Laurentius

Laurentius’ FAQ on Atheist Dualism
(short rough form)

Can an atheist be a dualist?
Yes, he can. It depends on how one defines Dualism.

What is dualism?
Dualism is any theory that grounds its stance on two principles. An example of such a theory is the dualism soul/body (regarding the human nature), or the Dualism will/reason (regarding the functions of the spirit).

What is a principle?
A principle is a foundation that justifies and explains the whole.

Can there be an unlimited number of principles?
No, there can’t. If each phenomenon grounded on its own principle, differing from all other principles, then no recognizable regularity of reality would be possible, which would render the reality chaotic and the principles superfluous.

Why must there be only one principle?
There needn’t. The existence of a single principle has been a luring idea ever since the ancient Greek philosophy, and stems in a rational propensity toward rigor, clarity simplicity nowadays apparent in physicists’ endeavors to provide a theory that unifies forces.

Does Materialism ground on only one principle?
Yes, it does. Materialism maintains there is only one substance: matter – and all phenomena and processes occur invariably according to natural laws that apply equally to any level of reality.

Can Materialism be Humanist?
No, it can’t. Materialism holds matter as the only founding principle while strongly denying this quality to the spirit. Humanism is dualistic in this respect.

Why must Humanism be dualistic?
Humanism gives preeminence to neither the matter nor the spirit. Humanism acknowledges the material foundation of the reality; on the other hand, it asserts Man’s freedom and the impossibility to reduce him to the natural laws – like absolute Determinism, Pantheism etc. – or to absorb the individual into implacable social mechanisms, such as an administration – like in Totalitarianism.

Does the Humanism adherence to Dualism ground exclusively on value premises?
Primarily, but not necessarily. It is also dualistic to accept both Idealism and Realism as equally valid stances irreducible to each other.

Does the mind institute a reality as consistent as the reality instituted by the matter?
Yes, it does. To Man, the mind and the matter simultaneously institute one and the same reality; there is not one without the other.

Does the mind represent a different reality from the matter? Can it exist on its own?
No, it does not. The mind can’t exist on its own. However, the same can be stated about the matter: the matter becomes reality to Man only through the mind. In this respect, the matter can’t exist on its own.

Can’t the mind be reduced to the brain and its functioning?
No, it can’t, although the materialist description of the brain’s functioning is quite rigorous. However, the psyche works on laws that differ radically from the natural ones. Moreover, the human psyche is endowed with complex attributes such as will and reflectivity that fail to be explained satisfactorily through materialism.
AVE

excreationist

Well I think that a basic human pleasure is "connectedness". This involves belonging to something. It is love and motivates altruism.

I thought humanism is just about equality, compassion, independence, optimism and freedom of thought, etc.

What do you mean by "will" - the awareness that we are making decisions? And reflectivity involves language being used to analyse things. I think newness and connectedness pleasures are major motivations for us to analyse things.

Malaclypse the Younger

Laurentius

You have defined Humanism in a very idiosyncratic manner; indeed you have defined it in a manner that a priori denies metaphysical naturalism.

Since Humanism already has a definition (as an ethical principle entirely compatible with materialism and metaphysical naturalism) it would seem clearer to give your formulation its own name, perhaps "Dualistic Humanism".

This is an assertion without proof and an argument from ignorance.

NialScorva

Laurentius, your representation of materialism is a bit disingenuous. By almost any standard, I'm a materialist, but I do not attempt to deny the duality you speak of. Materialism doesn't deny the spirit or freedom, rather it argues that matter is a sufficient substrate to manifest these apparent properties. You are combining materialism with strict determinism, which is not a required component.

As to the orginal question, based upon the incredible success of scientific enquiry into the human biology, phsyche, and mind, I see no reason to think that it'll stop anytime soon. Nothing succeeds like success, and materialistic science is the only foundation that's had *any* success at a causal understanding of the mind. Whether or not it's complete and accurate, it's the only game in town.

[changed addressee and a cut and paste oops]

[ March 09, 2002: Message edited by: NialScorva ]</p>

Malaclypse the Younger

I think you're referring to Laurentius' representation.

NialScorva

Oh geez, oops. I must have cross read those two posts. I didn't think it sounded like Franc.


Franc and Laurentius, my profound apologies for the confusion.

John Page

On dualism:

Isn't the dualism thing a bit of a non-issue? If I cannot tell the difference between "matter" and "spirit", for example then I will insist that only one "thing" exists. If, later, I discover photons as a massless entity that interact with matter can I not call this "spirit" or an example thereof?

It seems to me that matter and spirit are two predicated types or classes of existence. If we re-labeled materialism to 'existanceism', and included the concept of thing we can't yet measure, doesn't that render the debate redundant?

Francois Tremblay

Laurentius, thanks for the FAQ, but it didn't say anything about the blatant "dualism of the gaps" that seems to me inherent in your method. To me it is an incredibly weak position to hold (as weak as the god of the gaps position), and discussion about humanism (which I don't even hold at all) doesn't reconcile me with your position at all.

Any discussion about dualism I think is completely pointless unless the dualist can be first made to answer to this severe objection...

[ March 04, 2002: Message edited by: Franc28 ]</p>

crocodile deathroll

I also agree that the mind is a function of the brain and not the brain itself
The brain is also a very fluid system. Matter goes in, matter goes out so if the mind were the brain itself it would of been flushed down the toilet by now.

phaedrus

Sorry for the delay....

People have asked what is a neural correlate or some have construed that it could be mean a single point location of consciousness. Let me just try to clear up the concept or add to whatever that has already been said taking the help of David Chalmer who offers these two overall definitions to the question - "What is a neural correlate of consciousness?"

(However he does admit "Ofcourse the precise nature of condition C is still debatable")

And ofcourse there is Valerie Hardcastle who says .....For now,we have only educated guesses, personal declarations of faith, and a plethora of individual research programs. But much basic research remains to be done and, more important for our concerns, our fundamental theoretical scaffolding remains to be constructed. For now, the NCC remains a truly Hard Problem with no solution in sight (p. 264 of the book "Neural Correlates of Consciousness: Empirical and Conceptual Questions" by Thomas Metzinger).

It is certainily a hard problem it seems (as of now). From what i read and known, there is a general consensus that there is no such out-of-mind activity (as per current knowledge/empirical evidence), but we still dont understand why physical processes are accompained by the conscious experience. As someone asked, "Why is it that when our brains process light of a certain wavelength, we have an experience of deep purple?"

Maybe i could elaborate on Nagel's question "What is to be like a bat" regarding its importance in consiousness studies alongwith Frank Jackson's problem of Mary the neuroscientist.....Since human beings are not capable of echolocation and given that bat-echolocation experiences are phenomenologically so unlike our experiences that we cannot imagine what it is like to be a bat. He has basically injected the subjective notion into the consciousness studies which were trudging along the objective path.

Most of the theories propounded have dealt with the easy problems rather than the hard one as Chalmer would put it. Lets take Dennet's Consciousness Explained... he talks about how various independent processes in the brain combine to produce a coherent response to an event. While this might explain how we produce verbal reports on our internal states, does it tell us anything substantial about why there should be a subjective experience behind these reports?(maybe here if someone wants to state and substantiate and support dennet's proposals we can do that or his so-called "Heterophenomenology") Or do we just say "thats-all-there-is"? Or is a unconscious homunculus responsible for the whole process?

Coming to the question - Can the mind study itself? Elaborating the question...What is the mind? A knowledge/emotional base which can be used to respond to events/phenomenon. Now can we use our "current/subjective" mind to look at a physical brain (which seems to result in the mind) in an "objective" way in order to explain the knowledge/emotional base? (Please dont start off with the usual....ok which is a better way of a looking at it then...thats not the point of the discussion, the point is to discuss the various options available) Will we ever know what is to know?

JP