• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What kind of dualist are you?

What kind of dualist are you?

  • Substance (Cartesian) Dualist

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Property Dualist

    Votes: 4 25.0%
  • Neither (explanation requested)

    Votes: 12 75.0%

  • Total voters
    16

Copernicus

Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2018
Messages
91
Reaction score
34
Location
Bellevue, WA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Dualism is the view that there is a non-physical aspect to human beings--a mental/spiritual aspect and a physical aspect. (See the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on Dualism for reference.) The vast majority of people are dualists. More than that, they are what philosophers call "substance dualists" (aka Cartesian dualists) in that they believe in an immaterial spiritual plane of existence that is independent of physics. The major alternative to substance dualism is "property dualism"--the view that mental phenomena are not physical per se, but that mental/spiritual experience is a property of certain physical interactions. In modern terms, one might call it an emergent property.

Just out of curiosity, I would like to know whether you consider yourself a substance (Cartesian) or property dualist. If not, why not? So I offer two choices and an option to decline either label (with explanation).
 
Last edited:
Produce some 'immaterial' and we can move on.
 
Produce some 'immaterial' and we can move on.

Given that 'immaterial' is an adjective rather than a noun, your sentence is ungrammatical. However, the adjective is clearly defined in dictionaries, if you need guidance in what it means.
 
Dualism is the view that there is a non-physical aspect to human beings--a mental/spiritual aspect and a physical aspect. (See the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on Dualism for reference.) The vast majority of people are dualists. More than that, they are what philosophers call "substance dualists" (aka Cartesian dualists) in that they believe in an immaterial spiritual plane of existence that is independent of physics. The major alternative to substance dualism is "property dualism"--the view that mental phenomena are not physical per se, but that mental/spiritual experience is a property of certain physical interactions. In modern terms, one might call it an emergent property.

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

pistol6-630x400.jpg
 
Given that 'immaterial' is an adjective rather than a noun, your sentence is ungrammatical. However, the adjective is clearly defined in dictionaries, if you need guidance in what it means.

Clearly defined but leaving you no better off. Being pedantic about the form of a word is not an excuse to ignore the question. What can be produces either in argument or evidence to demonstrate a dualist nature.

Like god it is a state of belief based on faith rather than anything i should concern myself with.
 
Clearly defined but leaving you no better off. Being pedantic about the form of a word is not an excuse to ignore the question. What can be produces either in argument or evidence to demonstrate a dualist nature.

Like god it is a state of belief based on faith rather than anything i should concern myself with.

I think you misunderstood the OP, but it doesn't look like anyone here is interested in a serious discussion anyway. I happen to be an atheist and a materialist, so I'm not unsympathetic to your apparent skepticism of substance dualism (assuming that you understand what that is). Hence, it is more than a little silly to ask me to produce something that is "immaterial", although one could go down the rabbit hole of a discussion over just what words mean. Being a linguist, I think you would find me no less pedantic on that subject. This is a philosophy forum, so I thought I might get some interesting responses on a subject that is well known to philosophers. If folks aren't up for it, I'll just let it go.
 
I'm an idealist and a monist. I voted neither. Good luck with this thread.
 
Last edited:
I'm am idealist and a monist. I voted neither. Good luck with this thread.

I left the "neither" option in for monists, and your response is of a type I've gotten before. Physicalism is also a type of monism. However, that would not necessarily get you off the dualist hook. Nevertheless, I don't know enough about the details of your "idealism" yet to comment.

And thanks for the serious reply.
 
Last edited:
Given that 'immaterial' is an adjective rather than a noun, your sentence is ungrammatical. However, the adjective is clearly defined in dictionaries, if you need guidance in what it means.

Your 'concern' is noted.
 
I left the "neither" option in for monists, and your response is of a type I've gotten before. Physicalism is also a type of monism. However, that would not necessarily get you off the dualist hook. Nevertheless, I don't know enough about the details of your "idealism" yet to comment.

And thanks for the serious reply.

I personally believe materialistic monism is the most likely scenario, followed by idealistic monism, and I would consider dualism as the least likely as I can’t see how the immaterial and the material would interact.

I think at the most fundamental level of reality there is only one thing arranged in countless different patterns which give way to unique emergent properties.
 
I'm physical and exist in physical reality. Dualism is made up nonsense. Nothing to discuss about it.
 
I'm physical and exist in physical reality. Dualism is made up nonsense. Nothing to discuss about it.
Dualism is indeed "made-up nonsense," but the nonsense -- literally what makes no sense -- is your physicalism, physicalist.
 
Dualism is indeed "made-up nonsense," but the nonsense -- literally what makes no sense -- is your physicalism, physicalist.

Says the physical being on a physical forum. Next time, have your non physical mind contact mine. Mine will be wearing a non physical pink carnation so you will know it's mine.
 
Says the physical being on a physical forum. Next time, have your non physical mind contact mine. Mine will be wearing a non physical pink carnation so you will know it's mine.
My non-physical mind has been in contact with your non-physical mind off and on for the past eighteen months. Wake up!
 
The OP poll is pretty much voided by what Dualism, in philosophical terms, is really about. The relationship between physical properties and mental properties is the core of the question, the splintered explanations on Dualism comes down to realizations based on how physical properties are defined (and measured) that do not translate well into how mental properties are defined (and measured.)

Dualism in theological terms is radically different, and also does not translate well into philosophical discussion. For philosophy, the term "belief" does not apply to Dualism except when attempting to explain the reasons for the explanations from the core question to those that do not study philosophy.
 
I believe in something like Platonic idealism. And Rupert Sheldrake's field theory. And the Penrose-Hameroff theory of quantum consciousness (they are Platonic idealists).

And I believe in something like the yoga description of the various levels of substances. And David Bohm's idea of implicate orders.

And complex systems theory.

And other things.
 
I'm just coming back to this after about a year of being away. I originally abandoned this thread, because I expected there to be more people here in favor of an actual discussion of the subject of dualism, rather than a bunch of folks advocating for one or another version of monism. Sorry if that sounds a bit peevish, but not that many people responded anyway.

Really, it comes down to a question of whether one accepts the possibility of the existence of immaterial (brainless) agencies or not. You don't actually have to believe that thoughts are physical things any more than you have to believe that a rainbow is a physical thing. Rainbows exist only insofar as there exist perceivers to interact with them. They don't exist independently of the perception, but maybe thoughts don't exist independently of the nervous systems that reify them. In any case, this is an interesting philosophical question (to me), and I had hoped that a forum devoted to philosophy would attract people with a better appreciation of the actual issues.

Is it possible for thought to exist independently of physical brain activity? I really doubt that. However, the belief that thought can exist independently of the physical--as an activity that is non-physical--is a belief that a large majority of human beings hold to be true. So it is worth asking the question in the OP. I just felt a little surprised that the materialists (like myself) here weren't more informed about the concepts of property and substance dualism.
 
I'm just coming back to this after about a year of being away. I originally abandoned this thread, because I expected there to be more people here in favor of an actual discussion of the subject of dualism, rather than a bunch of folks advocating for one or another version of monism. Sorry if that sounds a bit peevish, but not that many people responded anyway.

Really, it comes down to a question of whether one accepts the possibility of the existence of immaterial (brainless) agencies or not. You don't actually have to believe that thoughts are physical things any more than you have to believe that a rainbow is a physical thing. Rainbows exist only insofar as there exist perceivers to interact with them. They don't exist independently of the perception, but maybe thoughts don't exist independently of the nervous systems that reify them. In any case, this is an interesting philosophical question (to me), and I had hoped that a forum devoted to philosophy would attract people with a better appreciation of the actual issues.

Is it possible for thought to exist independently of physical brain activity? I really doubt that. However, the belief that thought can exist independently of the physical--as an activity that is non-physical--is a belief that a large majority of human beings hold to be true. So it is worth asking the question in the OP. I just felt a little surprised that the materialists (like myself) here weren't more informed about the concepts of property and substance dualism.

Rainbows are physical. They consist of water and sunlight interacting in a particular way. If they weren't physical, we couldn't physically see them.
 
Rainbows are physical. They consist of water and sunlight interacting in a particular way. If they weren't physical, we couldn't physically see them.

But a rainbow only exists within the context of an observer, as your last sentence admits. They don't exist in the absence of an observer. So, are they really physical objects? Is any physical object in human experience something that exists independently of some observer? If you give it some serious thought, you may want to keep a bottle of painkillers close by.
 
But a rainbow only exists within the context of an observer, as your last sentence admits. They don't exist in the absence of an observer. So, are they really physical objects? Is any physical object in human experience something that exists independently of some observer? If you give it some serious thought, you may want to keep a bottle of painkillers close by.

Can you show that a rainbow does not exist in absence of an observer? Is not a rainbow filtered light through water? Does not frequencies of light effect material when it hits it? Does not the various frequencies of light effect the environment in different ways by how much energy is absorbed? That would happen independent of an observer.
 
Can you show that a rainbow does not exist in absence of an observer? Is not a rainbow filtered light through water? Does not frequencies of light effect material when it hits it? Does not the various frequencies of light effect the environment in different ways by how much energy is absorbed? That would happen independent of an observer.

If the rainbow were to exist independently of an observer, then it would be detectable by observers from other locations. However, it can only be detected by the person or device in a specific location and with the specific sensory equipment to detect it. You can certainly photograph a rainbow, but you cannot ever budge from your position and actually see the same rainbow. There may be a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow, but try to go there and get it. That is because it only exists as an interaction between an observer/sensor and the light waves/particles that activate the sensor.
 
IfWHy, the rainbow were to exist independently of an observer, then it would be detectable by observers from other locations. However, it can only be detected by the person or device in a specific location and with the specific sensory equipment to detect it. You can certainly photograph a rainbow, but you cannot ever budge from your position and actually see the same rainbow. There may be a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow, but try to go there and get it. That is because it only exists as an interaction between an observer/sensor and the light waves/particles that activate the sensor.

Why people in similar areas that are in the proper position can detect it. Not only that.. but photographs can be taken of rainbows. Photographs record physical phenomena. If you were standing next to me, and I saw a rainbow, you could also see that rainbow, independently of me.


You can't see that guy around the corner in the alley way either who is waiting to much you. That doesn't mean you won't get hit on the head when you pass by.
 
Why people in similar areas that are in the proper position can detect it. Not only that.. but photographs can be taken of rainbows. Photographs record physical phenomena. If you were standing next to me, and I saw a rainbow, you could also see that rainbow, independently of me.

If you reread what I said, you'll see that I was the one to point out that you can capture images of rainbows with equipment that sense optical phenomena. Rainbows are optical phenomena. However, the rainbow bow that different people see (or different cameras record) are not exactly the same. Because rainbows depend on a perceptual perspective, they will not necessarily appear the be in the same place. Without some sensor to detect a rainbow, it simply doesn't exist. Think about it.


You can't see that guy around the corner in the alley way either who is waiting to much you. That doesn't mean you won't get hit on the head when you pass by.

Rainbows are not solid objects. Muggers are. You shouldn't confuse the two.
 
If you reread what I said, you'll see that I was the one to point out that you can capture images of rainbows with equipment that sense optical phenomena. Rainbows are optical phenomena. However, the rainbow bow that different people see (or different cameras record) are not exactly the same. Because rainbows depend on a perceptual perspective, they will not necessarily appear the be in the same place. Without some sensor to detect a rainbow, it simply doesn't exist. Think about it.




Rainbows are not solid objects. Muggers are. You shouldn't confuse the two.

yet, at the same time, it does.

For the energy will hit matter, and the different wavelengths will hit different areas.
 
Back
Top Bottom