Jonsey3333

I am sorry if this point has been made too many times. If so, just ignore it, and you won't have to worry about checking it.

I find the concept of Dualism ridiculous. The Dualism I am refering to is the idea that there are two worlds, physical and spiritual (or mental, mind, whatever), and spiritual rules over the physical. In order to make a decision, your mind, which is in the spiritual world, decides and then tells your brain, which then tells your body to carry out the action.

Let me define mind as simply conscious thinking. This does not include unconscious thinking and lower brain functions such as sleep patterns.

This goes against everything we know about psychology and biology. During a decision (or what the subject claims to be a decision), your unconcious mind goes to work, which then lets your conscious mind in on it (making you think that your mind made the decision), then your body starts the action. In fact, sometimes the action precedes the conscious thought.

What is god made of? Where is god? You might respond that god is not physical and therefore is made of nothing and position is irrelevant. How can something not physical alter something physical?

If there really is a non-physical element to the universe, it could not alter the physical universe, much less create it or hold dominion over it. God could not exist.


-Mike

Vorkosigan

Welcome aboard fellow Mike! It was our sad fate in childhood to always have 3 kids in our class named "Mike." That's why I named my kid Sebastian.....just like every other set of parents in my generation. <grrrr>

Visit our library (the link is at the top of this page) where you can find many articles on related topics!

Keep posting! Since you're an atheist, you might enjoy reading our <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=55&t=000020&p=" target="_blank">Atheist testimony</a> thread. Post there yourself, and ell your story.

Michael

xoc

Hello Jonsey- good post.

I'll try to respond to some extent although my initial point may be a little muddy. (it can take me a while to work it through) My first inclination is to question your initial premise and to consider what the mind/matter dualism really pertains to.

In all honesty I see no escape from this "dualism" as it comes from the necessity to make distinctions and is not necessarily referring to "two worlds" as you put it. Speaking about computers there is a general division of "software" vs. "hardware" and these distinctions of the logical vs. the physical follow through many things. In the beginning there is no need to imagine "two worlds" which come together at some intersection but simply to note that there are these 2 aspects of "existence" as it were and we are not able to kill one off or pigeon-hole it into the other. In fact there is an inter-relationship that exists. The picture of a "spirit in a spirit world" pushing buttons on the brain to make thoughts- crude Cartesian divisions- is not a necesary one. Besides, in this sense it implies that the "spirit" is actually just another kind of physical/mental being which reacts with our own physical/mental "body." The dualism that I think is necessary is the dualism that simply distinguishes the "physical" from the "logical", matter from the laws that govern it, and the brain from the mind. Neurons firing off in the brain are one thing, the actual thoughts and concepts are an entirely different thing, irrespective of their inter-relation. One of them is lower level, the other is higher level.
OK I feel I have to challenge some of this a bit. First, how do you justify writing the subconscious out of the picture? We'd have to either introduce a tri-ism(or what the actual word is, never heard it used) or put the subconscious in the "physical" sector and that I think would be a mistake. The subconscious is as much part of the "mind" (without getting into spirit and what that must mean) as the consciousness. The subconscious makes and forms relations and produces "creativity" as much as the conscious- in fact "creativity" is probably more found in this section than the conscious I think. In fact many consider the subconscious to be more the seat of "spirituality" than the conscious itself- this is the "spirituality" that cannot be accused of being just "bad science"(for those that proclaim that "religion" was made only to explain natural phenomenon but ignore the principles of personal engagement). The Biblical model displays "God talking to people in dreams"- and in more stories than one God is as willing to talk to non-believers in dreams as any believers. That being said, can we really say the subconscious mind is any less "ourselves" than the thinking "I-self" of the conscious self? The concept of "self" usually exists as much in dreams as it does in waking life, irrespective if our dream-personality or dream-persona is different(if we dream we are of a different race, gender or even animal, there is still the ego-consciousness, or if in our dreams we act in ways we'd never act in waking life).
The Nicene Creed, an ear-mark definition of what Christianity is for many centuries, states that Jesus Christ is of one Substance with the Father. The NT refers to the "energies" of the Holy Spirit on occasion. In the physical world energy and substance have an equivelency and direct correlation- which really throws the "God is made of nothing" statement into question. God is not merely physical in that He has a like form to us and can be measured. Is God infinte? Is God bounded? Does God have a standard form? Exodus 20 prohibits the making of idols using the logic that the Israelites saw with their own eyes that "God had no form." But there was a phenomenological manifestation- it did not reveal that God looks like George Burns but that it is not possible to put down what God looks like, and it is sin to try- to attempt to capture the infinite as finite is wrong/erroneous. The creation of the physical universe is described as the manifestation of God's glory- rather than God being bound by physicality, God used His infinite Power to produce physicality- energy becoming matter. As the infinite remains infinite no matter what it loses, so God could create ex nihilo as the use of His power into creating this that or the other could not show any loss to an Infinite power. And the 3d, or the 4d physical dimensions are not the only dimensions that were created. Our "power" in the physical world is defined by it's limitations but the same could not be said about God- He is rather defined by His Power.

[/quote]

Amos

Hello Mike, you are really the wrong person to argue against dualism because did you know that the number 3 looks like two half circles because you are divided in your own mind? You should try to convert them into eights and you would be full circle in both minds.

If "this goes against everything we know about psychology and biology" that just does not say much about psycholgy, that's all. Biology knows better because it knows that all sentient beings have a conscious and subconscious mind wherein we are divided. It is in the spiritual world that the essence is first created and later formed in the physical world. Kind of just opposite to Descartes but he really wasn't much different than your psycholgy friends because philosophy is an art and not a study. So he would have it wrong, thats all.

It is true that the spiritual world does not hve much to do with thinking because that would mean that we could think our way into heaven and that would not be fair to guys like me.

What you call lower brain functions are really your higher brain functions because you cannot reach them with even the most rigorous thinking. Yet when you walk away from it inspiration will often reveal the answer you were looking for.

Dreaming is bad stuff. It shows you are divided in your own mind which is why it is an "evil age when old men have dreams."

In evolution something non-physical always changes something physical or the word adaptation would not make sense. This kind of means that God is in charge but you just see it backwards.

Welcome to the boards Mike, they'r fun.

Amos

excreationist

This is called "functional dualism" I think - but it is still a kind of materialism. So only physical matter and energy is involved, but it can described from different points of view - the low-level one where atoms interact, and a high level one where there are things like computers, cars and animals.
Real dualism is where you have a soul and the brain is like a receiver that communicates with the soul. In ordinary dualism, it is conceivable for people's souls to possess the bodies of others' including animals (reincarnation) and even not be attached to any body (out of body experiences). They can also communicate with other minds (telepathy) including those of the dead (mediums). And usually in dualism, the soul doesn't die. It lives on - as a ghost, or sleeps in the grave, or goes to Heaven, Hell, limbo, purgatory, nirvana, etc. Jehovah Witnesses don't believe in the immortality of the soul though.

xoc

Well basically I was trying to start on the bottom and work my way up- basically the divisions and descriptions of mind(conscious and subconscious), "soul", "spirit" etc. can be rather complex so I didn't want to try that at the beginning. Different religions and philosophies(including psychiatric models) have all these different divisions so it can get pretty complex. Like how Socrates believed in the survival of the "soul" but that would not include the whole "immaterial" mind of the person, only parts(and obviously the Christian view has a similar view in that the resurrected man does not have a "sinful nature" anymore which really acts as a functional part of the apparent mind- the appetitive desires and emotions).

I didn't intend the first basic division to be one of "size" becaue I think that's a different kind of division. The schism follows something *like* the abstract and the actual, the perceived and the real, mental and physical and the two cannot be made into one concept, they are forever divided in a logical sense.
Yes. But this division is more like one of "kind" than of attributes. The "soul" has a kind of physical or supra-physical representation- it has "energy" it has "mass" of some sense(even if immeasurable), it has a "physical" or "spiritual" location, either here(possessing so and so or in Heaven/hell etc.) and is conceived of in spatial terms just like the physical body is measured in spatial terms. It is "aery" rather than "earthen" (similar to how Gen pictures God breathing-with the 3-fold sense of the term: spirit/breath/wind- into the Man's nostrils, the Man at this point just being a portion of the Earth.) but it still has a physical-like aspect to it. The "spirit" is not portrayed as merely immaterial "mind" but has a matter-like aspect to it, having energy and power to be manifest. Medieval theologians spoke of "subtle matter", as in the question of how many angels could dance on the head of the pin- the "spiritual creatures" are pictured in physical-like terms all throughout the Bible... I don't think we get away from "physicality" altogether but moreso are thinking of a different kind of "physicality", that is physical-like (and obviously the picture of angels wrestling with one another etc. follow this kind of picture). That doesn't prove the "existence" of soul or spirit but shows how it can communicate with the body or affect the "physical" world(meaning subtle matter can react with 'ordinairy' matter).

Jonsey3333

Xoc:
"Hello Jonsey- good post.

I'll try to respond to some extent although my initial point may be a little muddy. (it can take me a while to work it through) My first inclination is to question your initial premise and to consider what the mind/matter dualism really pertains to.

In all honesty I see no escape from this "dualism" as it comes from the necessity to make distinctions and is not necessarily referring to "two worlds" as you put it. Speaking about computers there is a general division of "software" vs. "hardware" and these distinctions of the logical vs. the physical follow through many things. In the beginning there is no need to imagine "two worlds" which come together at some intersection but simply to note that there are these 2 aspects of "existence" as it were and we are not able to kill one off or pigeon-hole it into the other. In fact there is an inter-relationship that exists. The picture of a "spirit in a spirit world" pushing buttons on the brain to make thoughts- crude Cartesian divisions- is not a necesary one. Besides, in this sense it implies that the "spirit" is actually just another kind of physical/mental being which reacts with our own physical/mental "body." The dualism that I think is necessary is the dualism that simply distinguishes the "physical" from the "logical", matter from the laws that govern it, and the brain from the mind. Neurons firing off in the brain are one thing, the actual thoughts and concepts are an entirely different thing, irrespective of their inter-relation. One of them is lower level, the other is higher level."

Jonsey3333:
How does the mind govern the brain, and not the opposite? My argument is that thoughts are not "an entirely different thing," but simply a product of the brain.

Xoc:
"OK I feel I have to challenge some of this a bit. First, how do you justify writing the subconscious out of the picture? We'd have to either introduce a tri-ism(or what the actual word is, never heard it used) or put the subconscious in the "physical" sector and that I think would be a mistake. The subconscious is as much part of the "mind" (without getting into spirit and what that must mean) as the consciousness. The subconscious makes and forms relations and produces "creativity" as much as the conscious- in fact "creativity" is probably more found in this section than the conscious I think."

Jonsey3333:
The subconscious is not part of the mind becuase you are not aware of it. Maybe my definition was too strict. Should all brain functions fit under the umbrella term, "mind"? This includes conscious mind, unconscious drives (ego, id, and superego), and other functions (body temperature, blood pressure, housekeeping). It includes emotions, cognition, memory, perception, personality, everything. It's all physical in the end anyways.


Xoc:
"In fact many consider the subconscious to be more the seat of "spirituality" than the conscious itself- this is the "spirituality" that cannot be accused of being just "bad science"(for those that proclaim that "religion" was made only to explain natural phenomenon but ignore the principles of personal engagement). The Biblical model displays "God talking to people in dreams"- and in more stories than one God is as willing to talk to non-believers in dreams as any believers. That being said, can we really say the subconscious mind is any less "ourselves" than the thinking "I-self" of the conscious self? The concept of "self" usually exists as much in dreams as it does in waking life, irrespective if our dream-personality or dream-persona is different(if we dream we are of a different race, gender or even animal, there is still the ego-consciousness, or if in our dreams we act in ways we'd never act in waking life)."

Jonsey3333:
The thinking I-Self does not exist in dreams. You may immediately remember a dream when you wake up, but, otherwise, you are not aware of any dream. You dream (or so it seems. It can not be scientifically proven that dreams even exist) several times every night. If you were aware, you would remember many, many dreams.



Xoc:
"The Nicene Creed, an ear-mark definition of what Christianity is for many centuries, states that Jesus Christ is of one Substance with the Father. The NT refers to the "energies" of the Holy Spirit on occasion. In the physical world energy and substance have an equivelency and direct correlation- which really throws the "God is made of nothing" statement into question. God is not merely physical in that He has a like form to us and can be measured. Is God infinte? Is God bounded? Does God have a standard form? Exodus 20 prohibits the making of idols using the logic that the Israelites saw with their own eyes that "God had no form." But there was a phenomenological manifestation- it did not reveal that God looks like George Burns but that it is not possible to put down what God looks like, and it is sin to try- to attempt to capture the infinite as finite is wrong/erroneous."


Jonsey3333:
Oh shoot. Another reason to put me in Hell.

Xoc:
"The creation of the physical universe is described as the manifestation of God's glory- rather than God being bound by physicality, God used His infinite Power to produce physicality- energy becoming matter. As the infinite remains infinite no matter what it loses, so God could create ex nihilo as the use of His power into creating this that or the other could not show any loss to an Infinite power. And the 3d, or the 4d physical dimensions are not the only dimensions that were created. Our "power" in the physical world is defined by it's limitations but the same could not be said about God- He is rather defined by His Power."


Jonsey3333:
It seems that the only way for god to exist is if everything we know turns into an illusion. How can one exist in some dimensions, but not others? We're in 4 dimensions (width, height, length, time). I can not see any 2-dimensional or 3-dimensional world, much less affect one. How can an infinite-deimension god affect us?


Amos:
"If "this goes against everything we know about psychology and biology" that just does not say much about psycholgy, that's all. Biology knows better because it knows that all sentient beings have a conscious and subconscious mind wherein we are divided."


Jonsey3333:
Both conscious and unconscious are produced by the brain. It's not really all that divided, but scattered about the brain. Our conscious mind is what our brain decides to let us be "aware" of.


Amos:
"It is in the spiritual world that the essence is first created and later formed in the physical world."


Jonsey3333:
I find this hard to believe. Neurons send electro-chemical charges around my nervous system (the physical) and my brain allows my conscious mind to become aware of the sensation (the mental).


Amos:
"Kind of just opposite to Descartes but he really wasn't much different than your psycholgy friends because philosophy is an art and not a study. So he would have it wrong, thats all.

It is true that the spiritual world does not hve much to do with thinking because that would mean that we could think our way into heaven and that would not be fair to guys like me.

What you call lower brain functions are really your higher brain functions because you cannot reach them with even the most rigorous thinking."


Jonsey3333:
My conscious mind can not reach my housekeeping functions because it's not really in charge. However, the brain function that controls blood pressure cannot directly affect my conscious mind either. They are just different brain functions. I call them lower because they are relatively simple.

Amos:
"Yet when you walk away from it inspiration will often reveal the answer you were looking for."

Jonsey3333:
There are physical ways to alter the lower brain functions: caffeine, lobotomy, etc.

Amos:
"Dreaming is bad stuff. It shows you are divided in your own mind which is why it is an "evil age when old men have dreams."


Jonsey3333:
Dreaming reveals that there is a lot that goes on in our brain that we are not conscious of. We aren't so divided, we just think we are.


Amos:
In evolution something non-physical always changes something physical or the word adaptation would not make sense. This kind of means that God is in charge but you just see it backwards.


Jonsey3333:
No. Genes change the physical. Or maybe I'm not understanding what you are saying. What non-physical entity changes the physical?

Amos:
"Welcome to the boards Mike, they'r fun.

Amos"

Jonsey3333:
Thank you

excreationist

xoc:
I'm not interested in the history of philosophical ideas... just the ideas that you or other people have now.

I agree with this part of your first post. So I guess we more or less agree... that there is just the physical world and no mysterious spiritual realm which souls exist in or can travel to.

LinuxPup

One thing I find interesting is the existance of at least 10 spatial dimensions. If this is the case, as most astrophysicists claim it is, then we are *very* limited to what we can see. Does this prove spiritual beings (angels, etc.) exist? No, but it's interesting. An "entity" could literally be millimeters from you, and you would have no idea, as it is within another dimension(s) at a 90 degree angle from ours. Now, this being would still be physical, as it has a location in space/time, and metaphysical substances have no location (lines, circles, numbers, etc.).

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?

That's an awesome question... something I've been pondering a lot lately. One thought I had goes something like this: There are 4 fources in the universe 1) Strong Nuclear Force 2) Weak Nuclear Force 3) Electromagnetic Force and 4) Gravitational Force. There is what is called the Force Unification Theory, which I believe includes the idea that these 4 forces actually are different manifestations of 1 force. Now for the theological side. In Colossians 1:17 it says "And he is before all things, and by him all things consist." The Greek word for "consist" is "sunistao", and it's definitions are among:
1) to place together, to set in the same place,to bring or band together
1a) to stand with (or near)
2) to set one with another
2a) by way of presenting or introducing him
2b) to comprehend
3) to put together by way of composition or combination, to
teach by combining and comparing
3a) to show, prove, establish, exhibit
4) to put together, unite parts into one whole
4a) to be composed of, consist

In this verse "sunistao" is in the perfect tense, meaning it was completed in the past, once and for all, with ongoing implications.

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). The thing is, when you get to the bottom line, you cannot know how this happens. Why? Because of the Heisenburg Uncertainty Principle, which states that as the accuracy of your measurement of the velocity of a particle rises, the accuracy of it's position decreases, and vice versa, so you cannot know both the velocity and position of any particle at one period of time. This rules out the idea that the universe can be formed into a function with consistant predictability. This whole idea of mine is in very early stages, (I've been thinking this up as I wrote it) so if there are holes in it (as there very well might be) please let me know. I find this extremely interesting though.

Another thing, the idea that only the physical (that which can be described using the language of physics and chemistry) seems to faulter under scrutiny. Circles, lines, and numbers are used every day, and yet they obviously are not physical entities, as they exist nowhere in the universe, and have no location/mass/energy level. Numbers existed before man did. In fact, when describing the physical, you *must* use metaphysical substances. If I say "that tree has a diameter of 2 feet", I am using numbers, but also, I am using logic, which is not man-made, but rather is something we discovered. It is something objective that all are bound to.

Well, enough rambling...

Adrian Selby

"Circles, lines, and numbers are used every day, and yet they obviously are not physical entities"

Neither are colours actually colours, but differences in light hitting the retina or something. Circles exist as part of higher order brain functions, when I conceive a circle and try to understand any mathematics associated with it, the term 'circle' the idea that it has only 360 degrees etc. are all drawn from seeing real circles, but they are perhaps like complex thought experiments, where one idealises an actual spherical object for the purposes of trying to understand physical things, like the nature of light, gravity and other forces.

Someone help me out here I hope the above makes some kind of sense.

Adrian