# 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.

Damaged Eagle said:


> 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.

Damaged Eagle said:


> 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

G.T. said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...






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.

Damaged Eagle said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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*****
Click to expand...

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.

Damaged Eagle said:


> 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 *u*_*ntil 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.

OldLady said:


> 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.

Damaged Eagle said:


> 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

G.T. said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...

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.


----------



## Damaged Eagle

G.T. said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...








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*****


----------



## G.T.

OldLady said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...

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?


----------



## Dajjal

G.T. said:


> 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.


----------



## G.T.

Damaged Eagle said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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*****
Click to expand...

Radiation _forms_ thoughts, or affects them?

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


----------



## G.T.

Dajjal said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...

I think that personal experience and testimony, while convincing for the individual, is the least compelling evidence for something since delusions, illusions and other sleight of hands of cognition exist and can be reproduced.


----------



## Damaged Eagle

G.T. said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Radiation _forms_ thoughts, or affects them?
> 
> You should probably think about that for a little while, aside from contemplating if radiation is physical.
Click to expand...






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*****


----------



## G.T.

Damaged Eagle said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Radiation _forms_ thoughts, or affects them?
> 
> You should probably think about that for a little while, aside from contemplating if radiation is physical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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*****
Click to expand...

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.


----------



## Damaged Eagle

G.T. said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Radiation _forms_ thoughts, or affects them?
> 
> You should probably think about that for a little while, aside from contemplating if radiation is physical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...






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

G.T. said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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?
Click to expand...

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.


----------



## G.T.

Damaged Eagle said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Radiation _forms_ thoughts, or affects them?
> 
> You should probably think about that for a little while, aside from contemplating if radiation is physical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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*****
Click to expand...

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 fuck 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.


----------



## G.T.

OldLady said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...

Electricity is physical, itself..

Anyhoo, no your thoughts aren't invalid. Kicking ideas around is the whole idea - I'm not the authority and am just weeding things out. 

The "forming spirit, perhaps?" question you just asked is the whole crux of the issue. It's not just a question, it's the question (of dualism). To me, it's not established its burden of proof, but at the same time, is not ruled out. 

Neoruscience has put quite a dent in it; however, and I'm just fishing for thoughts on the topic that's all.


----------



## Damaged Eagle

G.T. said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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 fuck 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.
Click to expand...






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*****


----------



## G.T.

Damaged Eagle said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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 fuck 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> View attachment 246677
> 
> 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*****
Click to expand...

So you've proven that radiation has intelligent intent? 

lol! Get him a nobel prize!

Also - that's not dualism bud, I hate to break that to you again. That's physicalism - i.e. thoughts being _*contingent on material forces.*_

I'm not sure why that's so terribly difficult to understand.


----------



## OldLady

G.T. said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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 fuck 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.
Click to expand...


Is there anything which is not "physical" in your eyes?


----------



## Ringel05

G.T. said:


> 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.


----------



## G.T.

OldLady said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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 fuck 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is there anything which is not "physical" in your eyes?
Click to expand...

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.


----------



## G.T.

Ringel05 said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...

Right, either could be true and that seems to just re-establish the hang-up, Ringel. I'm not asserting that dualism is false, but that it's un-established as being true. 

If one's going to make the claim that dualism is the case, the burden of proof would be on the dualist. So far, the evidence is, in my opinion, inadequate and especially so when advances in neuroscience are considered. A symbiotic relationship may be the case, but I'm not compelled to assume a separation to begin with.


----------



## OldLady

G.T. said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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 fuck 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is there anything which is not "physical" in your eyes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...

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


----------



## G.T.

OldLady said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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 fuck 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is there anything which is not "physical" in your eyes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They wouldn't let me take physics.   Please give me an example of something immaterial.
Click to expand...

A mind without a brain.
A spirit without a body. 
Ghosts, gods.


----------



## G.T.

Thoughts were long thought (hah) to be immaterial, but if they're able to reduce them down to brain states then it's damning evidence for the assumption that "mind" is something separate from "brain."

The photographic printing of a memory (2014) and the ability to manipulate thoughts with the physical restructuring of the brain (usually observed via head trauma) is evidence, albeit not proof, that even thoughts are material.

Also, hormones and gut bacteria affect thoughts.


----------



## OldLady

G.T. said:


> Thoughts were long thought (hah) to be immaterial, but if they're able to reduce them down to brain states then it's damning evidence for the assumption that "mind" is something separate from "brain."
> 
> The photographic printing of a memory (2014) and the ability to manipulate thoughts with the physical restructuring of the brain (usually observed via head trauma) is evidence, albeit not proof, that even thoughts are material.
> 
> Also, hormones and gut bacteria affect thoughts.


Science observes and labels.  It doesn't actually define.


----------



## G.T.

OldLady said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thoughts were long thought (hah) to be immaterial, but if they're able to reduce them down to brain states then it's damning evidence for the assumption that "mind" is something separate from "brain."
> 
> The photographic printing of a memory (2014) and the ability to manipulate thoughts with the physical restructuring of the brain (usually observed via head trauma) is evidence, albeit not proof, that even thoughts are material.
> 
> Also, hormones and gut bacteria affect thoughts.
> 
> 
> 
> Science observes and labels.  It doesn't actually define.
Click to expand...

Observation is what's being discussed....


----------



## Ringel05

G.T. said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right, either could be true and that seems to just re-establish the hang-up, Ringel. I'm not asserting that dualism is false, but that it's un-established as being true.
> 
> If one's going to make the claim that dualism is the case, the burden of proof would be on the dualist. So far, the evidence is, in my opinion, inadequate and especially so when advances in neuroscience are considered. A symbiotic relationship may be the case, but I'm not compelled to assume a separation to begin with.
Click to expand...

As I see it the question lies within the realm of metaphysics hence cannot be proven or dis-proven.  Asserting a physical association establishes doubt is nothing more than two dimensional, linear thinking just as asserting the opposite is true so no one really has a burden of proof per se or both sides have the burden of proof.  Ain't metaphysics fun........


----------



## G.T.

Ringel05 said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right, either could be true and that seems to just re-establish the hang-up, Ringel. I'm not asserting that dualism is false, but that it's un-established as being true.
> 
> If one's going to make the claim that dualism is the case, the burden of proof would be on the dualist. So far, the evidence is, in my opinion, inadequate and especially so when advances in neuroscience are considered. A symbiotic relationship may be the case, but I'm not compelled to assume a separation to begin with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As I see it the question lies within the realm of metaphysics hence cannot be proven or dis-proven.  Asserting a physical association establishes doubt is nothing more than two dimensional, linear thinking just as asserting the opposite is true so no one really has a burden of proof per se or both sides have the burden of proof.  Ain't metaphysics fun........
Click to expand...

"i dont know either way" doesn't require the burden of proof, positive claims do.

This was a challenge to the dualist, not a positing of non-dualism.

in terms of which makes the least assumptions, though - - -

so far, we've never observed a mind without a body.

if you're positing that the physical brain is one of the essential properties of the "mind," that's ontologically in-line with an anti-dualist view....mental states are physical states


----------



## Ringel05

G.T. said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right, either could be true and that seems to just re-establish the hang-up, Ringel. I'm not asserting that dualism is false, but that it's un-established as being true.
> 
> If one's going to make the claim that dualism is the case, the burden of proof would be on the dualist. So far, the evidence is, in my opinion, inadequate and especially so when advances in neuroscience are considered. A symbiotic relationship may be the case, but I'm not compelled to assume a separation to begin with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As I see it the question lies within the realm of metaphysics hence cannot be proven or dis-proven.  Asserting a physical association establishes doubt is nothing more than two dimensional, linear thinking just as asserting the opposite is true so no one really has a burden of proof per se or both sides have the burden of proof.  Ain't metaphysics fun........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "i dont know either way" doesn't require the burden of proof, positive claims do.
> 
> This was a challenge to the dualist, not a positing of non-dualism.
> 
> in terms of which makes the least assumptions, though - - -
> 
> so far, we've never observed a mind without a body.
Click to expand...

Again, what does that matter in the realm of the metaphysical? 
Oh and aren't you making assumptions based of the physical observances that may have nothing to do with the actuality?  Observable phenomenon only tells us what we see but doesn't always explain the why and how.  Just because we are unaware of something that is not "observable" doesn't automatically negate the possibility of it's existence or even throw doubt on said existence.


----------



## G.T.

Ringel05 said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right, either could be true and that seems to just re-establish the hang-up, Ringel. I'm not asserting that dualism is false, but that it's un-established as being true.
> 
> If one's going to make the claim that dualism is the case, the burden of proof would be on the dualist. So far, the evidence is, in my opinion, inadequate and especially so when advances in neuroscience are considered. A symbiotic relationship may be the case, but I'm not compelled to assume a separation to begin with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As I see it the question lies within the realm of metaphysics hence cannot be proven or dis-proven.  Asserting a physical association establishes doubt is nothing more than two dimensional, linear thinking just as asserting the opposite is true so no one really has a burden of proof per se or both sides have the burden of proof.  Ain't metaphysics fun........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "i dont know either way" doesn't require the burden of proof, positive claims do.
> 
> This was a challenge to the dualist, not a positing of non-dualism.
> 
> in terms of which makes the least assumptions, though - - -
> 
> so far, we've never observed a mind without a body.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, what does that matter in the realm of the metaphysical?
> Oh and aren't you making assumptions based of the physical observances that may have nothing to do with the actuality?  Observable phenomenon only tells us what we see but doesn't always explain the why and how.  Just because we are unaware of something that is not "observable" doesn't automatically negate the possibility of it's existence or even throw doubt on said existence.
Click to expand...

It matters in the discussion of philosophy, and what it's reasonable to assume as truth.

If dualism doesn't meet the burden of proof, it's unreasonable to assume as true but is a mere matter of faith. That's just coherent rationalism. That's why positive claims are those that harbor the burden of proof, agnosticism of a topic is the starting disposition. You're adding on more assumptions, getting farther away from dualism in your above post by implying that it's not falsifiable, which would be another argument against considering it the truth.

Claims that are not falsifiable are not provable, and can be dismissed on account of that.

Dualism is either true or false.

I'm not here to assert that it's false, I'm here to challenge that there's a reliable proof that it's true.

If that cannot be met, I see no rational reason to accept it as anything more than a faith claim.


----------



## OldLady

Ringel05 said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right, either could be true and that seems to just re-establish the hang-up, Ringel. I'm not asserting that dualism is false, but that it's un-established as being true.
> 
> If one's going to make the claim that dualism is the case, the burden of proof would be on the dualist. So far, the evidence is, in my opinion, inadequate and especially so when advances in neuroscience are considered. A symbiotic relationship may be the case, but I'm not compelled to assume a separation to begin with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As I see it the question lies within the realm of metaphysics hence cannot be proven or dis-proven.  Asserting a physical association establishes doubt is nothing more than two dimensional, linear thinking just as asserting the opposite is true so no one really has a burden of proof per se or both sides have the burden of proof.  Ain't metaphysics fun........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "i dont know either way" doesn't require the burden of proof, positive claims do.
> 
> This was a challenge to the dualist, not a positing of non-dualism.
> 
> in terms of which makes the least assumptions, though - - -
> 
> so far, we've never observed a mind without a body.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, what does that matter in the realm of the metaphysical?
> Oh and aren't you making assumptions based of the physical observances that may have nothing to do with the actuality?  Observable phenomenon only tells us what we see but doesn't always explain the why and how.  Just because we are unaware of something that is not "observable" doesn't automatically negate the possibility of it's existence or even throw doubt on said existence.
Click to expand...

_Observable phenomenon only tells us what we see but doesn't always explain the why and how. _
Agree.

But why can't a major branch of philosophy such as metaphysics be proven or disproven?  That doesn't seem sensible.


----------



## Ringel05

G.T. said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> Right, either could be true and that seems to just re-establish the hang-up, Ringel. I'm not asserting that dualism is false, but that it's un-established as being true.
> 
> If one's going to make the claim that dualism is the case, the burden of proof would be on the dualist. So far, the evidence is, in my opinion, inadequate and especially so when advances in neuroscience are considered. A symbiotic relationship may be the case, but I'm not compelled to assume a separation to begin with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As I see it the question lies within the realm of metaphysics hence cannot be proven or dis-proven.  Asserting a physical association establishes doubt is nothing more than two dimensional, linear thinking just as asserting the opposite is true so no one really has a burden of proof per se or both sides have the burden of proof.  Ain't metaphysics fun........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "i dont know either way" doesn't require the burden of proof, positive claims do.
> 
> This was a challenge to the dualist, not a positing of non-dualism.
> 
> in terms of which makes the least assumptions, though - - -
> 
> so far, we've never observed a mind without a body.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, what does that matter in the realm of the metaphysical?
> Oh and aren't you making assumptions based of the physical observances that may have nothing to do with the actuality?  Observable phenomenon only tells us what we see but doesn't always explain the why and how.  Just because we are unaware of something that is not "observable" doesn't automatically negate the possibility of it's existence or even throw doubt on said existence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It matters in the discussion of philosophy, and what it's reasonable to assume as truth.
> 
> If dualism doesn't meet the burden of proof, it's unreasonable to assume as true but is a mere matter of faith. That's just coherent rationalism. That's why positive claims are those that harbor the burden of proof, agnosticism of a topic is the starting disposition. You're adding on more assumptions, getting farther away from dualism in your above post by implying that it's not falsifiable, which would be another argument against considering it the truth.
> 
> Claims that are not falsifiable are not provable, and can be dismissed on account of that.
Click to expand...

I'm claiming dualism lies within the realm of the metaphysical which means it can't be substantiated or un-substantiated so I've added no assumptions.  I'm simply stating that the belief in the existence of dualism and the belief that dualism doesn't exist are simply that, beliefs that no physical science or philosophical logic can prove, dis-prove, take away from or add too.
Now if ever definitive proof/evidence that can be directly linked then the subject moves from the metaphysical into the realm of the physical, current neuroscience observations have drawn a _possible_ correlation but nothing more. 
For all intent an purposes the subject is a moot point.


----------



## Ringel05

OldLady said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> Right, either could be true and that seems to just re-establish the hang-up, Ringel. I'm not asserting that dualism is false, but that it's un-established as being true.
> 
> If one's going to make the claim that dualism is the case, the burden of proof would be on the dualist. So far, the evidence is, in my opinion, inadequate and especially so when advances in neuroscience are considered. A symbiotic relationship may be the case, but I'm not compelled to assume a separation to begin with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As I see it the question lies within the realm of metaphysics hence cannot be proven or dis-proven.  Asserting a physical association establishes doubt is nothing more than two dimensional, linear thinking just as asserting the opposite is true so no one really has a burden of proof per se or both sides have the burden of proof.  Ain't metaphysics fun........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "i dont know either way" doesn't require the burden of proof, positive claims do.
> 
> This was a challenge to the dualist, not a positing of non-dualism.
> 
> in terms of which makes the least assumptions, though - - -
> 
> so far, we've never observed a mind without a body.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, what does that matter in the realm of the metaphysical?
> Oh and aren't you making assumptions based of the physical observances that may have nothing to do with the actuality?  Observable phenomenon only tells us what we see but doesn't always explain the why and how.  Just because we are unaware of something that is not "observable" doesn't automatically negate the possibility of it's existence or even throw doubt on said existence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Observable phenomenon only tells us what we see but doesn't always explain the why and how. _
> Agree.
> 
> But why can't a major branch of philosophy such as metaphysics be proven or disproven?  That doesn't seem sensible.
Click to expand...

Metaphysics is by definition specifically that, those subjects that are currently beyond our ability to prove or dis-prove and some subjects may always remain within the metaphysical.


----------



## G.T.

Ringel05 said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right, either could be true and that seems to just re-establish the hang-up, Ringel. I'm not asserting that dualism is false, but that it's un-established as being true.
> 
> If one's going to make the claim that dualism is the case, the burden of proof would be on the dualist. So far, the evidence is, in my opinion, inadequate and especially so when advances in neuroscience are considered. A symbiotic relationship may be the case, but I'm not compelled to assume a separation to begin with.
> 
> 
> 
> As I see it the question lies within the realm of metaphysics hence cannot be proven or dis-proven.  Asserting a physical association establishes doubt is nothing more than two dimensional, linear thinking just as asserting the opposite is true so no one really has a burden of proof per se or both sides have the burden of proof.  Ain't metaphysics fun........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "i dont know either way" doesn't require the burden of proof, positive claims do.
> 
> This was a challenge to the dualist, not a positing of non-dualism.
> 
> in terms of which makes the least assumptions, though - - -
> 
> so far, we've never observed a mind without a body.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, what does that matter in the realm of the metaphysical?
> Oh and aren't you making assumptions based of the physical observances that may have nothing to do with the actuality?  Observable phenomenon only tells us what we see but doesn't always explain the why and how.  Just because we are unaware of something that is not "observable" doesn't automatically negate the possibility of it's existence or even throw doubt on said existence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It matters in the discussion of philosophy, and what it's reasonable to assume as truth.
> 
> If dualism doesn't meet the burden of proof, it's unreasonable to assume as true but is a mere matter of faith. That's just coherent rationalism. That's why positive claims are those that harbor the burden of proof, agnosticism of a topic is the starting disposition. You're adding on more assumptions, getting farther away from dualism in your above post by implying that it's not falsifiable, which would be another argument against considering it the truth.
> 
> Claims that are not falsifiable are not provable, and can be dismissed on account of that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm claiming dualism lies within the realm of the metaphysical which means it can't be substantiated or un-substantiated so I've added no assumptions.  I'm simply stating that the belief in the existence of dualism and the belief that dualism doesn't exist are simply that, beliefs that no physical science or philosophical logic can prove, dis-prove, take away from or add too.
> Now if ever definitive proof/evidence that can be directly linked then the subject moves from the metaphysical into the realm of the physical, current neuroscience observations have drawn a _possible_ correlation but nothing more.
> For all intent an purposes the subject is a moot point.
Click to expand...

The subject is "can dualism be rationally justified."

It's not "dualism is a false belief."

So far, you seem to be saying no - it cannot be rationally justified.

We agree. Agnosticism on dualism seems the most rational approach.

Neuroscience does proffer evidence in one direction, and that's because _theistic dualism_ posits the mind as the body-less spirit that moves on when your physical body dies. Anything that correlates our thoughts, intentions and beliefs with the material world does run counter to that because it adds physical states as an essential property of the mind which counters the theistic dualists' view.

Gut bacteria alter intentional states(beliefs). Hormones alter intentional states(beliefs). This is evidence against theistic dualism, short of re-defining it which is special pleading.


----------



## G.T.

Ringel05 said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right, either could be true and that seems to just re-establish the hang-up, Ringel. I'm not asserting that dualism is false, but that it's un-established as being true.
> 
> If one's going to make the claim that dualism is the case, the burden of proof would be on the dualist. So far, the evidence is, in my opinion, inadequate and especially so when advances in neuroscience are considered. A symbiotic relationship may be the case, but I'm not compelled to assume a separation to begin with.
> 
> 
> 
> As I see it the question lies within the realm of metaphysics hence cannot be proven or dis-proven.  Asserting a physical association establishes doubt is nothing more than two dimensional, linear thinking just as asserting the opposite is true so no one really has a burden of proof per se or both sides have the burden of proof.  Ain't metaphysics fun........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "i dont know either way" doesn't require the burden of proof, positive claims do.
> 
> This was a challenge to the dualist, not a positing of non-dualism.
> 
> in terms of which makes the least assumptions, though - - -
> 
> so far, we've never observed a mind without a body.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, what does that matter in the realm of the metaphysical?
> Oh and aren't you making assumptions based of the physical observances that may have nothing to do with the actuality?  Observable phenomenon only tells us what we see but doesn't always explain the why and how.  Just because we are unaware of something that is not "observable" doesn't automatically negate the possibility of it's existence or even throw doubt on said existence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Observable phenomenon only tells us what we see but doesn't always explain the why and how. _
> Agree.
> 
> But why can't a major branch of philosophy such as metaphysics be proven or disproven?  That doesn't seem sensible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Metaphysics is by definition specifically that, those subjects that are currently beyond our ability to prove or dis-prove and some subjects may always remain within the metaphysical.
Click to expand...

Yupp, that's what makes it interesting to me to get to the core of why anyone would assert things like theism as true. Or false, because if one's to assert that theism is false then that's interesting to me, as well.

I haven't seen any reasonable arguments either way - but I keep a clean eye out.


----------



## OldLady

G.T. said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I see it the question lies within the realm of metaphysics hence cannot be proven or dis-proven.  Asserting a physical association establishes doubt is nothing more than two dimensional, linear thinking just as asserting the opposite is true so no one really has a burden of proof per se or both sides have the burden of proof.  Ain't metaphysics fun........
> 
> 
> 
> "i dont know either way" doesn't require the burden of proof, positive claims do.
> 
> This was a challenge to the dualist, not a positing of non-dualism.
> 
> in terms of which makes the least assumptions, though - - -
> 
> so far, we've never observed a mind without a body.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, what does that matter in the realm of the metaphysical?
> Oh and aren't you making assumptions based of the physical observances that may have nothing to do with the actuality?  Observable phenomenon only tells us what we see but doesn't always explain the why and how.  Just because we are unaware of something that is not "observable" doesn't automatically negate the possibility of it's existence or even throw doubt on said existence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It matters in the discussion of philosophy, and what it's reasonable to assume as truth.
> 
> If dualism doesn't meet the burden of proof, it's unreasonable to assume as true but is a mere matter of faith. That's just coherent rationalism. That's why positive claims are those that harbor the burden of proof, agnosticism of a topic is the starting disposition. You're adding on more assumptions, getting farther away from dualism in your above post by implying that it's not falsifiable, which would be another argument against considering it the truth.
> 
> Claims that are not falsifiable are not provable, and can be dismissed on account of that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm claiming dualism lies within the realm of the metaphysical which means it can't be substantiated or un-substantiated so I've added no assumptions.  I'm simply stating that the belief in the existence of dualism and the belief that dualism doesn't exist are simply that, beliefs that no physical science or philosophical logic can prove, dis-prove, take away from or add too.
> Now if ever definitive proof/evidence that can be directly linked then the subject moves from the metaphysical into the realm of the physical, current neuroscience observations have drawn a _possible_ correlation but nothing more.
> For all intent an purposes the subject is a moot point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The subject is "can dualism be rationally justified."
> 
> It's not "dualism is a false belief."
> 
> So far, you seem to be saying no - it cannot be rationally justified.
> 
> We agree. Agnosticism on dualism seems the most rational approach.
> 
> Neuroscience does proffer evidence in one direction, and that's because _theistic dualism_ posits the mind as the body-less spirit that moves on when your physical body dies. Anything that correlates our thoughts, intentions and beliefs with the material world does run counter to that because it adds physical states as an essential property of the mind which counters the theistic dualists' view.
> 
> Gut bacteria alter intentional states(beliefs). Hormones alter intentional states(beliefs). This is evidence against theistic dualism, short of re-defining it which is special pleading.
Click to expand...

Well, however logical it is, monism is repellant, intuitively.   Who wants to ascribe Beethoven's 9th or Leaves of Grass to GUT BACTERIA?
Jesus, G.T.
Spirits are used to explain what we don't understand.  The more we understand, the less we need the spirit explanation.  But for individual humans with talents and ideas and accomplishments, even if only the best belcher among your friends, it is still repugnant to be reduced to nothing but a bunch of chemicals flowing over an ugly two pound mass of tissue and GUT BACTERIA.

Just an observation.


----------



## G.T.

OldLady said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> "i dont know either way" doesn't require the burden of proof, positive claims do.
> 
> This was a challenge to the dualist, not a positing of non-dualism.
> 
> in terms of which makes the least assumptions, though - - -
> 
> so far, we've never observed a mind without a body.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, what does that matter in the realm of the metaphysical?
> Oh and aren't you making assumptions based of the physical observances that may have nothing to do with the actuality?  Observable phenomenon only tells us what we see but doesn't always explain the why and how.  Just because we are unaware of something that is not "observable" doesn't automatically negate the possibility of it's existence or even throw doubt on said existence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It matters in the discussion of philosophy, and what it's reasonable to assume as truth.
> 
> If dualism doesn't meet the burden of proof, it's unreasonable to assume as true but is a mere matter of faith. That's just coherent rationalism. That's why positive claims are those that harbor the burden of proof, agnosticism of a topic is the starting disposition. You're adding on more assumptions, getting farther away from dualism in your above post by implying that it's not falsifiable, which would be another argument against considering it the truth.
> 
> Claims that are not falsifiable are not provable, and can be dismissed on account of that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm claiming dualism lies within the realm of the metaphysical which means it can't be substantiated or un-substantiated so I've added no assumptions.  I'm simply stating that the belief in the existence of dualism and the belief that dualism doesn't exist are simply that, beliefs that no physical science or philosophical logic can prove, dis-prove, take away from or add too.
> Now if ever definitive proof/evidence that can be directly linked then the subject moves from the metaphysical into the realm of the physical, current neuroscience observations have drawn a _possible_ correlation but nothing more.
> For all intent an purposes the subject is a moot point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The subject is "can dualism be rationally justified."
> 
> It's not "dualism is a false belief."
> 
> So far, you seem to be saying no - it cannot be rationally justified.
> 
> We agree. Agnosticism on dualism seems the most rational approach.
> 
> Neuroscience does proffer evidence in one direction, and that's because _theistic dualism_ posits the mind as the body-less spirit that moves on when your physical body dies. Anything that correlates our thoughts, intentions and beliefs with the material world does run counter to that because it adds physical states as an essential property of the mind which counters the theistic dualists' view.
> 
> Gut bacteria alter intentional states(beliefs). Hormones alter intentional states(beliefs). This is evidence against theistic dualism, short of re-defining it which is special pleading.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, however logical it is, monism is repellant, intuitively.   Who wants to ascribe Beethoven's 9th or Leaves of Grass to GUT BACTERIA?
> Jesus, G.T.
> Spirits are used to explain what we don't understand.  The more we understand, the less we need the spirit explanation.  But for individual humans with talents and ideas and accomplishments, even if only the best belcher among your friends, it is still repugnant to be reduced to nothing but a bunch of chemicals flowing over an ugly two pound mass of tissue and GUT BACTERIA.
> 
> Just an observation.
Click to expand...

Truth is truth, regardless of the consequences! 

If it IS all reducable to physical states, you're still your own unique set of physical states, and a rational enough agent to decide to place meaning onto anything you wish! Every day can be more valued than the last if you move towards your desires. Life's precious!


----------



## Ringel05

OldLady said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> "i dont know either way" doesn't require the burden of proof, positive claims do.
> 
> This was a challenge to the dualist, not a positing of non-dualism.
> 
> in terms of which makes the least assumptions, though - - -
> 
> so far, we've never observed a mind without a body.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, what does that matter in the realm of the metaphysical?
> Oh and aren't you making assumptions based of the physical observances that may have nothing to do with the actuality?  Observable phenomenon only tells us what we see but doesn't always explain the why and how.  Just because we are unaware of something that is not "observable" doesn't automatically negate the possibility of it's existence or even throw doubt on said existence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It matters in the discussion of philosophy, and what it's reasonable to assume as truth.
> 
> If dualism doesn't meet the burden of proof, it's unreasonable to assume as true but is a mere matter of faith. That's just coherent rationalism. That's why positive claims are those that harbor the burden of proof, agnosticism of a topic is the starting disposition. You're adding on more assumptions, getting farther away from dualism in your above post by implying that it's not falsifiable, which would be another argument against considering it the truth.
> 
> Claims that are not falsifiable are not provable, and can be dismissed on account of that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm claiming dualism lies within the realm of the metaphysical which means it can't be substantiated or un-substantiated so I've added no assumptions.  I'm simply stating that the belief in the existence of dualism and the belief that dualism doesn't exist are simply that, beliefs that no physical science or philosophical logic can prove, dis-prove, take away from or add too.
> Now if ever definitive proof/evidence that can be directly linked then the subject moves from the metaphysical into the realm of the physical, current neuroscience observations have drawn a _possible_ correlation but nothing more.
> For all intent an purposes the subject is a moot point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The subject is "can dualism be rationally justified."
> 
> It's not "dualism is a false belief."
> 
> So far, you seem to be saying no - it cannot be rationally justified.
> 
> We agree. Agnosticism on dualism seems the most rational approach.
> 
> Neuroscience does proffer evidence in one direction, and that's because _theistic dualism_ posits the mind as the body-less spirit that moves on when your physical body dies. Anything that correlates our thoughts, intentions and beliefs with the material world does run counter to that because it adds physical states as an essential property of the mind which counters the theistic dualists' view.
> 
> Gut bacteria alter intentional states(beliefs). Hormones alter intentional states(beliefs). This is evidence against theistic dualism, short of re-defining it which is special pleading.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, however logical it is, monism is repellant, intuitively.   Who wants to ascribe Beethoven's 9th or Leaves of Grass to GUT BACTERIA?
> Jesus, G.T.
> Spirits are used to explain what we don't understand.  The more we understand, the less we need the spirit explanation.  But for individual humans with talents and ideas and accomplishments, even if only the best belcher among your friends, it is still repugnant to be reduced to nothing but a bunch of chemicals flowing over an ugly two pound mass of tissue and GUT BACTERIA.
> 
> Just an observation.
Click to expand...

Ghosts, angels, werewolves, vampires, aliens are all manifestations of programs doing what they're not supposed to be doing........


----------



## Damaged Eagle

G.T. said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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 fuck 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> View attachment 246677
> 
> 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*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you've proven that radiation has intelligent intent?
> 
> lol! Get him a nobel prize!
> 
> Also - that's not dualism bud, I hate to break that to you again. That's physicalism - i.e. thoughts being _*contingent on material forces.*_
> 
> I'm not sure why that's so terribly difficult to understand.
Click to expand...






You've proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the universe doesn't have coherent intent unknown to mankind?

The subject is Dualism which deals with the mind vs an external influence, not Physicalism, please stay on topic..... That's if your capable of such a thing since you can't can't seem to accept and understand the concept you're OP is about.

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## Damaged Eagle

G.T. said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Electricity is physical, itself..
> 
> Anyhoo, no your thoughts aren't invalid. Kicking ideas around is the whole idea - I'm not the authority and am just weeding things out.
> 
> The "forming spirit, perhaps?" question you just asked is the whole crux of the issue. It's not just a question, it's the question (of dualism). To me, it's not established its burden of proof, but at the same time, is not ruled out.
> 
> Neoruscience has put quite a dent in it; however, and I'm just fishing for thoughts on the topic that's all.
Click to expand...






And yet it can be there and somewhere else far, far, away, affecting outcomes elsewhere.

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## G.T.

Damaged Eagle said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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 fuck 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> View attachment 246677
> 
> 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*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you've proven that radiation has intelligent intent?
> 
> lol! Get him a nobel prize!
> 
> Also - that's not dualism bud, I hate to break that to you again. That's physicalism - i.e. thoughts being _*contingent on material forces.*_
> 
> I'm not sure why that's so terribly difficult to understand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> View attachment 246740
> 
> You've proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the universe doesn't have coherent intent unknown to mankind?
> 
> The subject is Dualism which deals with the mind vs an external influence, not Physicalism, please stay on topic..... That's if your capable of such a thing since you can't can't seem to accept and understand the concept you're OP is about.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
Click to expand...

You just dont understand dualism, doesnt seem like you can at all, either. Dualism is that the mind is something separate from the brain.

Physicalism doesn't preclude there being outside forces acting on the body, thats your misapprehension of terms.

Especially if the outside forces are physical, which neutrons and radiation are.

Youre off topic.


----------



## Damaged Eagle

G.T. said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> They wouldn't let me take physics.   Please give me an example of something immaterial.
> 
> 
> 
> A mind without a brain.
> A spirit without a body.
> Ghosts, gods.
Click to expand...






Patheist.

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## Damaged Eagle

G.T. said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...




G.T. said:


> You just dont understand dualism, doesnt seem like you can at all, either. Dualism is that the mind is something separate from the brain.
> 
> Physicalism doesn't preclude there being outside forces acting on the body, thats your misapprehension of terms.
> 
> Especially if the outside forces are physical, which neutrons and radiation are.
> 
> Youre off topic.







You think all forms of radiation are material?

*****ROFLMAO*****


----------



## G.T.

Damaged Eagle said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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 fuck 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is there anything which is not "physical" in your eyes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> View attachment 246743
> 
> You think all forms of radiation are material?
> 
> *****ROFLMAO*****
Click to expand...

You dont form very coherent arguments, stick to cartoons and videos bro.


----------



## Damaged Eagle

G.T. said:


> You dont form very coherent arguments, stick to cartoons and videos bro.








I think you should stick to sharpening your pikes and stakes since you can't stay on topic and have no clue about the how world operates around you.

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## G.T.

Damaged Eagle said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> You dont form very coherent arguments, stick to cartoons and videos bro.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 246754
> 
> I think you should stick to sharpening your pikes and stakes since you can't stay on topic.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
Click to expand...

I stayed on topic.

You veered off to claims of radiation having intelligence, and argued against dualism while thinking you were arguing for it, and misapprehending WHY, and how come physicalism was brought up.

Just fuck off, or add something to the topic in a coherent way.


----------



## Damaged Eagle

G.T. said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> You dont form very coherent arguments, stick to cartoons and videos bro.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 246754
> 
> I think you should stick to sharpening your pikes and stakes since you can't stay on topic.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I stayed on topic.
> 
> You veered off to claims of radiation having intelligence, and argued against dualism while thinking you were arguing for it, and misapprehending WHY, and how come physicalism was brought up.
> 
> Just fuck off, or add something to the topic in a coherent way.
Click to expand...






You're the one that brought up Physicalism... which is a totally different topic BTW.

My thoughts have been coherent and correct the whole of the discussion while you fail to know the difference between matter and energy, along with you're being incapable of staying on topic.

Perhaps if you had actually studied in school instead of sleeping or skipping out to attend your pot smoking rap sessions you'd be able to keep up.

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## G.T.

Damaged Eagle said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> You dont form very coherent arguments, stick to cartoons and videos bro.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 246754
> 
> I think you should stick to sharpening your pikes and stakes since you can't stay on topic.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I stayed on topic.
> 
> You veered off to claims of radiation having intelligence, and argued against dualism while thinking you were arguing for it, and misapprehending WHY, and how come physicalism was brought up.
> 
> Just fuck off, or add something to the topic in a coherent way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> View attachment 246760
> 
> You're the one that brought up Physicalism... which is a totally different topic BTW.
> 
> My thoughts have been coherent and correct the whole of the discussion while you fail to know the difference between matter and energy, along with you're being incapable of staying on topic.
> 
> Perhaps if you had actually studied in school instead of sleeping or skipping out to attend your pot smoking rap sessions you'd be able to keep up.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
Click to expand...

That was a good emo post, and a long and winded way to say that you still cant speak to, or understand, dualism.

This thread wasn't for you. It was for folks who like to share ideas and pick brains, not argue because theyre some derpy twat on the internet that catches a butthurt from the flamezone and bleeds it all across the internet.

Yes - I brought up physicalism. Thats because you pointed to something physical (neutrinos) in order to preserve dualism, which is absurd because dualism is the positing of a non-physical mind. Neutrinos are phyiscal, theyre a sub-atomic particle which, thanks to the particle collider, was discovered to have mass.

Sorry that's too much book larninn' for ya jethro, but your stupid coloring books ...followed by some moronic youtube link and a physically typed out facial expression (who does that?) should never be mistaken for intelligence. They're a disturbingly obsessive posting style on the internet which alludes to a mental disorder.


----------



## Damaged Eagle

G.T. said:


> That was a good emo post, and a long and winded way to say that you still cant speak to, or understand, dualism.



Mine are generally less windy than your tap dancing evasiveness.



G.T. said:


> This thread wasn't for you. It was for folks who like to share ideas and pick brains, not argue because theyre some derpy twat on the internet that catches a butthurt from the flamezone and bleeds it all across the internet.



And there you go again letting your FZ inadequacies exhibit themselves.

*****CHUCKLE*****



G.T. said:


> Yes - I brought up physicalism. Thats because you pointed to something physical (neutrinos) in order to preserve dualism, which is absurd because dualism is the positing of a non-physical mind. Neutrinos are phyiscal, theyre a sub-atomic particle which, thanks to the particle collider, was discovered to have mass.



The subject is Dualism not Physicalism. You stated in the OP and I quote...

*"Dualism is an interesting belief - that mind and body are separate and that there are material and immaterial realities in that sense."*

No where does it say that the material and/or immaterial part of the mind has to be inside the body for Dualism. As far as you know the brain is simply an antenna picking up signals to pass to the body. Therefore you're inability to  comprehend your subject is readily apparent.

Would you like to try for Double Jeopardy?



G.T. said:


> Sorry that's too much book larninn' for ya jethro, but your stupid coloring books ...followed by some moronic youtube link and a physically typed out facial expression (who does that?) should never be mistaken for intelligence. They're a disturbingly obsessive posting style on the internet which alludes to a mental disorder.



Does that disturb you???

*****CHUCKLE*****

Time for you to pick up your prize....





*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## G.T.

Youre dumber than dark fury so I dont see anything coming of this conversation. You said that radiation has intelligent intent. Ignore.


----------



## Damaged Eagle

G.T. said:


> Youre dumber than dark fury so I dont see anything coming of this conversation. You said that radiation has intelligent intent. Ignore.







Coming from you I'll take that as a complement since there was nothing to start the conversation with in the first place..... 

Does this mean you're going to place me on ignore????? Please!!!!!!!

*****FLAMING ROFLMAO*****


----------



## ZZ PUPPS

G.T. said:


> Youre dumber than dark fury so I dont see anything coming of this conversation. You said that radiation has intelligent intent. Ignore.


 Everything you think, do or say is a neurological process.  Outside of that, everything else is perception - since it is processed by said neurological functions.  

Trying to transcend that is well...


----------



## ding

Either the material world was created by spirit or spirit was created by the material world. 

There are no other options because all other options will reduce down to one of these two boundary conditions.


----------



## G.T.

ding said:


> Either the material world was created by spirit or spirit was created by the material world.
> 
> There are no other options because all other options will reduce down to one of these two boundary conditions.


Of course theres a 3rd and 4th option. That was a false dichotomy.


----------



## ding

So when I say spirit I am talking about the incorporeal. 

We know the incorporeal exists in the material world. So from that standpoint duality does exist; the corporeal and the incorporeal.


----------



## ding

G.T. said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Either the material world was created by spirit or spirit was created by the material world.
> 
> There are no other options because all other options will reduce down to one of these two boundary conditions.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course theres a 3rd and 4th option. That was a false dichotomy.
Click to expand...

Can you prove it by offering an example of how the material world didn’t proceed from spirit and how the incorporeal didn’t proceed from the material world?

I think it is safe to say that everyone accepts that there are incorporeal that proceeded from the material world, right?  

So my question is what boundary condition exists that does not reduce to one of these two mutually exclusive boundary conditions; everything proceeded from spirit or everything proceeded from material.


----------



## G.T.

ding said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Either the material world was created by spirit or spirit was created by the material world.
> 
> There are no other options because all other options will reduce down to one of these two boundary conditions.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course theres a 3rd and 4th option. That was a false dichotomy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can you prove it by offering an example of how the material world didn’t proceed from spirit and how the incorporeal didn’t proceed from the material world?
> 
> I think it is safe to say that everyone accepts that there are incorporeal that proceeded from the material world, right?
> 
> So my question is what boundary condition exists that does not reduce to one of these two mutually exclusive boundary conditions; everything proceeded from spirit or everything proceeded from material.
Click to expand...

I'm not interested in a discussion with you. 

If you cannot think of any other options than the 2 in your false dichotomy, you can rest with that all day long. Here's some basic logic for you, to start, and then you can wonder why at first you said spirit, and now in this post you said incorporeal. I had hoped for folks who can add something to the discussion on dualism, and I've never seen you add anything to a thread except devolving it over time into whiny bickering, and then sophistry. Go somewhere else and do that, por favore. Thanks.

_All spirits would be incorporeal. 
All incorporeal would not be spirits. _


----------



## ding

G.T. said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Either the material world was created by spirit or spirit was created by the material world.
> 
> There are no other options because all other options will reduce down to one of these two boundary conditions.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course theres a 3rd and 4th option. That was a false dichotomy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can you prove it by offering an example of how the material world didn’t proceed from spirit and how the incorporeal didn’t proceed from the material world?
> 
> I think it is safe to say that everyone accepts that there are incorporeal that proceeded from the material world, right?
> 
> So my question is what boundary condition exists that does not reduce to one of these two mutually exclusive boundary conditions; everything proceeded from spirit or everything proceeded from material.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not interested in a discussion with you.
> 
> If you cannot think of any other options than the 2 in your false dichotomy, you can rest with that all day long. Here's some basic logic for you, to start, and then you can wonder why at first you said spirit, and now in this post you said incorporeal. I had hoped for folks who can add something to the discussion on dualism, and I've never seen you add anything to a thread except devolving it over time into whiny bickering, and then sophistry. Go somewhere else and do that, por favore. Thanks.
> 
> _All spirits would be incorporeal.
> All incorporeal would not be spirits. _
Click to expand...

I have tried to think of more than two and they all reduced down to one of the two boundary conditions. 

Yes, not all incorporeal would not be spirits. This is the boundary condition where everything proceeded from the material. 

The other boundary condition is that everything proceeded from spirit. 

These are the only two options and they are mutually exclusive.


----------



## ding

Either existence was created by spirit and everything proceeded from spirit or existence was not created by spirit and everything has proceeded from material. In the latter case things like spirituality only have an origin from the material world.


----------



## G.T.

Peace bro. Have a good day at work. 2 outta 5 respondants here interested me so far - so this thread's not a waste of my time. And yupp, this another one of those shamelesssss bumps that go ratt tatt tatt tatt in these dangerous slums, ohhhhhhh I like my kevlarrrrrrrr...but the shots still burn I like my kevlarrrrr...the hypocrisy burns


----------



## ding

So duality either has an origin from only the material world because the incorporeal only proceeded from the material world or duality proceeded from spirit because everything proceeded from spirit. 

In either case, duality does exist. The only question is what is the origin or source of our spirituality.


----------



## ding

G.T. said:


> Peace bro. Have a good day at work. 2 outta 5 respondants here interested me so far - so this thread's not a waste of my time. And yupp, this another one of those shamelesssss bumps that go ratt tatt tatt tatt in these dangerous slums, ohhhhhhh I like my kevlarrrrrrrr...but the shots still burn I like my kevlarrrrr...the hypocrisy burns


Honest men can have honest differences of opinion without being afraid to express their differences or act like jerks towards each other. 

Growth filled communities should explore all sides of an issue to arrive at objective truth.


----------



## G.T.

ding said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Peace bro. Have a good day at work. 2 outta 5 respondants here interested me so far - so this thread's not a waste of my time. And yupp, this another one of those shamelesssss bumps that go ratt tatt tatt tatt in these dangerous slums, ohhhhhhh I like my kevlarrrrrrrr...but the shots still burn I like my kevlarrrrr...the hypocrisy burns
> 
> 
> 
> Honest men can have honest differences of opinion without being afraid to express their differences or act like jerks towards each other.
> 
> Growth filled communities should explore all sides of an issue to arrive at objective truth.
Click to expand...

I agree, that's been the case here so far with Ringel and Old Lady (well, honest women as well).


----------



## ding

G.T. said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Peace bro. Have a good day at work. 2 outta 5 respondants here interested me so far - so this thread's not a waste of my time. And yupp, this another one of those shamelesssss bumps that go ratt tatt tatt tatt in these dangerous slums, ohhhhhhh I like my kevlarrrrrrrr...but the shots still burn I like my kevlarrrrr...the hypocrisy burns
> 
> 
> 
> Honest men can have honest differences of opinion without being afraid to express their differences or act like jerks towards each other.
> 
> Growth filled communities should explore all sides of an issue to arrive at objective truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agree, that's been the case here so far with Ringel and Old Lady (well, honest women as well).
Click to expand...

No one is all good or all bad. You should stop treating them as they are.


----------



## G.T.

ding said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Peace bro. Have a good day at work. 2 outta 5 respondants here interested me so far - so this thread's not a waste of my time. And yupp, this another one of those shamelesssss bumps that go ratt tatt tatt tatt in these dangerous slums, ohhhhhhh I like my kevlarrrrrrrr...but the shots still burn I like my kevlarrrrr...the hypocrisy burns
> 
> 
> 
> Honest men can have honest differences of opinion without being afraid to express their differences or act like jerks towards each other.
> 
> Growth filled communities should explore all sides of an issue to arrive at objective truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agree, that's been the case here so far with Ringel and Old Lady (well, honest women as well).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one is all good or all bad. You should stop treating them as they are.
Click to expand...

I'm not interested in you or your thoughts, that's basically it.


----------



## ding

G.T. said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Peace bro. Have a good day at work. 2 outta 5 respondants here interested me so far - so this thread's not a waste of my time. And yupp, this another one of those shamelesssss bumps that go ratt tatt tatt tatt in these dangerous slums, ohhhhhhh I like my kevlarrrrrrrr...but the shots still burn I like my kevlarrrrr...the hypocrisy burns
> 
> 
> 
> Honest men can have honest differences of opinion without being afraid to express their differences or act like jerks towards each other.
> 
> Growth filled communities should explore all sides of an issue to arrive at objective truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agree, that's been the case here so far with Ringel and Old Lady (well, honest women as well).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one is all good or all bad. You should stop treating them as they are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not interested in you or your thoughts, that's basically it.
Click to expand...

Thank you for proving my point.


----------



## G.T.

Ringel05 said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, what does that matter in the realm of the metaphysical?
> Oh and aren't you making assumptions based of the physical observances that may have nothing to do with the actuality?  Observable phenomenon only tells us what we see but doesn't always explain the why and how.  Just because we are unaware of something that is not "observable" doesn't automatically negate the possibility of it's existence or even throw doubt on said existence.
> 
> 
> 
> It matters in the discussion of philosophy, and what it's reasonable to assume as truth.
> 
> If dualism doesn't meet the burden of proof, it's unreasonable to assume as true but is a mere matter of faith. That's just coherent rationalism. That's why positive claims are those that harbor the burden of proof, agnosticism of a topic is the starting disposition. You're adding on more assumptions, getting farther away from dualism in your above post by implying that it's not falsifiable, which would be another argument against considering it the truth.
> 
> Claims that are not falsifiable are not provable, and can be dismissed on account of that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm claiming dualism lies within the realm of the metaphysical which means it can't be substantiated or un-substantiated so I've added no assumptions.  I'm simply stating that the belief in the existence of dualism and the belief that dualism doesn't exist are simply that, beliefs that no physical science or philosophical logic can prove, dis-prove, take away from or add too.
> Now if ever definitive proof/evidence that can be directly linked then the subject moves from the metaphysical into the realm of the physical, current neuroscience observations have drawn a _possible_ correlation but nothing more.
> For all intent an purposes the subject is a moot point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The subject is "can dualism be rationally justified."
> 
> It's not "dualism is a false belief."
> 
> So far, you seem to be saying no - it cannot be rationally justified.
> 
> We agree. Agnosticism on dualism seems the most rational approach.
> 
> Neuroscience does proffer evidence in one direction, and that's because _theistic dualism_ posits the mind as the body-less spirit that moves on when your physical body dies. Anything that correlates our thoughts, intentions and beliefs with the material world does run counter to that because it adds physical states as an essential property of the mind which counters the theistic dualists' view.
> 
> Gut bacteria alter intentional states(beliefs). Hormones alter intentional states(beliefs). This is evidence against theistic dualism, short of re-defining it which is special pleading.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, however logical it is, monism is repellant, intuitively.   Who wants to ascribe Beethoven's 9th or Leaves of Grass to GUT BACTERIA?
> Jesus, G.T.
> Spirits are used to explain what we don't understand.  The more we understand, the less we need the spirit explanation.  But for individual humans with talents and ideas and accomplishments, even if only the best belcher among your friends, it is still repugnant to be reduced to nothing but a bunch of chemicals flowing over an ugly two pound mass of tissue and GUT BACTERIA.
> 
> Just an observation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ghosts, angels, werewolves, vampires, aliens are all manifestations of programs doing what they're not supposed to be doing........
Click to expand...

Simulation theory intrigues me. Keeps us in the same place, though...i.e. the "programmer" came from where?, is there a programmer at all?, or is existence, in effect, a brute fact and its "code" is merely descriptive and not prescriptive. Simulation theory is wild but its voracity merely kicks our can down the alley way : /


----------



## Damaged Eagle

G.T. said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one is all good or all bad. You should stop treating them as they are.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not interested in you or your thoughts, that's basically it.
Click to expand...





*****ROFLMAO*****


----------



## ding

Simulation theory Is an excellent analog for our existence. There was a creator, there was a beginning of the creation and we were given the attributes of the creator. 

The argument that simulation theory does not address the first cause conundrum is valid. 

We know from logic that the only solution to what came before that is something which had no beginning. Which means it was eternal. We know from logic the only thing that can be eternal is something which is unchanging. 

From these attributes we know that the first cause cannot be matter and energy as we know it because matter and of energy can not be eternal and unchanging. So as implausible at it seems the only thing that fits the requirements is spirit or consciousness without form.  It is mind which has created a material world so that beings that know and create would eventually arise.


----------



## OldLady

ding said:


> Simulation theory Is an excellent analog for our existence. There was a creator, there was a beginning of the creation and we were given the attributes of the creator.
> 
> The argument that simulation theory does not address the first cause conundrum is valid.
> 
> We know from logic that the only solution to what came before that is something which had no beginning. Which means it was eternal. We know from logic the only thing that can be eternal is something which is unchanging.
> 
> From these attributes we know that the first cause cannot be matter and energy as we know it because matter and of energy can not be eternal and unchanging. So as implausible at it seems the only thing that fits the requirements is spirit or consciousness without form.  It is mind which has created a material world so that beings that know and create would eventually arise.


Finally, someone offers a bit of the argument underpinning dualism.  I've been curious.  Thanks, Ding.


----------



## G.T.

OldLady said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Simulation theory Is an excellent analog for our existence. There was a creator, there was a beginning of the creation and we were given the attributes of the creator.
> 
> The argument that simulation theory does not address the first cause conundrum is valid.
> 
> We know from logic that the only solution to what came before that is something which had no beginning. Which means it was eternal. We know from logic the only thing that can be eternal is something which is unchanging.
> 
> From these attributes we know that the first cause cannot be matter and energy as we know it because matter and of energy can not be eternal and unchanging. So as implausible at it seems the only thing that fits the requirements is spirit or consciousness without form.  It is mind which has created a material world so that beings that know and create would eventually arise.
> 
> 
> 
> Finally, someone offers a bit of the argument underpinning dualism.  I've been curious.  Thanks, Ding.
Click to expand...

Weird response.


----------



## OldLady

G.T. said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Simulation theory Is an excellent analog for our existence. There was a creator, there was a beginning of the creation and we were given the attributes of the creator.
> 
> The argument that simulation theory does not address the first cause conundrum is valid.
> 
> We know from logic that the only solution to what came before that is something which had no beginning. Which means it was eternal. We know from logic the only thing that can be eternal is something which is unchanging.
> 
> From these attributes we know that the first cause cannot be matter and energy as we know it because matter and of energy can not be eternal and unchanging. So as implausible at it seems the only thing that fits the requirements is spirit or consciousness without form.  It is mind which has created a material world so that beings that know and create would eventually arise.
> 
> 
> 
> Finally, someone offers a bit of the argument underpinning dualism.  I've been curious.  Thanks, Ding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Weird response.
Click to expand...

How so?


----------



## G.T.

OldLady said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Simulation theory Is an excellent analog for our existence. There was a creator, there was a beginning of the creation and we were given the attributes of the creator.
> 
> The argument that simulation theory does not address the first cause conundrum is valid.
> 
> We know from logic that the only solution to what came before that is something which had no beginning. Which means it was eternal. We know from logic the only thing that can be eternal is something which is unchanging.
> 
> From these attributes we know that the first cause cannot be matter and energy as we know it because matter and of energy can not be eternal and unchanging. So as implausible at it seems the only thing that fits the requirements is spirit or consciousness without form.  It is mind which has created a material world so that beings that know and create would eventually arise.
> 
> 
> 
> Finally, someone offers a bit of the argument underpinning dualism.  I've been curious.  Thanks, Ding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Weird response.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How so?
Click to expand...

ohhh i'd tell ya in p-m if you cared that much to know - but it's not that important to me. lol


----------



## ding

OldLady said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Simulation theory Is an excellent analog for our existence. There was a creator, there was a beginning of the creation and we were given the attributes of the creator.
> 
> The argument that simulation theory does not address the first cause conundrum is valid.
> 
> We know from logic that the only solution to what came before that is something which had no beginning. Which means it was eternal. We know from logic the only thing that can be eternal is something which is unchanging.
> 
> From these attributes we know that the first cause cannot be matter and energy as we know it because matter and of energy can not be eternal and unchanging. So as implausible at it seems the only thing that fits the requirements is spirit or consciousness without form.  It is mind which has created a material world so that beings that know and create would eventually arise.
> 
> 
> 
> Finally, someone offers a bit of the argument underpinning dualism.  I've been curious.  Thanks, Ding.
Click to expand...

To me there is no argument because of spirituality. There is no doubt that people are spiritual. There is also no doubt that the material world exists. So materialists believe that there is only the material world and that everything proceeded from the material world even spirituality. Materialists believe that spirituality is nothing more than electrochemical reactions in the brain. Like your college professor said.

Whereas dualist believe that there are spirits which did not proceed from the material world. Deists would be an example of that. They believe in the material world and a spiritual world so to speak although none of us can know what that is really like.

I am sure there are dualists that believe in spirituality but don’t believe in a spiritual world so to speak. I think they are just fooling themselves when they call themselves dualists. They are really materialists.


----------



## ding

So when the OP states the case for duslism hasn’t been made what he is really saying is that the case for spirituality not proceeding from the material world hasn’t been made. 

But it has. He just doesn’t accept it.


----------



## OldLady

ding said:


> So when the OP states the case for duslism hasn’t been made what he is really saying is that the case for spirituality not proceeding from the material world hasn’t been made.
> 
> But it has. He just doesn’t accept it.


Who made that case, Ding, for spirituality not proceeding from the material world?


----------



## ding

OldLady said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> So when the OP states the case for duslism hasn’t been made what he is really saying is that the case for spirituality not proceeding from the material world hasn’t been made.
> 
> But it has. He just doesn’t accept it.
> 
> 
> 
> Who made that case, Ding, for spirituality not proceeding from the material world?
Click to expand...

Ancient man was the first to state it. Aquinas was the first to prove it through logic but I’m partial to my argument which is based on the physical, biological and moral laws of nature.


----------



## G.T.

Damn, this site is really short on folks who enjoy philosophy.


----------

