Is mind body duality a simple misconception?

[Bunyip]

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.

How so? Existence is a reference to the physical - to exist means to have a physical presence.

There is no a priori logical inconsistency in talking about immaterial existence unless you first assume that reality is only that which is material.

A fair assumption givent that 'immaterial existence' is a contradiction in terms.

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.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

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.

That might be because the famous version of the equivalence principle e=mc^2 is misunderstood. 4 quarters= 1 dollar. If you cut a dollar in four pieces, you don't get 4 dollars.

Also, no force is postulated for the causal connections between space-like separated quantum systems that are causally connected. Nothing, in fact, other than this causal connection is said to exist (and this causal connection isn't directional, in that we have a cause-effect relationship we can determine rather than arbitrarily decide).

 

[Bunyip]

That might be because the famous version of the equivalence principle e=mc^2 is misunderstood. 4 quarters= 1 dollar. If you cut a dollar in four pieces, you don't get 4 dollars.

Your point?

Also, no force is postulated for the causal connections between space-like separated quantum systems that are causally connected. Nothing, in fact, other than this causal connection is said to exist (and this causal connection isn't directional, in that we have a cause-effect relationship we can determine rather than arbitrarily decide).

It remains a physical force, so what is your point?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Your point?

Energy isn't physical.

It remains a physical force, so what is your point?

What force? There is no postulated force or any mechanism that exists that is in any sense "material" or "physical" which explains these causal connections.

 

[Bunyip]

Energy isn't physical.

Of course it is. Matter is energy.

What force?

They don't know yet.

There is no postulated force or any mechanism that exists that is in any sense "material" or "physical" which explains these causal connections.

Your point?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Of course it is. Matter is energy

No, it isn't. To prove this, consider a system of n units of mass with k units of potential energy. Then do the same with kinetic energy. Does the system equal both values of energy? No. Better yet, consider massless particles and how they interact with the mass & energy of a system in quantum field theories. However, you go about trying to indicate that the common misconception of the mass-energy equivalence principle is true, you will be wrong.

they don't know yet.

"They" don't know gravitational force as it is treated in relativistic quantum physics as a field and as spacetime curvature in general relativity. Yet they are able to describe the processes observed with sufficient understanding as to at least develop labels.

This is not true in the case of causal connections that have no physical basis. Moreover, quantum physics demands that it has no physical basis.

Your point?

That your description of the physical is at odds with physics.

 

[Bunyip]

No, it isn't. To prove this, consider a system of n units of mass with k units of potential energy. Then do the same with kinetic energy. Does the system equal both values of energy? No. Better yet, consider massless particles and how they interact with the mass & energy of a system in quantum field theories. However, you go about trying to indicate that the common misconception of the mass-energy equivalence principle is true, you will be wrong.


"They" don't know gravitational force as it is treated in relativistic quantum physics as a field and as spacetime curvature in general relativity. Yet they are able to describe the processes observed with sufficient understanding as to at least develop labels.

This is not true in the case of causal connections that have no physical basis. Moreover, quantum physics demands that it has no physical basis.


That your description of the physical is at odds with physics.

Your talent for pointlessness is extraordinary.

 

[idav]

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?

How do you categorize thoughts as ultimately physical?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Your talent for pointlessness is extraordinary.

Your inability to understand the notions and concepts you ask about is amazing. You ask a question, I answered it, my answer is in line with modern physics and you dismiss it because your conception of physics doesn't "square" with physicists' understanding.

 

[Bunyip]

How do you categorize thoughts as ultimately physical?

I don't. You have confused me for somebody else. As I have said several times - thoughts are conceptual, they are abstract as opposed to real.

 

[Bunyip]

Your inability to understand the notions and concepts you ask about is amazing. You ask a question, I answered it, my answer is in line with modern physics and you dismiss it because your conception of physics doesn't "square" with physicists' understanding.

That's nice dear.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

That's nice dear.

As annoying as your responses from ignorance can be, I must say that such frustration is slightly tempered by your utter incapacity to demonstrate your have the faintest idea of what your are talking about, a complete inability to deal with expert/specialist literature, and the oxymoronic perspective that scientific expertise is to be trusted while dismissing it wholesale.

 

[Bunyip]

As annoying as your responses from ignorance can be, I must say that such frustration is slightly tempered by your utter incapacity to demonstrate your have the faintest idea of what your are talking about, a complete inability to deal with expert/specialist literature, and the oxymoronic perspective that scientific expertise is to be trusted while dismissing it wholesale.

Yes mate, you have said that many times before - in fact that is generally how you respond to people you engage with - you insult their knowledge and experience and boast about yours. It's not very interesting.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Yes mate, you have said that many times before - in fact that is generally how you respond to people you engage with - you insult their knowledge and experience and boast about yours. It's not very interesting.

This is absolutely false:

I'd say I'm wrong, but while some worldviews/philosophies might be right and I'm not sure about a lot, there are positions I believe to be wrong and thus it would not be true for me to say that my worldview/philosophy is (IMO) "no more

than any other."​

there is every possibility that I understand better than you

That is true.

I've learned nothing, know nothing, and couldn't care less about anything. There was a time when I was passionate. Now those passions are distractions I need to get out of my own head. I hate knowing things. I hate the fact that people think I'm intelligent and either react to this as something to be praised, something to be intimidated by, or as arrogance. I hate looking at books and having read all the citations and references. I can't stand the obsessive need to constantly question everything. And most of all, I have worked for years (long before college) to understand the world, and the only reason I found that makes life worth it is gone.

I did. I am a huge fan of The Princess Bride so I took the opportunity to express exactly what you said via a quote from the movie. I was trying to agree with you and compliment you at the same time.

5) I'll let LegionOompaLumpa come up with #5 & more. (He's smarter & better educated than I.....but I'm more dashing.)

Nah. I just have a better PR team (although I should probably allocate more funds to pay for better writers for my posts).

Were the rules of the forum different, I could quote others of accusing you of much the same and worse. In the end, it is utterly irrelevant. I could be the most pompous jerk in the world and wouldn't matter one iota in terms of whether what I say is false or true.

The fact remains that you continue to assert things, fail to back them up, and the either play the victim, rely on insults, or both in order to avoid dealing with the fact that you actually do not know of what you speak.

 

[Bunyip]

This is absolutely false:






Were the rules of the forum different, I could quote others of accusing you of much the same and worse. In the end, it is utterly irrelevant. I could be the most pompous jerk in the world and wouldn't matter one iota in terms of whether what I say is false or true.

The fact remains that you continue to assert things, fail to back them up, and the either play the victim, rely on insults, or both in order to avoid dealing with the fact that you actually do not know of what you speak.

I'm not interested in bickering with you mate.

 

[JRMcC]

How do you categorize thoughts as ultimately physical?

I maintain that you can't.

 

[Bunyip]

I maintain that you can't.

I must have missed it - did somebody say otherwise?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

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.

Your idea that "courage" is either not real, or it must be like a "door" you can walk into is incoherent.

You are making a total mess of all understanding, and then pretending it is common sense. You are the minority in the world who has no religion, who doesn't accept God the holy spirit is real, nor the human spirit. You are obviously just rooting out all accomodation for subjectivity from language, that is not common sense, that is some bizarre scientism.

 

[Bunyip]

Your idea that "courage" is either not real, or it must be like a "door" you can walk into is incoherent.

Erm...but courage is not there, it is a concept - not a physical thing like a door. Try running into a door, and then running into 'courage'. How is it incoherrent to point out that concepts do not exist physically?

You are making a total mess of all understanding, and then pretending it is common sense. You are the minority in the world who has no religion, who doesn't accept God the holy spirit is real, nor the human spirit. You are obviously just rooting out all accomodation for subjectivity from language, that is not common sense, that is some bizarre scientism.

How do you distinguish between reality and concept?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Erm...but courage is not there, it is a concept - not a physical thing like a door. Try running into a door, and then running into 'courage'. How is it incoherrent to point out that concepts do not exist physically? How do you distinguish between reality and concept?

You argued courage is same as a door. You ridiculed saying the existence of courage is a matter of opinion, by replying the existence of a door is not a matter of opinion.

Now you change your argument, but it is pointless still. To say somebody is "courageous", is not basically similar to saying somebody has a concept of a door in their mind. Courage is not really a concept, it is subjective, expression of emotion.

One should distinghuish between fact and opinion. It is a fact that he has a purple dragon in his imagination. The purple dragon as being a fantasy figure is real. And if he does not have a purple dragon in his imagination, then the purple dragon as fantasy figure is not real, does not exist.