LinuxPup

Circles exist outside of man's existance however. My reasoning on this is that the circle is an objective standard that all must comply with. If I think of a circle as not being round, then I am wrong. The circle transcends human thought.

xoc

</strong>
Brain waves and thoughts are not the same thing. When we talk about the "physical" actions of the brains, neurons firing here or there etc., patterns being routed in the brain, we are talking about something different than the consciousness they "may" in a sense produce. When we are talking about concepts, we are talking about something different than physical things. The "words" which are physical, like the ink on paper or the light emitting from the screen, are something different than the concepts they represent. The "words" are spatially limited, but it is the non-spatial aspect of analysis that is the thinking mind, it can "picture" a bear when it sees the four letter bears and form an idea from that. On one hand we have the physical phenomenon of light, on the other hand we may have the physical phenomenon of the brain neurons "lighting up" to produce the bear idea(pardon the use of language speaking about the brain since I'm no expert on the exact processes). If we look to the physical to judge these things we will have no concept of them being in a sense the same, if we just look at ink on paper, a living bear, or the brain of someone thinking about a bear we could never be able to figure out the unity of the concept that each is representing in it's way: "bear." Even if the "concepts" are represented in physical ways, and even if perhaps they only could be represented in physical ways there is still the gap between the "physical" things used to represent an idea and the unity of concepts. Ideas have a "unity" which has nothing whatsoever to do with their physical representation; they are both real and not space-time specific necessarily.
IT might have a physical "tag" or reference point(in the brain), but the carrier object does not make what it carries(concepts,thought, souljunk if you will) nor is the symbol the same thing as what it points to.
I don't think forgetfulness is a standard by which to judge whether it was the "i-self" or not. There were times in my life when I was so drunk I couldn't remember what I did the next day- but I would hear from people that I was doing stuff, engaging in conversations and other social intercourse etc. so I'd have to wonder "if it wasn't me who was doing these things, who was it?" The problem is how different psychoanalysts, philosophers, etc. deal with this problem and leave no clear, undeniable divisions. How can we struggle inside ourselves over a decision if we are "one?" How can one mind be of "two" minds? This question has been answered in so many ways that I think it's fair to say that we probably don't have a really good answer yet. As for things not being scientifically proven, I need no proof from science as to what I'm feeling or thinking and where I am- science must follow the conscious person rather than precede him since it relies on the ability of men to analyse things in the first place.
The 3-dimensional "world" you can affect would be like you looking down on a piece of paper(which in fact was a world in this case) and looking at the "2-d" people there(not counting time as a dimension as our ability to look through time is most limited). If you draw a stick-man on a piece of paper and then tear it up you might have some idea of how you could effect 2-d people if they existed. Communication would be harder than physical action I think..(for us anyway)

Adrian Selby

"neurons firing here or there etc., patterns being routed in the brain, we are talking about something different than the consciousness they "may" in a sense produce."

Unless consciousness just is those neurons firing here and there. The experience of consciousness is what being a set of these neurons entails.

There's a good thread in the other section on this, I don't want to seem presumptuous but there are some very strong responses to your point of view, but of course, its not directly relevant to this thread.

Adrian

Datheron

Linuxpup,

Whoa, that's an interesting conclusion that you bind with physical science there.

While it has been postulated that the Universe was originally 10 dimensions or perhaps 26 dimensions, and that there is where it is possible that angels and demons and what-not may reside, the descriptions that we are given as to what these things are capable of are not consistent with higher dimensional properties. Michio Kaku, in his book Hyperspace, has a good section on what may happen if a higher-dimensional being were to visit our space-time...it will be very interesting, but hardly the behavior that we have come to know and love/hate about myths regarding the above.

I also want to ask: how useful is the claim that there exists a spiritual side? For the claim to make any sense, we must some idea of what the spiritual side entrails and why such a thing defies materialism. I would suggest that neither side will go anywhere with this.

But by what justification do you have for stepping onto theological soil from the physical firmament? I find it really shaky that you connect the GUT (Grand Unification Theory) to this "one force" that supposedly comes from God. Other than the obvious reason to draw abstraction (which is circular argument), what reason do you have for doing this?

I'm getting an impression that you're invoking something close to psychicism or the sort here. "Mind over matter", perhaps.

But the Uncertainty Principle won't save you from having to explain how you think this can come about. One of the quarks of quantum mechanics is that it works on very very small levels; atoms, particles, and such are subject to quantum corrections, but larger conglomerations usually have quantum effects that are negligable because of their minute presence. Unless you are suggesting that we manipulate atoms with our minds (which is what we do with neuron-firing anyway), we can certainly tell whether this is happening and how.

I've argued something like this before, and my hypothesis is that all abstractions (which is what you're really talking about) require some type of physical storage. That is, given an abstract idea, that idea would not exist if your brain did not conceive it; the fact that your brain did means that there is a set of neurons organized in a certain manner to give rise to that thought. Hence, while it's true by definition that abstraction cannot have a physical representative, it does require that it has a physical storage facility, which ultimately makes it a subset of the physical.

Jonsey3333

LinuxPup:
I was under the impression that nobody still knows how we engage this. I listened in on a philosopher/chemist, J.P. Moreland, who is convinced that there is a non-physical side to us who argued this point. How certain is your claim?


Jonsey3333:
Not 100%. In fact, much of psychology is uncertain because you just can't measure thinking. You can measure our behavior (which is why Watson started behaviorism), you can take EEGs or measure neurotransmitters in spinal fluid, and you can ask a person what they think, but you can never directly measure our private thoughts. This is the limit (so far) of psychology.

However, it is more likely that the brain activity that we measure that tends to correspond to people's reports of awareness or whatever you're trying to find is correct, than the possibility that they are lying.

Maybe I am over-confident. Do we have any neuropsycholoists here?


LinuxPup:
So what I was thinking goes like this: All matter/energy is directly being manipulated by these 4 forces (possibly 1 force). I think it might be possible for other beings, like the human soul, to indirectly manipulate matter through God's Force (like a man thinking interacts with his brain).


Jonsey3333:
You can not logically equivocate these two forces, at least not without evidence.


LinuxPup:
Numbers existed before man did.


Jonsey3333:
No they didn't. Numbers are a concept. To have a concept, you need a conceptualizer. They don't exist outside of us. They are generalizations made in our mind. They are also relative. Take one apple. Cut it in half. Do you now have two apples? No, just one - compared to other apples. Compared to halves of apples, you have two. There is no ideal "one". I see no basis for them existing outside of us.


LinuxPup:
Circles exist outside of man's existance however. My reasoning on this is that the circle is an objective standard that all must comply with. If I think of a circle as not being round, then I am wrong. The circle transcends human thought.


Jonsey3333:
A standard created by our minds. Who complies with it? I see nothing complying with it except the thoughts of humans. There exist no perfect circles.


Xoc:
Brain waves and thoughts are not the same thing. When we talk about the "physical" actions of the brains, neurons firing here or there etc., patterns being routed in the brain, we are talking about something different than the consciousness they "may" in a sense produce.


Jonsey3333:
A pumping heart produces blood pressure, but we don't think of blood pressure as something non-physical.


Xoc:
Even if the "concepts" are represented in physical ways, and even if perhaps they only could be represented in physical ways there is still the gap between the "physical" things used to represent an idea and the unity of concepts. Ideas have a "unity" which has nothing whatsoever to do with their physical representation; they are both real and not space-time specific necessarily.


Jonsey3333:
Well, it's inevitable. We must define exist. Does something simply thought of exist? If I imagine Zujube the Lonely Unicorn, does Zujube exist? I think not.


Xoc:
I don't think forgetfulness is a standard by which to judge whether it was the "i-self" or not.


Jonsey3333:
Most dreams don't make it to the conscious mind and are therefore repressed, not forgotten. The standard that makes it I-self is awareness. You are not aware during dreams.


Xoc:
There were times in my life when I was so drunk I couldn't remember what I did the next day- but I would hear from people that I was doing stuff, engaging in conversations and other social intercourse etc. so I'd have to wonder "if it wasn't me who was doing these things, who was it?"


Jonsey3333:
You forgot that, but you were aware during that period, though your awareness may be dulled. I don't know a whole lot about the specific effects of alcohol on consciouness.


Xoc:
The problem is how different psychoanalysts, philosophers, etc. deal with this problem and leave no clear, undeniable divisions. How can we struggle inside ourselves over a decision if we are "one?" How can one mind be of "two" minds? This question has been answered in so many ways that I think it's fair to say that we probably don't have a really good answer yet.


Jonsey3333:
We can try. After the Pre-operational stage of cognitive development (about age 7 in most people), you gain the ability to consider more than one viewpoint. You don't so much do it simultaneously. You just look at one, then the other.

Though it is not believed by all psychologists, it seems to many that people diagnosed with Multiple Personality Disorder (though it is now known as Dissociative Identity Disorder, due to a disagreement between applied and research psychologists as to whether two personalities can cohabitate a brain) have two personalities in one brain. Often one personality can hear and even communicate directly with another.


Xoc:
As for things not being scientifically proven, I need no proof from science as to what I'm feeling or thinking and where I am- science must follow the conscious person rather than precede him since it relies on the ability of men to analyse things in the first place.


Jonsey3333:
Yes, but I can't prove any of that. Consciousness is private to its person. You can feel it and believe it, but you can never SCIENTIFICALLY prove it. Science requires that it be observable to others.


Xoc:
The 3-dimensional "world" you can affect would be like you looking down on a piece of paper(which in fact was a world in this case) and looking at the "2-d" people there(not counting time as a dimension as our ability to look through time is most limited). If you draw a stick-man on a piece of paper and then tear it up you might have some idea of how you could effect 2-d people if they existed. Communication would be harder than physical action I think..(for us anyway)


Jonsey3333:
This only works in theory. Paper and stick-men are 3-d - just very thin. Show me a REAL 2-d world.


Adrian:
There's a good thread in the other section on this, I don't want to seem presumptuous but there are some very strong responses to your point of view, but of course, its not directly relevant to this thread.


Jonsey3333:
It has gotten off-topic, but is related. If there is no spiritual world seperate from the physical world, where is god? If god exists, god needs to BE somewhere. I am curious as to the 25-dimensional property of the early universe. I will have to look into that.

-Mike

xoc

It's a physically measurable quality, unlike abstract thought.
It does not exist as a "independent space-time entity" if you will but it exists as a "concept" for a time. We have to say that concepts exist for otherwise there would be no discussion of them.

&lt;snip&gt;
Science then deals only with measurable, physical phenomenon, which is fine. But we can't use that to prove the existence or non-existence of the "reality" of non-physical aspects as it by definition cannot touch upon it. Our consciousness as "selves" etc. precedes our conceptions of science... and if our consciousness cannot be trusted as to what it relates to us, we could neither trust science as it must go through the gateway of our own minds for it to be "anything to us." We shouldn't worry about whether or not science proves consciousness because the fact that we are conscious of science's abilities and inabilities already proves consciousness. That is Descartes' first (and best IMO) proof: "I think therefore I am." It could as well be used as "I think, therefore thought exists."

That all goes to show that science is a secondary body of knowledge; it could never prove that we are deceived about existence and in fact are "dreaming" the world as it relies directly on our consciousness and our "understanding' of the world to be of use. If "life were just a dream" and the physical world a fantasy, we would not be able to tell because of the consistency of the illusion, and that it deceives our first gateway, consciousness. Since everything else is dependent on the "first gateway" and has to go through it(this gateway could be our perceptions as well), it would be impossible to tell whether or not the tools we use to judge the "world" are objectively "good" or just seem to work for us.
Well to our eyes they do not have extension in the z dimension so it's a reasonable example. We are not talking about "one 3-d" world and another 2-d world, but that there is one "World" (like the universe or the whole of physical and perhaps "spiritual" existence) and different beings are defined by their extensions in the dimensions. As Linuxpup was talking about the tiny dimensions, we'd have to say that we are transparent to these dimensions even if they are not transparent to us(that we are extended in space and time in meaningful ways but flat and unaffected in the other dimensions; just like the 2-d people would never be aware of the 3rd dimension of "height" and could never conceive of it, although we could move through that dimension to touch them. So rather than saying that the 2d people or us exist "only" in a 2-d world or 4-d world, we say that we all exist in the same, big "WORLD" and just have different, meaningful dimensions in which we can live and would affect us. Height is meaningful to us because we can judge things by it; Joe is 6 feet, Mary is 5"10. If there was some dimension by which we were all equally "flat" and non-extended, it would not be one we'd be aware about because our mind looks at the "differences" in judging things and we could not conceive of the "extra-dimensions" because it would never relate to us unless extra-dimensional beings or other phenomena from "Out There" reacted with us.

[ January 29, 2002: Message edited by: xoc ]</p>

Jonsey3333

Xoc:
It's a physically measurable quality, unlike abstract thought.

...

It does not exist as a "independent space-time entity" if you will but it exists as a "concept" for a time. We have to say that concepts exist for otherwise there would be no discussion of them.

Jonsey3333:
Here is the root of the problem then. We are in agreeance. Yes concepts exist only as concepts and are stored in physical objects. There is no seperate mental world that souls live in (unless existence as we know it is an illusion).

Xoc:
Science then deals only with measurable, physical phenomenon, which is fine. But we can't use that to prove the existence or non-existence of the "reality" of non-physical aspects as it by definition cannot touch upon it. Our consciousness as "selves" etc. precedes our conceptions of science... and if our consciousness cannot be trusted as to what it relates to us, we could neither trust science as it must go through the gateway of our own minds for it to be "anything to us." We shouldn't worry about whether or not science proves consciousness because the fact that we are conscious of science's abilities and inabilities already proves consciousness. That is Descartes' first (and best IMO) proof: "I think therefore I am." It could as well be used as "I think, therefore thought exists."
That all goes to show that science is a secondary body of knowledge; it could never prove that we are deceived about existence and in fact are "dreaming" the world as it relies directly on our consciousness and our "understanding' of the world to be of use. If "life were just a dream" and the physical world a fantasy, we would not be able to tell because of the consistency of the illusion, and that it deceives our first gateway, consciousness. Since everything else is dependent on the "first gateway" and has to go through it(this gateway could be our perceptions as well), it would be impossible to tell whether or not the tools we use to judge the "world" are objectively "good" or just seem to work for us.

Jonsey3333:
Agreed, mostly. Although, for a schizophrenic, this all falls aparty (sadly).

Xoc:
Well to our eyes they do not have extension in the z dimension so it's a reasonable example. We are not talking about "one 3-d" world and another 2-d world, but that there is one "World" (like the universe or the whole of physical and perhaps "spiritual" existence) and different beings are defined by their extensions in the dimensions. As Linuxpup was talking about the tiny dimensions, we'd have to say that we are transparent to these dimensions even if they are not transparent to us(that we are extended in space and time in meaningful ways but flat and unaffected in the other dimensions; just like the 2-d people would never be aware of the 3rd dimension of "height" and could never conceive of it, although we could move through that dimension to touch them. So rather than saying that the 2d people or us exist "only" in a 2-d world or 4-d world, we say that we all exist in the same, big "WORLD" and just have different, meaningful dimensions in which we can live and would affect us. Height is meaningful to us because we can judge things by it; Joe is 6 feet, Mary is 5"10. If there was some dimension by which we were all equally "flat" and non-extended, it would not be one we'd be aware about because our mind looks at the "differences" in judging things and we could not conceive of the "extra-dimensions" because it would never relate to us unless extra-dimensional beings or other phenomena from "Out There" reacted with us.

Jonsey3333:
Can 4-d people (or 3-d, I'm not quite sure what we are) see 2-d worlds and 1-d worlds? We can use it to describe qualities, but the space between point a and point b is occupied by 4-d time or space. I suppose we really couldn't see a 2-d world, because our eyes can detect only 4-d (3-d?) light. Maybe I'm just not getting and should do some more outside research. I'm just asking, where are the 2-d entities (not things that look 2-d, like paper or television).

We (or at least me) are getting somewhere.
-Mike

Ender

Fret not! This forum is a constantly changing, fluctuating and cyclical board where issues are beaten far worse than the proverbial dead horse ad nauseam- but dualism as a philosophical concept sure as hell isn’t one of these reeking clichés.
Yes, your initial definition of dualism is correct, but is actually only one of several characterization of dualism. This particular concept has been percolating throughout the social consciousness since forever, thanks to philosophies and religions that interpret man as a combination of a material, physical body and an immaterial consciousness of soul/spirit. The paranormal or mystical phenomenon deals with the world of spirit while science strictly limits itself to material world. The root of the mind/body dualism reaches all the way back to Plato, where the physical world of senses is but a shallow reflection or shadow of the “true” reality of the eternal forms. Currently dualism is derived from the father of modern philosophy, Renee Descartes.
Historically, Hyde invented the word “dualism” back in the 18th century at the height of Enlightenment. Metaphysical dualism is the claim that reality is constituted of two essentially incommensurable substances. This also accounts for the dual concepts of good & evil, the universal & particular, and phenomena/noumena (Kantian metaphysics). The alternatives to dualism are monism (the view that there is only one fundamental element of reality, i.e. pantheism) and pluralism (various “things” constitute reality, i.e. quantum mechanics).
Sometimes the action does not require conscious thought to necessitate or facilitate it in the least.
You are expressing a fundamental belief in materialism, that matter is all there is and nothing else. The problem of Descartes’ dualism was how did either aspect of reality interact at all- that proved to be the achilles’ heel of Descartes’ metaphysics. He was unable to account how either element of reality could affect the other. This little loose end leads to more question- if a person was physically male, was he mentally male as well? Or were questions of sexuality strictly limited to the physical?
well, in order to verify a “non-physical element” to the universe, you would have to abandon your fundamental belief in materialism first- and that would include all or any means of verification as well. My belief about dualism is whoever holds it has completly and utterly failed in his or her efforts to penetrate further and has settled on two properties. It also may be due to our human nature that interprets reality in dichotomies, such as "good/bad" or "pleasure/pain."

~WiGGiN~

xoc

Ender:
Why SHOULD he and how COULD he make the two one? My conception on dualism, a basic dualism without getting into the more complicated issues(well you're right, I am kind of lazy) is that it is a form of distinguishing one from the other. It is to say "this" or "that". is not the seat of distinction and understanding things based on differences? But if we say "yes, but it's also understanding the sameness" we have another dualism; the dualism of same/different. If there is no difference, there is no sense, there is just a big hole that conceives of all as one, the hole-itself as everything. Nothing, everything and something become one. If you want that, you might want to quit Philosophy and becom e a very deep Buddhist. (But even the Eastern views have a *cursed dualism, the Brahma vs. the Maya-) No matter how you slice it you get 2 pieces; and once you have two you have a primitive form of dualism.

*I'm being ironic on the "cursed" part.

excreationist

To conduct experiments about this you wouldn't have to abandon belief in materialism - you'd just have to be open to the possibility that you could be mistaken.
I think evidence of dualism would involve things like evidence of real OBE's while there was a complete absence of deep internal brain activity. Then after the NDE, the subject could be interviewed about their OBE. Apparently in some operating theatres, signs are put in high places to try and verify OBE's. This wouldn't prove that OBE's exist, but it would be good evidence. OBE's could just involve psychic abilities that are materialistic. But if all brain activity had stopped (not just outer brain activity) then the experiences and new memories aren't involving the brain, but something else. (the "soul")
Another experiment would involve finding a friendly poltergeist which is a spirit which can interact with the physical world. This doesn't seem that amazing in dualism since dualists believe that souls can interact with neurons (receive input and output). It isn't that much of a stretch that souls could interact with physical objects in powerful ways - so the interaction is just amplified. So anyway, they could run lots of tests on the friendly poltergeist - e.g. detect its mass, volume (if possible), put it under an electron microscope, test how strong it is (how many kilograms it can support and move around), etc.

So though it seems that non-material things are by definition non-detectable, there is evidence that they exist if physical sciences can't explain them. And if the unexplainable force is intelligent (e.g. the OBE and poltergeist experiments) then it would be very strong evidence that consciousness and experience isn't merely just a result of having a bunch of large neurons arranged in a certain way... it would be more complex than that.