Substance Dualism

[trainedobserver]

 

[Randall]

Part 2:​

 

[Randall]

The presentation is almost airtight in terms of internal consistency. The three issues that I have are:

1. The idea that the presence of mind is the same as some kind of "substance" is a setup for an obviously flawed belief when in point of fact most people don't see the existence of mind or "spirit" as being composed of any substance ( e.g. ectoplasm ), but as something which is much more ethereal yet real and separate from the biology which gives rise to it.
2. The idea that conceivably is not evidence of logical possibility: This statement is entirely dependent on how we define the two terms. Conceivably can be seen as the ability to imagine how something can be true or could be made to exist. It is not simply restricted to the unsubstantiated belief that it could exist. In the former context, if we can imagine how something is logically possible, it is indeed evidence that it is logically possible. But this is not to be confused with sufficient proof of the actual existence for the thing in question.
3. The proclamation that it is "reality" that determines what is logically possible doesn't provide any rationale for what is or isn't possible. We don't have any explanation for what "reality" actually is and the video doesn't place it in any particular context other than what reality seems not to be ( e.g. dreams ), which as the video's own logic points out is a flawed position. It may be the case that "reality" does provide for the existence of things that remain unproven or undiscovered.

​

 

[trainedobserver]

The presentation is almost airtight in terms of internal consistency. The three issues that I have are:

1. The idea that the presence of mind is the same as some kind of "substance" is a setup for an obviously flawed belief when in point of fact most people don't see the existence of mind or "spirit" as being composed of any substance ( e.g. ectoplasm ), but as something which is much more ethereal yet real and separate from the biology which gives rise to it.

"something ...ethereal yet real..." is composed of "something", a substance of some kind, unlike the concept of justice for example. You can't have your cake and eat it too. If something is, it is composed of some thing unless it is an abstract idea or concept.

Our consciousness, what we experience as sight, sound, feeling, thought, emotion, are composed of something that is governed by natural laws. If they weren't then they couldn't exist with any consistency and would be useless as a means to navigate the world. In fact that all a human being knows or has experienced is the material substance (whatever that actually is) of their individual consciousness.

 

[Randall]

"something ...ethereal yet real..." is composed of "something", a substance of some kind, unlike the concept of justice for example. You can't have your cake and eat it too. If something is, it is composed of some thing unless it is an abstract idea or concept.

Our consciousness, what we experience as sight, sound, feeling, thought, emotion, are composed of something that is governed by natural laws. If they weren't then they couldn't exist with any consistency and would be useless as a means to navigate the world. In fact that all a human being knows or has experienced is the material substance (whatever that actually is) of their individual consciousness.

I always try to keep things short and simple here so readers don't lose interest. But your response requires a further exploration, so to begin I'll explain what I mean by ethereal. When we conceptualize something in our mind using our imagination we have no doubt that the picture that is formed is something real within that context. For example if it is a car we can literally see the colors, shapes, textures and so on. Engineers, architects, artists ... any creative effort traditionally involves the conceptualization of the project within the mind before it is made into a physical reality. This is entirely different than an abstract concept ( e.g. justice ).

You probably imagine many things yourself on a daily basis and in that context those pictures are completely real, yet they aren't made of anything physical, there is no substance to them whatsoever. We see light but it's not composed of photons, we see matter but it has no weight. It has no physically measurable properties at all, yet there is no doubt in our minds that the image exists, therefore it is only natural to think it must be composed of something. However to my knowledge, there is no specific word that defines what that something is we are talking about and therefore we need to resort to a conceptual analogy and in that context the word ethereal is appropriate. It stems from the idea that space itself is some kind of medium capable of carrying and containing things. So we can say that the image we see in our imagination exists in some kind of ethereal state. Again, be reminded that we are using this as a conceptual analogy and not to claim that there is actually any substance involved. From what we can tell, imaginary images, although possessing all the traits of a physical image, aren't composed of anything at all, there is no substance to them, and are best described as as an emergent phemonenon associated with a functioning brain.

 

[trainedobserver]

I respectfully submit that you've lost the formula. Do you literally see colors and shapes when you imagine things? I don't. There are impressions of a thing. Even memories are not full on 3D chromatic experiences. They are impressions at best and not even in the same class as "dreams". That aside, they are still "brain stuff" of some kind. Anything that you experience is a thing composed of something. That is the guys point. An idea, like justice or love are concepts. Things you actually experience, like the experience of seeing this screen with these words on it, is an experience of your "brain-stuff" looking like a screen with words on it. It isn't "magic" in other words.

 

[Randall]

I respectfully submit that you've lost the formula. Do you literally see colors and shapes when you imagine things? I don't. There are impressions of a thing. Even memories are not full on 3D chromatic experiences. They are impressions at best and not even in the same class as "dreams". That aside, they are still "brain stuff" of some kind. Anything that you experience is a thing composed of something. That is the guys point. An idea, like justice or love are concepts. Things you actually experience, like the experience of seeing this screen with these words on it, is an experience of your "brain-stuff" looking like a screen with words on it. It isn't "magic" in other words.

I'm not sure what you mean by "lost the formula". As for not literally seeing what we imagine, we most certainly do. Studies with brain scanners have proven both mental imagery and vision use the same visual regions of the brain. The difference is that there is no external stimulus. I do a fair bit of artwork and when I conceive of an image I often visualize the completed work in a lot of detail, including colors, textures, shapes and so on. Furthermore, I can memorize that image and recall it later when I'm working on it, even overlaying that image in my mind over what I'm working on or flashing back and forth to compare. As a musician I can do the same thing with music. I can hear the song in my head as well as if I had an iPod strapped to it. I can add and subtract instruments, effects, vocals and lyrics. Supposedly there is a certain portion of the population that aren't able to do these things very well, and perhaps you are one of them, but you could probably train yourself to do it. At least there must have been some time when you've had some tune or another stuck in your head? If you want to read more perhaps check out the Wikipedia article on Imagination. Certainly when I imagine a sound, there are no sound waves being produced, no decibels that can be measured, and no changes in material density. Nevertheless the "sound" exists. It has to otherwise we wouldn't hear it, and in this context it is therefore real. But what is it made out of? Nothing. It is therefore ethereal an emergent property of a functioning brain.

 

[trainedobserver]

I'm not sure what you mean by "lost the formula". As for not literally seeing what we imagine, we most certainly do.

Your brain must work a lot differently than mine. The experiential difference is certainly much greater than "a lack of external stimulus." None of which has anything to do with the point the fellow is making in the video or your attempt to have your cake (a something) and eat it too (and not have something, an "ethereal thing".)

 

[Randall]

Your brain must work a lot differently than mine. The experiential difference is certainly much greater than "a lack of external stimulus."

From what I've seen, your brain probably doesn't work much differently than mine. Mine has just been trained to do certain things that yours hasn't. All you need to do is practice visualizing things. I'm not talking about the motivational videos and laws of attraction and all that ... just simple visualization. The video below helps illustrate what I'm talking about fairly well.

 

[trainedobserver]

Are you saying that when you close your eyes and "imagine" the screen in front of your face right now that you "see" the same chromatic experience just like you would if you had your eyes open? And again, this has nothing to do with dualism.

 

[Randall]

Are you saying that when you close your eyes and "imagine" the screen in front of your face right now that you "see" the same chromatic experience just like you would if you had your eyes open? And again, this has nothing to do with dualism.

That depends on how you define the word "same" as. Things are seldom perfectly identical, but if we use the image of the guitar as an example, I see shades of yellow, orange, brown and black. As things get more complex I have a harder time memorizing and visualizing the same image accurately in one session. I need to break down complex images into parts and study them. Also I mostly visualize things that I'm in the process of creating myself. Because the entire process is native to my brain function, the task seems easier. Also I find it much easier to manufacture imagery from scratch than to memorize existing imagery. For example, it's easy for me to imagine looking out a car window while driving along a country road in the fall, but to go out and find a specific road and drive along it and memorize it all and recall it is much more difficult for me. Some people however are exactly the reverse. They can memorize and visualize, but have a really hard time generating imagery on the fly. Lastly, I majored in sculpture so I can also do this in 3D and rotate, zoom ... etc.

What this has to do with dualism alone isn't the issue. It's what it has to do with the video about dualism that was posted, specifically items 1. and 2. in my earlier post.

 

[trainedobserver]

That depends on how you define the word "same" as.

I really don't want to engage you in a conversation about the definition of the word "same" or go through mental and syntax gymnastics about something as straightforward as the difference between the experience of imagining, visualizing, or having a memory of something and seeing something with your eyes. You said you "literally" see color, shape, texture, when you "conceptualize" an object like a car. I say the experience is dramatically different and there is no comparison unless your brain works dramatically differently than mine does.

You may have an "idea" a thought about a car or a sculpture and imagine it having various attributes. You may in a similar manner imagine that you have a soul or a spirit, but they would no more exist outside that moment in your consciousness as a thought than the idea of a car would.

 

[Randall]

I really don't want to engage you in a conversation about the definition of the word "same" or go through mental and syntax gymnastics about something as straightforward as the difference between the experience of imagining, visualizing, or having a memory of something and seeing something with your eyes. You said you "literally" see color, shape, texture, when you "conceptualize" an object like a car. I say the experience is dramatically different and there is no comparison unless your brain works dramatically differently than mine does.

You may have an "idea" a thought about a car or a sculpture and imagine it having various attributes. You may in a similar manner imagine that you have a soul or a spirit, but they would no more exist outside that moment in your consciousness as a thought than the idea of a car would.

If you want to keep the conversation shallow rather than explore the issue in depth, then you will not be able to fully appreciate the depth of the topic. I've already pointed out how it's exactly the same parts of the brain that are in use during visualization, therefore when we visualize we do literally see the objects using the same part of our brain ( the visual cortex ). We simply don't see them using the same input signals. But again, if you don't want to discuss these things in some depth, there isn't much point in further discussion ... which makes me wonder why you bothered posting a video about a concept this complex in the first place?

 

[trainedobserver]

I think this really has nothing to do with video I posted, that is my point.

I guess I'm just out of my depth in that I do not think the average human being can in any sense "literally see the objects" they imagine or how that relates to dualism discussed in the video.

 

[Randall]

I think this really has nothing to do with video I posted, that is my point.

I guess I'm just out of my depth in that I do not think the average human being can in any sense "literally see the objects" they imagine or how that relates to dualism discussed in the video.

I get the impression that you are certainly smart enough to understand the concepts. It seems more like you just don't want to and I didn't mean to make you feel that way. Sorry if I did. You are also mostly correct in that there isn't a direct relationship to the specific dualism discussed in the video. I pointed this out back at the start when I mentioned that the video sets the opposing viewpoint up for failure by stressing the idea of "substance" dualism, the idea that ethereal things are composed of some kind of substance (e.g. ectoplasm). For the sake of discussion I exposed that strategy ( typical of skeptics and other debunkers ) so as to open up the topic for discussion on other ways we can look at the issues and the phenomena associated with them.

 

[trainedobserver]

It seems more like you just don't want to ...

That pisses me off just a little.

The truth of the matter is that you aren't making sense to me. End of story.

 

[Randall]

That pisses me off just a little.

The truth of the matter is that you aren't making sense to me. End of story.

Oh ... OK ... I guess my apology wasn't good enough. Perhaps you would have preferred that I had said I didn't think you were capable? There are only two possibilities, one or the other. You pick the one you're most comfortable with.

 

[trainedobserver]

Oh ... OK ... I guess my apology wasn't good enough. Perhaps you would have preferred that I had said I didn't think you were capable? There are only two possibilities, one or the other. You pick the one you're most comfortable with.

Assuming there are only two possibilities comes from a presumption that you are making a sensible argument that can be understood in the first place. Regardless, I am comfortable confessing to not being able to follow your line of reasoning.

 

[Randall]

Train ... Train ... Train ... I'm no expert, nor am I a perfect communicator. But I did take the time to watch the whole video, figure out what it is talking about, and find a couple of weak spots to comment on. If I'm not getting across those ideas, then it might take more effort on both sides of the equation. I don't know what else to say except thanks for posting up the video. It was interesting and if you have any specific points of your own to make by all means I'd be interested in hearing your comments.

 

[nameless]