Mind Body Dualism

by Coded Logic 58 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Coded Logic

  I've never found Dualism - the idea that the mind and the brain are two different substances with the mind being "immaterial" or "non-material" - a valid manner in which to address consciousness or any mysteries relating to it. To show the reasons why I think it's bad metaphysics I'll use analogous reasoning to make a case for my newly made up "mystic essence".

  For hundreds of years scientists have studied plants and animals all across the world. But they still can't explain where ecosystems come from. They don't even know what ecosystems are. And there are several immaterial properties that ecosystems have that cannot be explained by the biology of plants and animals. For example; cooperation, coordination, interdependence and decomposition. A material world view cannot account for the existence of any of these things nor can it explain ecosystems so the best explanation is Mystic Essence.

  I suppose anyone reading this will intuitively understand my argument is absurd. But let's take a moment and explore why it's absurd.

  While the first sentence is certainly true the second one is not. We actually do know where ecosystems come from. They come from the interactions of plants and animals within an environment. The same is true of consciousness - we do know where it comes from. It comes from the electrochemical reactions of a physical brain.

  The third sentence is also not true. We actually do know what ecosystems are. They are an emergent hierarchy of complex biological systems becoming more than the sum of any of their organisms. The same is true of consciousness. The whole brain has properties which none of it's individual neurons of pathways do.

  The fourth and fifth sentence make the category error of claiming cooperation, coordination, interdependence and decomposition are immaterial - which they're not. They're conceptual. There's a huge difference. The same category error is often made when talking about thoughts, feelings, and reason.

  And the last sentence is just an empty claim. It in no way explains how Mystic Essence can account for ecosystems nor does it show that Mystic Essence actually exists. The same is true of of those who try to use an "immaterial soul" to explain consciousness. It's not an explanation nor is it something that's been shown to exist. It's just a vacuous placeholder instead of a real answer.
• 

  sparky1

  

  I highly recommend this book. It helped me to clarify my thoughts and understanding about 'dualism' and 'the mind'. The book is tough going sometimes but if you stick with it I think you may gain some benefit from it.
• 

  slimboyfat

  coded, it is a false, if understandable inference to make to assume that someone who calls into question materialistic reductionism is therefore arguing for old fashioned mind/body dualism. However the philosophers who are currently calling into question materialistic monism are not seeking to regress to Cartesian dualism. They tend to indicate that a completely new kind of language may be required. Authors like Thomas Nagel, Raymond Tallis and Mary Midgley argue that a new way of describing reality may be necessary in order to do it justice. It's exciting to think we may be on the edge of an epistemic disjuncture.

  Mary Midgley's refutation of materialism is simple:

  Materialism claims that nothing exists except matter.

  The idea that "nothing exists except matter" does not itself consist of matter.

  Therefore materialism is self-refuting.
• 

  Twitch

  Materialism claims that nothing exist except matter.
  The idea that "nothing exists except matter" does not itself consist of matter.
  Therefore materialism is self-refuting.

  Bertrand Russell and his paradox would be proud
• 

  Coded Logic

  The idea that "nothing exists except matter" does not itself consist of matter.

  Are you putting forth the position that ideas are not made of matter? If so, can you give me an example of an idea existing without a physical medium (brains, books, hard drives, etc.)?
• 

  cofty

  Materialism claims that nothing exists except matter.
  The idea that "nothing exists except matter" does not itself consist of matter.
  Therefore materialism is self-refuting

  Strawman - The OP does not assert that everything consists of matter.

  There is no ghost in the machine. We are our brains. That isn't comforting but I can see no evidence to believe otherwise.
• 

  Coded Logic

  Crofty is correct. My position is not "materialism is all there is". Rather, my position is the sum total of physical reality is what we're currently justified in believing. Anything beyond that has yet to be established and can't be used as an explanation for anything else.
• 

  slimboyfat

  The argument of Midgley and others is that while ideas may require matter to exist, the ideas themselves consist of more than simply the configurations of atoms from which they arise. Just as a television programme consists of more than particles interacting with a screen in the context of technology. The language we use to describe our experience of ourselves also contradicts reductionism. For example a statement such as, "I know that I consist only of the atoms that make up my body". In order to make statement asserting identity between our personhood and our physicality we need to linguistically stand aside from our physicality and invoke "I" to begin with. Raymond Tallis has argued against reductionism on lots of different grounds too.
• 

  galaxie

  Convoluted reasoning can only exist via a physical medium as does our senses. To argue that an 'idea ' does not consist of matter is a convolution of the stance of materialism or to put it mildly a misrepresentation. An idea is most definately ' made up' from the physical mechanics of the brain therefore relying on matter.
• 

  Coded Logic

  SBF,

  I'm really not sure why you're bringing up reductionism. Especially when my OP specifically addressed emergent properties. It's the complete opposite of reductionism. In order to understand any complex system we have to be aware that there may be properties of the whole which do not exist as properties of the parts.

  Materialism isn't just what things are made up of either. Its also how things behave in a system. How things interact. How things change over time.

  Identity is transient. Who I was ten years ago is not who I am now. And who I am now is not who I will be in ten years from now. Things never stay the same. This is one of the fundamentals of physical reality. It's really odd how you consistently try and pigeonhole materialism into static or isolated explanations. It's the complete opposite.

  Brain states can be compared to other brain states. Just as ideas can be compared to other ideas. And just because you can use "personhood" to describe one particular aspect of a human and "physicality" to describe another doesn't mean those two descriptors aren't compatible or related.