Is mind-body-dualism generally accepted at this point?

Physics is a consequence of dualist thought, so they naturally believe in dualism

You can't even get two people to agree over what free will is supposed to entail, lie or not, it's not going away that easily.

dualism is a technique for when monism gets boring

You got that exactly backwrds.

How so? Perhaps you know the historical context better.

Actually, the dualism would be matter-spirit, as mind is a product of this material nature, just like the body

Physicalism is true for sure. And I can prove it too. If you poke someone's brain, it causes a change in their soul. I mean their mind, there's no such thing as souls. Therefore physicalism is true.

t. a philosophical zombie

>it's not going away that easily.
meatcucks are not long for this world

Feel free to refute him instead of derailing with insults

but user I did both of those things

>tfw phenomenology destroyed mind/body dualism almost a century ago
>people are still posting these threads

when will they learn

enlighten us

...

Cringe.

no u

Kim is cool with epiphenomenalism

daily reminder that physicalists actually think this is a good argument

Can someone give me a quick rundown on dualism?

It was for millennia but got shot down by Nietzsche. Western society is primarily Nietzschean now.

nigga haha an immaterial nonspacial thing has the possibility to extend to your physical body and control it hahah
nigga animals are soulless haha

CONFIRMATION

WITTGENSTEIN IS B B B BASEDD DAMN SON WHERED YA FIND THAT

Redpill me on embodiment, is it just physicalism lite?

If you poke someone's arm, it also causes changes to their mind. Or their hand. Or their nose.

Stop being retarded.

I think what you meant to say was idealism.

if I poke someone's soul, it will cause changes to their body

Do you think theologians, psychologists, and philosophers haven't been aware of this fact for well over thousands of years?

What about the interaction problem?

Considering that we haven't found the particles of the mind, I'd say yes.
This is also an approach.

If I hammer a radio, I change what the program and its makers are doing.

Time to experiment on frogs!

What is the phenomenological model where you have a frog, let's call him Pepe, and you want to find out where Pepe's soul lies?

So you take Pepe and you crush his brain a little and suddenly he can't remember recent events immediately before the procedure, or whole periods of his past experience. Then you squeeze him again and now he forgets how to write, and while he can still speak his vocabulary is limited and he has trouble focusing. Cut out a little more of his brain and he ceases to be responsive. Keep going and his body can no longer regulate itself and he ceases to be a living Pepe.

Next question: why do people think the soul is not in the body?

if you poke someone's soul, it will haunt you

only by fools

>pepe lobotomy
>frontal lobe intact

what do you think about property dualism?

What about the Thomistic view of soul and body united to make a complete human?

>why do people think the soul is not in the body?
Break the screen in front of you, gradually. The program will still be running, you'll just get a mess initially, and then nothing.

So you basically repeated my example. It's a Sorites paradox, with levels of consciousness instead of grains of sand. And the answer is no closer.

Feser pls

it's not in the body, it is the body without organs

We'll find out when we can switch the "screens", if we can. If the human body is a portal, this may be achieved - we may even get multiple screens showcasing the same thing. If the human body is a factory, on the other hand, the product should be merely analyzed more efficiently to understand it.

I'm beginning to think philosophers have no idea what they mean when they say 'mind' or 'soul'.

It's cheating to start from the sensible and intuitive option.

>user is a philosopher
whew

Indeed, the idea has them!

>interaction problem
>"non-physical substance" having agency over a physical body

REAL fuckin' spooky m8.

There are only 3 arguments against dualism:
1) the incredulous stare
2) the interaction problem
3) science will probably figure out consciousness bro and when they do it will somehow be exactly what I think it is

Only 2 is a serious objection and it's far from a fatal one

>the interaction problem
Can you explain how this? A non-physical "mind stuff" being responsible for informing the body makes no sense. It has not and cannot be observed, because it is non-physical. This is as coherent as /x/ believing in ghosts or /k/'s skinwalker stories.

epiphenomenalism (no interaction from mind to body)
panpsychism (all matter has a mental aspect, the mind is a quidditie)

Anyways the physicalists need to show how physical properties give rise to consciousness, qualia and other phenomenologies and as far as I'm concerned they've been completely unable to do such things

And if consciousness can't be explained physically then it must not be physical

scientists haven't fully explained consciousness, so as far as we know a non-physical substance does have agency over our minds

anyway, you're posting stirner and talking about ">muh spooks" so I recommend not coming back to Veeky Forums until you're 18

The interaction problem is not a fatal problem, just because its unclear how the interaction occurs doesnt mean it does not

However I think the zombie and mary's room arguments are fatal arguments against materialism

Thank you. That seems like a desperate, temporary answer given only because a real scientific one hasn't arrived yet. I'm very confident the processes that create consciousness can be explained chemically and modeled by psychologists. We just don't have the tools to do it yet. The idea that 'here be dragons' is good enough in 2017 throws medicine all the way back to hot cold wet dry humors.

>dude science lmao
>the "im right because science will prove me right in the future just wait guys" meme

What would a physical explanation for consciousness even look like? All of them are unconvincing as all hell or don't even start at explaining consciousness, and some of them like IIT manage to be even more "woo" than dualism

>just because its unclear how the interaction occurs doesnt mean it does not
I have a bit of a problem with the premise that mind and body are separate at all. They are useful terms but not exclusive.

>so as far as we know a non-physical substance does have agency over our minds
And you say *I'm* the one who is underage. A non-physical substance cannot act on the physical. The phrase itself is an oxymoron.

>I have a bit of a problem with the premise that mind and body are separate at all. They are useful terms but not exclusive.
I'm just arguing that it's not a fatal argument. I do think it's a good argument, but it's very far from a refutation and the other two are just short of being fucking retarded.

Anyways if you think that they aren't "seperate" - keep in mind I switch between epiphenomenalism and panpsychism and I don't really think that per se.

For your ideas to work you need to show how the mind can be reduced to the physical aspects of the body and I don't think this is possible at all.

>A non-physical substance cannot act on the physical
Who's to say? Define physical and get back to me first.

>I'm very confident the processes that create consciousness can be explained chemically and modeled by psychologists.
Why do you think this? What processes do you think are at play?

>The idea that 'here be dragons' is good enough in 2017 throws medicine all the way back to hot cold wet dry humors.
fuck off STEMlord

>What would a physical explanation for consciousness even look like?

NB: *human consciousness.

Study anthropology and read Plato. Hegel I feel is especially close to the mark. Our consciousness is a constant procession of information. We have advanced from staring at literal caves and the dreamtime to metaphorical caves and Veeky Forums. Now follow the thread of consciousness further back, to non-primates and non-mammals. The veil of maya those subtle body believers talked about wasn't far from the truth.

You may be right but I wouldn't call that anything like reductive physicalism

I haven't read Whitehead yet but I get the feeling that all of this will make sense to me after I do

I'm legitimately curious: are there any arguments for reductive physicalism that aren't memes?

>Why do you think this? What processes do you think are at play?
Chemistry, mostly. *Maybe* some tricky quantum physics shit that philosophy will be grappling with in twenty years. Inject me with nanites and let them record my braincase and environs right now.

>you need to show how the mind can be reduced to the physical aspects of the body and I don't think this is possible at all.
I don't. STEMfags do. I'm as lost as you are, but I'm certain that philosophers of today looking seriously at a hocus pocus spirit-stuff "explanation" is actively delaying the answer. They are retarding science out of hubris and professional fear.

>Who's to say? Define physical and get back to me first.
Non-physical physical is a self-evident contradiction. Correct your sloppy terms and get back to me first. Non-physical means just that: not observable by any means we have. Unconfirmable. Even shit with zero mass like photons and gluons are observable and "physical."

>Chemistry, mostly. *Maybe* some tricky quantum physics shit that philosophy will be grappling with in twenty years. Inject me with nanites and let them record my braincase and environs right now.
literally how the fuck would the behavior of molecules and nerve firings cause something as genuinely novel as consciousness? I'm lost on this one. I don't doubt that there's a connection though - no one does. Again, following Chalmers, there's no logical entailment from any known physical fact about the brain to the very existence of consciousness, let alone it's features.

>I don't. STEMfags do.
What if they can't? Why are you soooo sure that science is going to figure this out?

>I'm certain that philosophers of today looking seriously at a hocus pocus spirit-stuff "explanation" is actively delaying the answer.
Honestly, I'd be genuinely curious about a physicalist explanation of consciousness. I don't think such a thing is possible - read Epiphenomenal Qualia by Frank Jackson and The Conscious Mind by David Chalmers for more about this.

>Non-physical physical is a self-evident contradiction. Correct your sloppy terms and get back to me first. Non-physical means just that: not observable by any means we have. Unconfirmable. Even shit with zero mass like photons and gluons are observable and "physical."
By physical I mean describable by the laws of physics. I want you to correct YOUR sloppy terms and get back to me. "Anything we observe is physical" is an incredibly weak statement - the Cartesian Soul would be physical under your definition.

I'm going to strengthen my definition here - If a property or thing is exhausted by its physical description and logically entailed by the laws of physics, then it is physical.

>literally how the fuck would the behavior of molecules and nerve firings cause something as genuinely novel as consciousness
Remember that consciousness is only a part of experience. Your brain is always on. Jung's model of the Self is my favorite. You have an unconscious mind -- obviously seated in the brain and not whooshing through the light fixtures -- that is speaking constantly, but the you that you think of as "you" doesn't hear it in the waking hours. Individuation helps, but like ourselves it is a process that is never complete. There are too many competing inputs, constantly challenging for pole position: from fingertips and hands and feet and legs and arms to torso and muscle groups and so on. The exact nature of transmission I can't tell you, but it is present and I make no cat-brained claims about it being of a certain nature. Just unknown.

>read Epiphenomenal Qualia by Frank Jackson and The Conscious Mind by David Chalmers
Thanks for the recommendations.

>"Anything we observe is physical"
That's not what I said. Anything we CAN observe. Not merely conceived but those things which can be scientifically measured by an instrument.

>What if they can't? Why are you soooo sure that science is going to figure this out?
Because it is inevitable. Our bodies are not so complicated, really. And if you want to be a negative nancy I'll tell you with a straight face we are still infants at science. We've understood DNA for what... several decades? And the scientific study of nature only began a few hundred years ago. We have modeled our minds using only words for millennia, and we are JUST NOW beginning to record our discoveries in impartial language that exists outside of connotation and misunderstanding.

>Because it is inevitable. Our bodies are not so complicated, really. And if you want to be a negative nancy I'll tell you with a straight face we are still infants at science. We've understood DNA for what... several decades? And the scientific study of nature only began a few hundred years ago. We have modeled our minds using only words for millennia, and we are JUST NOW beginning to record our discoveries in impartial language that exists outside of connotation and misunderstanding.
I don't think that explaining the way the body works physically will any more physics fundamental chemistry than what we already have. Honestly I think we have all the tools, but I don't see any possible way that this entails consciousness.

For example, let's say the entire population of the globe is given a telephone and a rulebook. If you get a certain call on a certain line for long enough, you call someone else. Little do you know, you are actually simulating roughly 200 neurons and managing thousands of connections. Scale this up and imagine the system as a whole. Would this system have the same vivid inner state as we do? If you decide to pull a prank and call the wrong person, would it be possible that you'd be torturing this "person" in the same way that you would feel torture? I don't think that there's any existing physical laws, or really any possible ones, that couldn't be modeled in such a way.

As I can see it, there's three options around this:
1) Argue that consciousness isn't what we think this is. I don't find this convincing at all, since "the appearance is the reality in question" as John Searle said
2) Bite the bullet and admit that the system in question would be conscious. Of course, this requires an explanation of how the system becomes conscious, and which systems are and which systems are not conscious.
3) Admit that something else is necessary, that isn't entailed by the physical facts.

Not who you responded to. Physicalism is a monist theory, namely that all things are physical. This includes things like forces. Most scientifically inclined people are physical monists.

>Chemistry, mostly
You don't shit about chemistry, you think the feeling of being 'high' is the same as euphoria or contentment?

I don't think that explaining the way the body works physically will require any more physics or fundamental chemistry than what we already have*

I like this post. It accepts that consciousness is not an easy definition. I believe reality is represented in option 2. Option 1 is a deflection, yes. 3 is resignation. The vivid inner state you mention is the composition of the whole seen by us from orbit, not the daubs of paint on the phone. To assign "them" a themhood, or the qualities of observation we have, is a failure of language. Or maybe I misunderstand.

>I think we have all the tools
Not yet. To continue your metaphor, wiretapping does not exist yet. We can only watch from orbit and see general bursts of activity in the megalopolises. We can't identify callers, or know the contents of a discrete chemical message. Recording this data is what I'm waiting for. We're an electro-chemical stewpot that is continually forgetting and recalling the past and telling itself a story in the present. History is a treadmill, from individual lifetime to span of empire. Have you read Ricoeur? I'm interested in his ideas about memory.

Woops, I understand your comparison now. Chalmers' example in the Conscious Mind. If we understood consciousness as a class of thing and replicated it with, say, tomato cans and string, would it still be a consciousness? What about silicon? To me this is a bad example. Chalmers is addressing the resolution of the problem correctly (ie, scale), but his question is a restatement of the Sorites paradox. If you move bits of hay, pitchfork by pitchfork, from one pile into another... when is a haystack no longer a haystack? When there's only 15 pieces of straw left? 5? 2? 1? The important thing is it is a haystack, not a pile of sulphur. Yellow is not hay, and brains are not anything else.

Who else believes in mind-body-lifeforce (or soul) trinity? The mind is an entity which is controlled by a lifeforce or soul.

What is the difference between mind and soul? And where does one end and the other begin? They are the same, I think.

youtube.com/watch?v=WTHoKEd-Gjo

I think the mind is that which is generated by the brain, and then the soul or lifeforce is at the seat of the brain as the pilot of the mind and body. You can control your body, and you can also control your mind by active thinking.

>you can control your body
>you can also control your mind

Sounds like you've got two words for the same thing there m8. :^)

I like the way repeated words sound sometimes. The repetition was intended to put emphasis on these being distinct from / piloted by the lifeforce or soul.

>that pic
Mind is pattern from nothing, like a pearl from a grain of sand.

>201x
>not accepting dialectical monism

Ascend and see your semantics burn

>particles of the mind
holy shit

would you mind explaining this diagram?

READ MERLEAU-PONTY AND DAMASIO

But my point is not to inhibit discussion of free will like Wittgenstein did, but for it to happen. If the absence of a "free will" is such an unsettling notion for professional philosophers, of all people, it would be helpful to have something resembling an understanding of what would be missing, or how could something gain it, so we could know what is it that unsettles people, and we would also have claims to investigate. In other words, go fuck yourself.

Not lite, done right. Read the book.

READ HEGEL; HE IS THE ALPHA AND OMEGA. HE IS THE RED PILL WE NEED; open your eyes Veeky Forums.

YES BUT READ MERLEAU-PONTY

Oh, bio-chemical reactions in my body, its another "Lets male a highly romanticised theory based on imperfect scientific explanation". While it may be fun for underage b8 or populist philosophy and makes a compelling plot element in fictional characters, the concept itself is shit as a standalone point of discussion.

>literally how the fuck would the behavior of molecules and nerve firings cause something as genuinely novel as consciousness?
Oh i wonder how the world formed from stardust to its current form. Why is it so hard to accept the basic notion of Emergence?

>It has not and cannot be observed
It is literally the only thing susceptible of being observed in existence. The unprovable made-up concept is physical stuff, not your immediate access to experience.

YES BUT READ CASTORIADIS

IIT is not even a physicalist reduction of consciousness, it just takes it as a given and builds a system of correlates. It is essentially dualist

Hi Alex. Neither are you, that's for sure.

seriously though OP, no. most philosophers are physicalists according to this: philpapers.org/archive/BOUWDP

but the attitude towards dualism has gotten progressively better and better since the the 90s (chalmers helped). dualism was literally laughed at in the 50s and 60s. and obviously property dualism is more favored than substance dualism

Okay but whats the roman catholic church's stance on this?
Nothing else matters to me.