What kind of dualist are you?

[Random Person]

Can you expand on that?

There isn't much to expand on that I haven't already made clear. What people see as entities somehow existing out there are in fact mere mental representations created within our mind presumably to ensure we can make sense of the complex world that exits out there without risking information overload. This implies that we are bound to understand the world as interplay of these entities. We see a bird perch on a branch. We think the branch supports the weight of the bird. We hear the song of the bird and take it to be a message to other birds. The world is thus made simple enough. It's very much like a cartoon. It's an illusion. What we take to be a tree existing in its own right in the world out there is in effect a mental image that can only exists therefore within our mind. The image probably represents something that is in the world but this something isn't going to be a tree. To think it's really a tree is a naïve misunderstanding of our position as observer. Assuming we are that.

So our mind contains distinctions to represent and interpret the world, and these distinctions, like black and white, hot and cold, close and far etc. have no ontological import, i.e. they don't show things that exist in the world out there. As representations, they can exist only within our mind (although, as such they are absolutely real). Their import is epistemological. They represent.
EB

You have yet to make yourself clear.

Everything only exists in the mind but yet also exists outside of the mind. How does this to relate to love and hate?

 

[ryan]

Do you think that the concept of "downward causation" is compatible with parallelism?

Absolutely not, parallelism has no causation.

OK, then you understand that brain activity causes a mind to exist, not vice versa. You should not be confusing property dualism and parallelism.

Yeah, but it would seem like there could also be a PD that would allow downward causation if we just reversed the higher and lower order properties. In which case the physical is a property of the mind. But that would still not be parallelism, so I am starting to see the differences.

Thanks for all of the help. But I still have to think about it for a while.

 

[fromderinside]

Think of it like this, In the macro world that follows this in a time line except we don't which this we are pairing with that while in the micros world we know that that follows this but we don't know whether there are more this's before the appearance of that.

As for things we believe are created by material things maybe that's all just believe.

 

[ryan]

Think of it like this, In the macro world that follows this in a time line except we don't which this we are pairing with that while in the micros world we know that that follows this but we don't know whether there are more this's before the appearance of that.

As for things we believe are created by material things maybe that's all just believe.

Yeah, there's a lot to think about. I am just trying to think about what I am suppose to think about first.

 

[Copernicus]

There isn't much to expand on that I haven't already made clear. What people see as entities somehow existing out there are in fact mere mental representations created within our mind presumably to ensure we can make sense of the complex world that exits out there without risking information overload. This implies that we are bound to understand the world as interplay of these entities. We see a bird perch on a branch. We think the branch supports the weight of the bird. We hear the song of the bird and take it to be a message to other birds. The world is thus made simple enough. It's very much like a cartoon. It's an illusion. What we take to be a tree existing in its own right in the world out there is in effect a mental image that can only exists therefore within our mind. The image probably represents something that is in the world but this something isn't going to be a tree. To think it's really a tree is a naïve misunderstanding of our position as observer. Assuming we are that.

So our mind contains distinctions to represent and interpret the world, and these distinctions, like black and white, hot and cold, close and far etc. have no ontological import, i.e. they don't show things that exist in the world out there. As representations, they can exist only within our mind (although, as such they are absolutely real). Their import is epistemological. They represent.
EB

You have yet to make yourself clear.

Everything only exists in the mind but yet also exists outside of the mind. How does this to relate to love and hate?

Let me take a shot at this, because I think it is correct to say that everything we perceive is an illusion. All of us are familiar with optical illusions--images that appear ambiguous to us like the necker cube:



We see a cube that is oriented either to the left or the right, depending on whether we imagine the square on the left or the right to be the face of the cube. That is, our minds build a model of the reality and even embellish the 2D image as a kind of quasi-3D experience. However, we can also see it as connected straight lines. What is interesting about optical illusions is that they expose this capability of the mind to project different models onto the same sense experience.

We certainly don't see everything as an optical illusion. What we see normally looks unambiguous to us, but we all also experience misperceptions--things we initially mistake for other objects. For example, a rope on the ground might initially be mistaken for a snake until the mind does some more processing on incoming data. We are constantly updating and revising the models of what we perceive, but we have the illusion that the reality around us is a smooth, stable flow. Now suppose that every bodily sense is experiencing these ever-changing illusions and what we perceive as real is actually just a composite illusion. And that is all we can ever know of reality. There is no perfect model or "theory of everything", because it all depends on perspective--which square we choose to think of as the face of the cube. "Everything exists in the mind but yet also exists outside of the mind." That's what you said.

 

[Speakpigeon]

There isn't much to expand on that I haven't already made clear. What people see as entities somehow existing out there are in fact mere mental representations created within our mind presumably to ensure we can make sense of the complex world that exits out there without risking information overload. This implies that we are bound to understand the world as interplay of these entities. We see a bird perch on a branch. We think the branch supports the weight of the bird. We hear the song of the bird and take it to be a message to other birds. The world is thus made simple enough. It's very much like a cartoon. It's an illusion. What we take to be a tree existing in its own right in the world out there is in effect a mental image that can only exists therefore within our mind. The image probably represents something that is in the world but this something isn't going to be a tree. To think it's really a tree is a naïve misunderstanding of our position as observer. Assuming we are that.

So our mind contains distinctions to represent and interpret the world, and these distinctions, like black and white, hot and cold, close and far etc. have no ontological import, i.e. they don't show things that exist in the world out there. As representations, they can exist only within our mind (although, as such they are absolutely real). Their import is epistemological. They represent.
EB

You have yet to make yourself clear.

Too bad.

Everything only exists in the mind but yet also exists outside of the mind.

Sorry, I'm a stickler for logic and I don't get the logic of what you say here. I don't know what you mean.

It would be something of a miracle if something existed both inside our mind and outside of it.

Instead, our mind contains things that are best understood as representations of things outside the mind.

How does this to relate to love and hate?

Love and hate are like black ink on white paper. One way we understand the world is by reducing the complexity of our representation of it. Love/Hate is a simple metrics and it's good enough to decide on who to mate with. The reality is much more complex and chaotic such that we could not even imagine it. So it will be just "I love you" or "I hate you", or something in between. And we tend to essentialise our concepts so we may think that love and hate exist outside the mind just like so many people think that Good and Evil exist outside the mind. No, there's probably something outside the mind but it is naïve to think there is love and hate, or Good and Evil.
EB

 

[Random Person]

You have yet to make yourself clear.

Too bad.

Everything only exists in the mind but yet also exists outside of the mind.

Sorry, I'm a stickler for logic and I don't get the logic of what you say here. I don't know what you mean.

It would be something of a miracle if something existed both inside our mind and outside of it.

Instead, our mind contains things that are best understood as representations of things outside the mind.

How does this to relate to love and hate?

Love and hate are like black ink on white paper. One way we understand the world is by reducing the complexity of our representation of it. Love/Hate is a simple metrics and it's good enough to decide on who to mate with. The reality is much more complex and chaotic such that we could not even imagine it. So it will be just "I love you" or "I hate you", or something in between. And we tend to essentialise our concepts so we may think that love and hate exist outside the mind just like so many people think that Good and Evil exist outside the mind. No, there's probably something outside the mind but it is naïve to think there is love and hate, or Good and Evil.
EB

If love, hate, good or evil only exist in the mind then they still exist, yes?

 

[Random Person]

You have yet to make yourself clear.

Everything only exists in the mind but yet also exists outside of the mind. How does this to relate to love and hate?

Let me take a shot at this, because I think it is correct to say that everything we perceive is an illusion. All of us are familiar with optical illusions--images that appear ambiguous to us like the necker cube:

View attachment 11731

We see a cube that is oriented either to the left or the right, depending on whether we imagine the square on the left or the right to be the face of the cube. That is, our minds build a model of the reality and even embellish the 2D image as a kind of quasi-3D experience. However, we can also see it as connected straight lines. What is interesting about optical illusions is that they expose this capability of the mind to project different models onto the same sense experience.

We certainly don't see everything as an optical illusion. What we see normally looks unambiguous to us, but we all also experience misperceptions--things we initially mistake for other objects. For example, a rope on the ground might initially be mistaken for a snake until the mind does some more processing on incoming data. We are constantly updating and revising the models of what we perceive, but we have the illusion that the reality around us is a smooth, stable flow. Now suppose that every bodily sense is experiencing these ever-changing illusions and what we perceive as real is actually just a composite illusion. And that is all we can ever know of reality. There is no perfect model or "theory of everything", because it all depends on perspective--which square we choose to think of as the face of the cube. "Everything exists in the mind but yet also exists outside of the mind." That's what you said.

Gee, I feel like a college Freshman again, only without the patience and sense of wonder.

If I can't discern what is real why should I listen to anyone that can't discern reality?

 

[Copernicus]

Let me take a shot at this, because I think it is correct to say that everything we perceive is an illusion. All of us are familiar with optical illusions--images that appear ambiguous to us like the necker cube:

View attachment 11731

We see a cube that is oriented either to the left or the right, depending on whether we imagine the square on the left or the right to be the face of the cube. That is, our minds build a model of the reality and even embellish the 2D image as a kind of quasi-3D experience. However, we can also see it as connected straight lines. What is interesting about optical illusions is that they expose this capability of the mind to project different models onto the same sense experience.

We certainly don't see everything as an optical illusion. What we see normally looks unambiguous to us, but we all also experience misperceptions--things we initially mistake for other objects. For example, a rope on the ground might initially be mistaken for a snake until the mind does some more processing on incoming data. We are constantly updating and revising the models of what we perceive, but we have the illusion that the reality around us is a smooth, stable flow. Now suppose that every bodily sense is experiencing these ever-changing illusions and what we perceive as real is actually just a composite illusion. And that is all we can ever know of reality. There is no perfect model or "theory of everything", because it all depends on perspective--which square we choose to think of as the face of the cube. "Everything exists in the mind but yet also exists outside of the mind." That's what you said.

Gee, I feel like a college Freshman again, only without the patience and sense of wonder.

If I can't discern what is real why should I listen to anyone that can't discern reality?

I think that you missed the point if you thought what I wrote was a criticism of you or your ability to discern what is real. The point is that we spend our lives discovering what is real and discerning what is real from what isn't. That's why our mental models of reality are flexible--so that we can become good at discerning reality. It's just that it is a mistake to think that there is only one way to discern it.

 

[Random Person]

Gee, I feel like a college Freshman again, only without the patience and sense of wonder.

If I can't discern what is real why should I listen to anyone that can't discern reality?

I think that you missed the point if you thought what I wrote was a criticism of you or your ability to discern what is real. The point is that we spend our lives discovering what is real and discerning what is real from what isn't. That's why our mental models of reality are flexible--so that we can become good at discerning reality. It's just that it is a mistake to think that there is only one way to discern it.

No, I didn't miss the point.

Back to the OP. You are assuming that everyone is a dualist and that there are only two types. Is there a conclusion that you are trying to get to?

 

[Copernicus]

I think that you missed the point if you thought what I wrote was a criticism of you or your ability to discern what is real. The point is that we spend our lives discovering what is real and discerning what is real from what isn't. That's why our mental models of reality are flexible--so that we can become good at discerning reality. It's just that it is a mistake to think that there is only one way to discern it.

No, I didn't miss the point.

OK, but your demurral here is also what you would think if you had missed it. Anyway, I can see that it isn't worth pursuing.

Back to the OP. You are assuming that everyone is a dualist and that there are only two types. Is there a conclusion that you are trying to get to?

From the OP: "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)."

There is a reason why I gave people three choices, and I really did expect more people to choose property dualism. I suspect that most can't help but associate property dualism with substance dualism, although there is a very clear metaphysical distinction between the two.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Too bad.

Everything only exists in the mind but yet also exists outside of the mind.

Sorry, I'm a stickler for logic and I don't get the logic of what you say here. I don't know what you mean.

It would be something of a miracle if something existed both inside our mind and outside of it.

Instead, our mind contains things that are best understood as representations of things outside the mind.

How does this to relate to love and hate?

Love and hate are like black ink on white paper. One way we understand the world is by reducing the complexity of our representation of it. Love/Hate is a simple metrics and it's good enough to decide on who to mate with. The reality is much more complex and chaotic such that we could not even imagine it. So it will be just "I love you" or "I hate you", or something in between. And we tend to essentialise our concepts so we may think that love and hate exist outside the mind just like so many people think that Good and Evil exist outside the mind. No, there's probably something outside the mind but it is naïve to think there is love and hate, or Good and Evil.
EB

If love, hate, good or evil only exist in the mind then they still exist, yes?

Yes and no. Each of us has their own representation and there is no good reason to think our representations are anyway near identical, so it would be misleading and disingenuous to claim that love and hate exist just because each of us has something in their mind that can pass off as a representation of love and hate. What do exist, if only in our minds, are our notions of love and hate, good and evil. Isn't that good enough?
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Let me take a shot at this, because I think it is correct to say that everything we perceive is an illusion. All of us are familiar with optical illusions--images that appear ambiguous to us like the necker cube:

View attachment 11731

We see a cube that is oriented either to the left or the right, depending on whether we imagine the square on the left or the right to be the face of the cube. That is, our minds build a model of the reality and even embellish the 2D image as a kind of quasi-3D experience. However, we can also see it as connected straight lines. What is interesting about optical illusions is that they expose this capability of the mind to project different models onto the same sense experience.

We certainly don't see everything as an optical illusion. What we see normally looks unambiguous to us, but we all also experience misperceptions--things we initially mistake for other objects. For example, a rope on the ground might initially be mistaken for a snake until the mind does some more processing on incoming data. We are constantly updating and revising the models of what we perceive, but we have the illusion that the reality around us is a smooth, stable flow. Now suppose that every bodily sense is experiencing these ever-changing illusions and what we perceive as real is actually just a composite illusion. And that is all we can ever know of reality. There is no perfect model or "theory of everything", because it all depends on perspective--which square we choose to think of as the face of the cube. "Everything exists in the mind but yet also exists outside of the mind." That's what you said.

Gee, I feel like a college Freshman again, only without the patience and sense of wonder.

If I can't discern what is real why should I listen to anyone that can't discern reality?

Nobody is forcing you. You do as you like. It's no skin of my back.
EB