Francois Tremblay

1. What is the evidence that "souls" or the supernatural exists ?

If you want to invoke the usual "god of the gaps" argument, that is a fallacy : because we do not know how the mind works right now does not imply that your position is correct. You need to present evidence, not gaps (otherwise you are as scientific as Creationists, who use the same tactic).

* What is it you mean when you say "soul" or "supernatural" ? Define positively, not negatively. This has never been done before.
* What is your theoretical or scientific evidence that the non-materialist element you uphold, exists ?

2. How does human cognition make sense in a context of dualism ?

If the soul or mind is isolated from reality by being of a different nature, then how could we trust our mind at all ? Since it is axiomatic that we can indeed trust our mind, it seems that the idea of dualism is a logical contradiction. Supernaturalists may want to explain how we can be aware of the supernatural as well.

* How do you solve the modus operandi problem ? (answering the first sub-question above will be a great help for this one)
* Without an outlook grounded in materialism, what is your basis for accepting reality ? What is the connection between your mind and the rest of reality ?
(note that this question is different than the first one - it may very well be that your position is not contradictory with simple interactions with the physical world, but is contradictory with the notion that we can know reality)


Without a clear answer to these questions, any discussion about dualism, supernaturalism, or any other form of non-materialism is futile. The burden of proof is on you, not us.

John Page

Shouldn't that be a challenge to duelists?

svensky

Why is the burden of proof on the thiest ?

Strict materialism stands in isolation against a long history of a belief in the existence of the supernatural, souls etc.

Can you provide definite proof that matter is all there is ?

I'll be back later to provide some more thoughts, but why do you assume the burder of proof is not on you ? The only reason I can think of is that you presume your philosophy is accurate, which you cant just assume.

Jason

Francois Tremblay

Theism has nothing to do with the subject. I never talked about theism at all.

Belief is not evidence.

This thread was meant to address the claims of people who propose *another* type of beingness, not to prove materialism. I don't have the burden of proof here. The dualist/supernaturalist is the one who posits another category of beingness, and therefore has the burden of proof regarding that claim (and once again I remind you that denial is not enough - you must provide positive evidence).


Once again, this thread was made to address the claims of dualists or supernaturalists. Whenever materialism is true or not is irrelevant to the validity of those claims.

We observe matter, but we have not yet observed supernature or soul-nature. In a sense, this is trivial, since we merely called the category of beingness around us "matter". This is why most people accept materialism as a good starting point. Since we have not observed a new category of beingness such as "soulness" or "supernaturality", rational minds cannot take it for granted.

[ March 05, 2002: Message edited by: Franc28 ]</p>

svensky

Actually it is central, as it is the opposing case, that you are simply assuming is true.

Do you have any reason to doubt the existence of a soul ? All the matter in a persons body will be completely exchanged every 7 years or so. Am I still me ? What is the part of me that retains my identity if not a soul ?

Jason

[ March 05, 2002: Message edited by: svensky ]</p>

Francois Tremblay

However central you think materialism is, a denial of materialism (as far as such a denial would be meaningful - first you would have to show that it is) would not confirm supernaturalism or any other such idea, just like Creationists are not any more advanced by denying the theory of evolution.


Of course I do. The fact that there is no evidence for such a notion. As long as there is no evidence, one cannot posit its existence. And as far as we know that physical damage correlates with mental damage, we can doubt that the notion of a soul is possible at all.


I don't understand your point. That the matter in your body is new says nothing about the identity of your body being changed. I am still the same person.

You'd have to show that the very identity of my body is being changed in order to posit some otherwordly entity that presides over my mind (and this would not yet be proof of a soul either, only of an out-of-body consciousness which may be material).

[ March 05, 2002: Message edited by: Franc28 ]</p>

svensky

Ummm ... what would that be but a soul. Could you define what you think a soul is.

Jason

Jonsey3333

I brought this topic up not too long ago, but it deserves another go...


"1. What is the evidence that "souls" or the supernatural exists ? "

There is a scenario where it COULD be proven. Monitor someone's brain using a few brain imaging devices. Close off the external environment so that it is stable and predictable (a laboratory). If any action is taken without thought (or spinal reflex), it must be caused by something non-material.

I don't believe in the supernatural, BTW. I'll go on to #2, then.


"2. How does human cognition make sense in a context of dualism ?"

Be careful, because supernaturalism and dualism aren't the same. There is at least one form of dualism. Material and concepts. Material consists of all matter, energy, and space, including the brain (thoughts). Concepts include abstractions such as "circle" or "3", which don't perfectly exist in the material world, but do seem to "exist" in the sense that we all know them and can communicate them, but have never seen a perfect one (since they deon't exist).

For all we know, there might be forms of existence we don't know about that don't affect us (and we will never know about). There might also be ether for all we know. Is there a material explanation for gravity? I once read of
"gravitrons" or something.

Also, a god could exist in the material world. Just in a higher dimension. Imagine yourself drawing on a notepad 2-dimensional world. You are that world's god, in a sense. Our god seems to be not so busy in our corner of existense.

-Mike

owleye

Franc28...

Though I suspect you would not count the legal case being taken up against a crematorium that failed to carry out its mission as evidence of the existence of souls, but it does tell us quite a bit about the significance of the relationship we have with our loved ones that have passed away.

What you would probably say is that an important feature of humans is that they believe in the existence of souls and then go one to point out that belief in souls is not evidence of their existence.

But, suppose what a soul is, is the lasting impressions someone makes in the world. It is the tracks and traces he or she leaves behind. So, for example, I can point to the impressions made in a favorite chair and regard it as the soul of that person.

What would you have against this view of what a soul is? If you could come to accept it, it would then make sense to regard the screwed up remains of the dead bodies discarded by the crematorium, as evidence of tampering with the souls of the departed.

Fell

Francois Tremblay

It is not up to me to define what a soul is. I have not observed any souls and see no need to believe in a soul.

I would say a soul is a non-material mind : however that is not a definition since it does not describe what it is, but rather what it is not. It belongs to the dualist (and the supernaturalist who thinks the mind is supernatural) to define positively what a soul is, if his claims are to make sense at all.

[ March 05, 2002: Message edited by: Franc28 ]</p>