Is mind body duality a simple misconception?

[Bunyip]

Whenever mind body duality is explained, or people tell me that I am 'denying the reality of spirit' and so on - they use words to describe 'spirit' that are contradictory.

Spirit is immaterial and real at the same time, words are used that refer to physical matter,- ie spirit EXISTS, is REAL etc.

Can anyone frame mind body duality without referring to spirit using words that infer a material, physical existence? If spirit is physical, that is not dualism.

And if it can not be framed in a fashion that conflates the real with the immaterial, what validity can it have?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Whenever mind body duality is explained, or people tell me that I am 'denying the reality of spirit' and so on - they use words to describe 'spirit' that are contradictory.

Spirit is immaterial and real at the same time, words are used that refer to physical matter,- ie spirit EXISTS, is REAL etc.

Can anyone frame mind body duality without referring to spirit using words that infer a material, physical existence? If spirit is physical, that is not dualism.

And if it can not be framed in a fashion that conflates the real with the immaterial, what validity can it have?

It is strange and unwarranted that you would limit the words real, and exists, only for material.

With anything spiritual, you reach the conclusion it is real by choosing it is.

With material on the other hand, you reach the conclusion it is real by evidence forcing to the conclusion that it is, or is not real.

Say a hare is trying to escape from a fox. The hare makes all kinds of decisions, hop, skip, run, lay low, attack even. For some of these decisions we might opine that it is courage, or recklessness which makes the decision turn out the way it does. When you choose it is courage, then according to you courage is real. When you choose the answer it is recklessness, then recklessness is real. You make an opinion, you change your opinion, others make opinions, maybe the hare has some kind of opinion. In the end we see the facts of what options the hare had, and which is chosen, we do not see the courage or recklessness doing the deciding. That is the spirit, and it is only real if you decide it is real.

 

[JRMcC]

It's real but not material. I agree that "exists" is a tricky word that probably wouldn't be right when describing soul. ps. I think soul and consciousness are the same thing.

 

[lovemuffin]

philosophy of mind, mind/body dualism, and consciousness don't necessarily have anything to do with "spirit". There are open scientific and philosophical issues.

It's not really helpful to define existence to mean physical existence, at least if you want to discuss dualism as a theory of mind, because dualisms of various kinds assume that "existence" is a predicate that describes real things beyond the material. That is not a religious or spiritual idea, it is a philosophical one. The "hard problem of consciousness", as it is called, is based on an intuition, shared by a number of naturalist philosophers, that there is something to phenomenal consciousness (the "what it is like"-ness of conscious awareness) that cannot be reduced to a functional physical explanation. See David Chalmers, Thomas Nagel, or John Searle as examples of naturalist philosophers who hold this position. See philosophical thought experiments such as the chinese room, Mary's room, or philosophical zombies as examples of the kind of argument. On the other side, there are philosophers like Daniel Dennett, who argue against this intuition, for example in quining qualia, or in the objections raised to the previous thought experiments. Dennett covers most of these in a lot of detail in his book Consciousness Explained, as well.

 

[psychoslice]

I see everything as one, but because we are an animal, we need to see the world in duality, so as to be able to live our life as an animal. But the truth is that we are all one, one in consciousness, or god if you prefer that name. When we forget that we are all one, most time we begin to suffer. This is one reason why we have religion, because we cannot realize our oneness with the cosmos, and we feel afraid thinking we are separate, so we try to find our way back in all sorts of ways, all we need to do is simple realize it.

 

[Bunyip]

It is strange and unwarranted that you would limit the words real, and exists, only for material.

How so? 'Real', 'exists' are words that refer tomthe physical.

With anything spiritual, you reach the conclusion it is real by choosing it is.

With material on the other hand, you reach the conclusion it is real by evidence forcing to the conclusion that it is, or is not real.

Say a hare is trying to escape from a fox. The hare makes all kinds of decisions, hop, skip, run, lay low, attack even. For some of these decisions we might opine that it is courage, or recklessness which makes the decision turn out the way it does. When you choose it is courage, then according to you courage is real. When you choose the answer it is recklessness, then recklessness is real. You make an opinion, you change your opinion, others make opinions, maybe the hare has some kind of opinion. In the end we see the facts of what options the hare had, and which is chosen, we do not see the courage or recklessness doing the deciding. That is the spirit, and it is only real if you decide it is real.

Sorry, don't get it. What is real is real regardless of whether you percieve it or not. Try running at a closed door with your eyes closed.

 

[Bunyip]

It's real but not material. I agree that "exists" is a tricky word that probably wouldn't be right when describing soul. ps. I think soul and consciousness are the same thing.

Surely 'exists' is as problematic as 'real'? Both refer to the physical and b ok th distinguish between the physical and the conceptual/abstract.

 

[Bunyip]

philosophy of mind, mind/body dualism, and consciousness don't necessarily have anything to do with "spirit". There are open scientific and philosophical issues.

It's not really helpful to define existence to mean physical existence, at least if you want to discuss dualism as a theory of mind, because dualisms of various kinds assume that "existence" is a predicate that describes real things beyond the material.

Yes, that is precisely my concern - only in the context of spirituality/consciousness/duality is existence used to refer to something that infers something 'real beyond the material'. Indeed as you say it is the underlying assumption

That is not a religious or spiritual idea, it is a philosophical one. The "hard problem of consciousness", as it is called, is based on an intuition, shared by a number of naturalist philosophers, that there is something to phenomenal consciousness (the "what it is like"-ness of conscious awareness) that cannot be reduced to a functional physical explanation. See David Chalmers, Thomas Nagel, or John Searle as examples of naturalist philosophers who hold this position. See philosophical thought experiments such as the chinese room, Mary's room, or philosophical zombies as examples of the kind of argument. On the other side, there are philosophers like Daniel Dennett, who argue against this intuition, for example in quining qualia, or in the objections raised to the previous thought experiments. Dennett covers most of these in a lot of detail in his book Consciousness Explained, as well.

 

[Bunyip]

If I can ask respondants in reference to the meaning of 'real', in common usage real and abstract are opposites - one refers to the physical (real), and the other to the conceptual (abstract).

How are you distinguishing between 'real'? And 'abstract' in this context?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Spirit is immaterial and real at the same time, words are used that refer to physical matter,- ie spirit EXISTS, is REAL etc.

In terms of the way we experience things, I think it makes sense to talk about mind or consciousness being distinct from the body, in other words to take a dualist view.
But "spirit" or "soul" seems like a speculative religious add-on to me, just a matter of belief.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

How so? 'Real', 'exists' are words that refer tomthe physical. Sorry, don't get it. What is real is real regardless of whether you percieve it or not. Try running at a closed door with your eyes closed.

And so it is what it is, regardless of what your opinion says that it is.

You express your emotion, with free will thus choosing, forming an opinion, it is courage what makes the decision turn out the way it does. Another has the opinion it is recklessness that makes the decision turn out the way it does. Both conclusions are logically valid, because they are chosen. Whether or not the opinion is morally righteous, is another issue again.

You are never going to make it work that "courage" and a "door", are in 1 category of physical things, real and existing.

It is totally absurd why one would even try to do it.... Fundamentally you at least require a subjective category, and an objective category. You can put abstract things in the objective category as well, as being objects in mind. Courage and such are not objects in minds, they are subjective, spiritual.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Spirit is immaterial and real at the same time, words are used that refer to physical matter,- ie spirit EXISTS, is REAL etc.

It's like deja vu all over again:

According to the orthodox view, quantum systems are mathematical entities. They don't exist. What exists, and the only thing we can say exists in terms of quantum physics, are the outcomes of observations/measurements. However, even if we understand quantum physics in this way, it is well established that outcomes of measurements separated by arbitrarily long distances (a yard, mile, light-year, etc.) are not independent. They are connected somehow. However, there is nothing physical that connects, not even the kind of non-physical phenomena in physics like fields or work/force/energy/etc.

we cannot say even under the most extreme interpretation in which QM is basically a statistical physics that tells us the probabilities of experimental outcomes that physical = real.

While it is easy enough to dismiss non-physical things like work, force, energy...the same is not true of things like fields. These are immaterial, non-local "things" that exert influence over everything that exists.

particle physics demands that we treat certain fields as exercising causal force over "material" reality, yet don't exist as anything material.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

You can put abstract things in the objective category as well, as being objects in mind. Courage and such are not objects in minds, they are subjective, spiritual.

Courage is a personal quality. Where else does it exist if not in the mind?

 

[JRMcC]

Well it appears as though the brain is a material thing that gives rise to a non-material thing, experienced consciousness. Anyway the physical, the real, ect. exist within this non-material thing, so it seems silly to judge consciousness/spirit by whether or not it exists or is real. Does that make sense?

 

[Willamena]

Whenever mind body duality is explained, or people tell me that I am 'denying the reality of spirit' and so on - they use words to describe 'spirit' that are contradictory.

Spirit is immaterial and real at the same time, words are used that refer to physical matter,- ie spirit EXISTS, is REAL etc.

Can anyone frame mind body duality without referring to spirit using words that infer a material, physical existence? If spirit is physical, that is not dualism.

And if it can not be framed in a fashion that conflates the real with the immaterial, what validity can it have?

It only speaks to modern grammatical convention that "real" and "exists" infer material, physical existence.

 

[Bunyip]

It only speaks to modern grammatical convention that "real" and "exists" infer material, physical existence.

Well of course, what else could it be? Hardly divine dictate - so what was your point?

The fact remains that real, exists, substance all infer physical things. In fact synonyms for 'physical' are always used, I can not find an example where the so called duality is expressed without using a synonym for physical to describe the immaterial/non physical. Which is essentially why I believe the notion is incoherrent.

 

[Bunyip]

Well it appears as though the brain is a material thing that gives rise to a non-material thing, experienced consciousness. Anyway the physical, the real, ect. exist within this non-material thing, so it seems silly to judge consciousness/spirit by whether or not it exists or is real. Does that make sense?

Absolutely yes - and that is the point. Saying that spirit 'exists' or is 'real' means nothing. It is conceptual. Concepts do not need to exist physically to have value, meaning and significance - it is absurd to attribute sucha a quality to it.

 

[Bunyip]

It's like deja vu all over again:

Energy IS physical mate, so is force. I'm amazed a man claiming to be a scientist could fail to know the relationship between matter and energy.

 

[Bunyip]

And so it is what it is, regardless of what your opinion says that it is.

You express your emotion, with free will thus choosing, forming an opinion, it is courage what makes the decision turn out the way it does. Another has the opinion it is recklessness that makes the decision turn out the way it does. Both conclusions are logically valid, because they are chosen. Whether or not the opinion is morally righteous, is another issue again.

You are never going to make it work that "courage" and a "door", are in 1 category of physical things, real and existing.

It is totally absurd why one would even try to do it.... Fundamentally you at least require a subjective category, and an objective category. You can put abstract things in the objective category as well, as being objects in mind. Courage and such are not objects in minds, they are subjective, spiritual.

Sorry mate, that was illegible.

 

[lovemuffin]

The fact remains that real, exists, substance all infer physical things. In fact synonyms for 'physical' are always used, I can not find an example where the so called duality is expressed without using a synonym for physical to describe the immaterial/non physical. Which is essentially why I believe the notion is incoherrent.

For most of recorded history, philosophical investigations into "existence" have not explicitly understood existence as limited to the physical in the modern sense. In Plato, or Aristotle, or Descartes' substance dualism and etc. The notion is clearly not incoherent. There is no a priori logical inconsistentcy in talking about immaterial existence unless you first assume that reality is only that which is material. That assumption remains, even to to this day, something that can be argued towards only abductively, typically in reference to the success of science and in appeal to something like Occam's razor.