experience--one that has a nonphysical origin. It does not matter whether they are mistaken in that belief. They can still adhere to a model of reality that allows for a plane of existence that is different from what they experience through physical senses. You believe that there is no other "spiritual plane"--that everything is rooted in physical existence. I have no problem with that. I am a physicalist myself in that sense, but I accept the logical possibility of a different model of reality.

Monist. The mind is reducible to the brain.

I understand what you are trying to say here, although I would prefer the expression "brain activity". I agree that mental states correspond to some kinds of physical brain activity, but to equate the mind with brain activity is a genetic fallacy. Water is reducible to H2O, but it has different properties that are not reducible to, or predictable from, the properties of the molecules. Daniel Dennet has referred to this kind of reductionism as  greedy reductionism.

That definition doesn't work very well, given that most English speakers believe that spiritual entities have objective existence. All you are doing here is expressing the opinion that only things with physical properties can exist, but that is just one philosophical point of view.

Two millenia ago, everyone in Greece believed that the sun revolved around the earth. They were wrong irrespective of what they chose to believe.

Technically incorrect, although most Greeks believed that in ancient times.  Aristarchus of Samos proposed a heliocentric model in the 3rd century BC and made some astonishingly accurate claims about astronomical concepts. He was cited by Copernicus for having first proposed heliocentrism. Aristarchus's ideas never really caught on, but they had a few followers, e.g.  Seleucus of Seleucia.

I understand your larger point, but I tried to explain my point to untermensche--that a nonphysical plane of existence is logically possible. There is also the point that emergent properties of systemic activity do not necessarily follow from the components of the system, although they supervene on them. That is, mental events supervene on physical events but are not necessarily equivalent to those physical events.

Does dark energy/matter count as non-physical if we go by Unter's definition? We can detect it (I think?), but we cant really interact with it in any physically tangible way. We can't even say for sure what it actually is. So for all intents and purposes it might as well just be called Aether?

Bollocks. If we cant interact with it in ANY way then it doesnt exist to us.

So what counts as interaction for the purposes of this discussion?

There are four interactions - Gravity, Electromagnetism, and the Strong and Weak nuclear forces.

All interactions are one or more of these. There are no other interactions at scales larger than atoms and smaller than galaxies; It is possible that there are no other interactions even outside this broad range of scales, but that has not yet been demonstrated to be the case.

"Dark Matter" is so called because it interacts with regular matter only via Gravity, and does not appear to interact with regular matter electromagnetically.

Almost everything in human experience is electromagnetic; Gravity is too puny to be noticeable (unless you have a planet sized lump of matter); the other two forces act on scales too small for us to notice. We generally need special equipment to detect these non-electromagnetic forces.

 

[Copernicus]

Er, I think that most of us have noticed gravity.

 

[bilby]

Er, I think that most of us have noticed gravity.

Only because most of us are in close proximity to a planet sized lump of matter. A 1g fridge magnet can generate a magnetic field that easily overcomes the gravity of the 6x10²⁴kg Earth. The gravitational attraction of even the most massive objects is pathetic - the gravitational attraction of two railway locomotives an inch apart cannot overcome the minuscule friction between wheels and rails to pull them together.

Have you ever been aware of people moving around on the other side of a wall, due to the gravitational pull they exert on you? Of course not. Gravity is far too weak for that.

 

[Juma]

You missed the point. Word meanings are based on conventional usage. Most people can be described as Cartesian (or substance) dualists. Religions are grounded in that assumption, and most people adhere to a religious belief of one sort or another. They use the word "physical" to describe the concrete reality that they can experience through bodily sensations, but they treat thought as a different type of experience--one that has a nonphysical origin. It does not matter whether they are mistaken in that belief. They can still adhere to a model of reality that allows for a plane of existence that is different from what they experience through physical senses. You believe that there is no other "spiritual plane"--that everything is rooted in physical existence. I have no problem with that. I am a physicalist myself in that sense, but I accept the logical possibility of a different model of reality.

Monist. The mind is reducible to the brain.

I understand what you are trying to say here, although I would prefer the expression "brain activity". I agree that mental states correspond to some kinds of physical brain activity, but to equate the mind with brain activity is a genetic fallacy. Water is reducible to H2O, but it has different properties that are not reducible to, or predictable from, the properties of the molecules. Daniel Dennet has referred to this kind of reductionism as  greedy reductionism.

That definition doesn't work very well, given that most English speakers believe that spiritual entities have objective existence. All you are doing here is expressing the opinion that only things with physical properties can exist, but that is just one philosophical point of view.

Two millenia ago, everyone in Greece believed that the sun revolved around the earth. They were wrong irrespective of what they chose to believe.

Technically incorrect, although most Greeks believed that in ancient times.  Aristarchus of Samos proposed a heliocentric model in the 3rd century BC and made some astonishingly accurate claims about astronomical concepts. He was cited by Copernicus for having first proposed heliocentrism. Aristarchus's ideas never really caught on, but they had a few followers, e.g.  Seleucus of Seleucia.

I understand your larger point, but I tried to explain my point to untermensche--that a nonphysical plane of existence is logically possible. There is also the point that emergent properties of systemic activity do not necessarily follow from the components of the system, although they supervene on them. That is, mental events supervene on physical events but are not necessarily equivalent to those physical events.

Does dark energy/matter count as non-physical if we go by Unter's definition? We can detect it (I think?), but we cant really interact with it in any physically tangible way. We can't even say for sure what it actually is. So for all intents and purposes it might as well just be called Aether?

Bollocks. If we cant interact with it in ANY way then it doesnt exist to us.

Technically, dark matter interacts with electromagnetism via humans. #checkmate

Sorry. Didnt get this.