Abortion is Not Permissible, Period!

[Will Bouwman]

Given Physicalism, there is actually no "opinion,"...

How would the sensation of having an opinion, the phenomenon, be different given dualism?

Well, if Physicalism were true, "the sensation" might be different, or might be the same. We'd never know.

Correct.

...if Physicalism were true, how is that we even have a "sensation" of making a choice or having an opinion, since no such things exist in reality?

That certainly is a challenge for physicalists.
As a dualist, how do you think your mind interacts with your body?

[Immanuel Can]

As a dualist, how do you think your mind interacts with your body?

That's a great question. And you'll find it's exactly the one that the Philosophy of Mind folks are debating right now: how can a physical entity like the brain either generate (emergence problem) or interact with (supervenience problem) the non-physical reality known as the mind? There's no settled opinion on that, but a whole lot of philosophical fireworks. It's one of the "hottest" areas of philosophical inquiry at the present moment.

But the "how" is only something that we can ask after we've accepted that there are two things at work: brain and mind. That's why its formal name is "The Mind-Brain Problem." And so far as the Physicalists I've talked to are concerned, they're still in determined denial of the whole existence of a real mind, and to its reduction to the explanation "we don't know, but it's all physical." So whereas a dualist can at least get into the questions of emergence and supervenience, neither question is even possible, given Physicalism. Physicalism just has to assume there's no problem.

[bahman]

As a dualist, how do you think your mind interacts with your body?

That's a great question. And you'll find it's exactly the one that the Philosophy of Mind folks are debating right now: how can a physical entity like the brain either generate (emergence problem) or interact with (supervenience problem) the non-physical reality known as the mind? There's no settled opinion on that, but a whole lot of philosophical fireworks. It's one of the "hottest" areas of philosophical inquiry at the present moment.

But the "how" is only something that we can ask after we've accepted that there are two things at work: brain and mind. That's why its formal name is "The Mind-Brain Problem." And so far as the Physicalists I've talked to are concerned, they're still in determined denial of the whole existence of a real mind, and to its reduction to the explanation "we don't know, but it's all physical." So whereas a dualist can at least get into the questions of emergence and supervenience, neither question is even possible, given Physicalism. Physicalism just has to assume there's no problem.

That is not correct. The mind/self which is a changeless substance has the ability to experience and cause another changeable substance so-called material. Without mind/self change in material is not possible. Therefore, materialism or any sort of monism is false and substance dualism is correct.

[henry quirk]

how do you think mind interacts with body?

The soul is to the body...

ACC1B4B8-54F3-470F-B822-1417354045B8.jpeg

...as the shape of this lovely lady-statue...

0766E236-90E3-4326-B331-10C36EDD71B5.jpeg

...is to its bronze. -some net wag
hylomorphism

[Will Bouwman]

As a dualist, how do you think your mind interacts with your body?

...the "how" is only something that we can ask after we've accepted that there are two things at work: brain and mind.

Why should we accept that? Can you prove there is a physical brain?

[FlashDangerpants]

Freaky game of rock paper scissors going on here.

[Dubious]

The universe is nothing but particles. All those particles follow laws of motion. They aren’t free. The brain is made up entirely of those same particles. Therefore, there is nothing in the brain that would give us freedom. These particles also don’t understand anything, they don’t make sense of anything, they don’t grasp the meaning of anything. Since the brain, again, is made up of those particles, it has no power to allow us to grasp meaning or understand anything. But we do understand. We do grasp meaning. Therefore, we are talking about qualities we possess which are not made out of energy. These qualities are entirely non-material. - a very dead Albert Einstein, by way of my fellow whackadoodle, Jon Rappoport

That's true if the brain consists of only ONE particle which has lost its mind...as seems to be the case with a few brains around here!

[Immanuel Can]

As a dualist, how do you think your mind interacts with your body?

...the "how" is only something that we can ask after we've accepted that there are two things at work: brain and mind.

Why should we accept that? Can you prove there is a physical brain?

Well, that's an odd question. Maybe you can explain why you think finding the physical brain is a problem.

[henry quirk]

Well, that's an odd question. Maybe you can explain why you think finding the physical brain is a problem.

I'm probably wrong (I like uwot so I hope I'm wrong), but: he might be screwin' around with you. I'm probably wrong. He's just settin' up some philo-example (you'd be hard-pressed to prove, on the spot, there was a brain, so how much harder will be to prove there's an immaterial mind?) or somesuch.

[henry quirk]

No for you either.

[FlashDangerpants]

Well, that's an odd question. Maybe you can explain why you think finding the physical brain is a problem.

I'm probably wrong (I like uwot so I hope I'm wrong), but: he might be screwin' around with you. I'm probably wrong. He's just settin' up some philo-example (you'd be hard-pressed to prove, on the spot, there was a brain, so how much harder will be to prove there's an immaterial mind?) or somesuch.

It's fairly easy. Here's the relevant quote from Willy B...

Physicalism presents itself as the default. It's not. Any default has to have at least prima facie plausibility, which Physicalism lacks because it's got no evidence or demonstration.

I'll say it again: if you don't understand that the evidence for physicalism is exactly the same as for idealism and dualism, you cannot understand western philosophy. Nothing follows with logical necessity from the logically necessary 'phenomena exist'.

If you know how Berkeley attacked dualism, then you know what's going on here. Otherwise ... see the above remark about understanding western philosophy.

[Dubious]

No for you either.

A man of few words, which makes you the most intelligent of the dumbasses. Congrats on going from two to its square on the number of operational brain cells; go to the square of that and a proto-mind may emerge!

Good luck!

[Will Bouwman]

Can you prove there is a physical brain?

Well, that's an odd question.

Not to anyone who understands western philosophy.

Maybe you can explain why you think finding the physical brain is a problem.

Because the evidence for a physical brain is the same as for an ideal brain.
The fact that you don't know that demonstrates that you have not been taught and do not understand western philosophy. That I have lost count of the times I have told you suggests you never will.

To anyone for whom there is still hope, the standard text is Descartes's Discourse on Method. Immanuel Can no doubt has a copy on his desk the size of a squash court; anyone else can it read here: https://www.gutenberg.org/files/59/59-h/59-h.htm
For those who don't care for reading, this is the salient bit:

...seeing that our senses sometimes deceive us, I was willing to suppose that there existed nothing really such as they presented to us; and because some men err in reasoning, and fall into paralogisms, even on the simplest matters of geometry, I, convinced that I was as open to error as any other, rejected as false all the reasonings I had hitherto taken for demonstrations; and finally, when I considered that the very same thoughts (presentations) which we experience when awake may also be experienced when we are asleep, while there is at that time not one of them true, I supposed that all the objects (presentations) that had ever entered into my mind when awake, had in them no more truth than the illusions of my dreams. But immediately upon this I observed that, whilst I thus wished to think that all was false, it was absolutely necessary that I, who thus thought, should be somewhat; and as I observed that this truth, I think, therefore I am (COGITO ERGO SUM), was so certain and of such evidence that no ground of doubt, however extravagant, could be alleged by the sceptics capable of shaking it, I concluded that I might, without scruple, accept it as the first principle of the philosophy of which I was in search.

As mentioned, it's not as unshakeable as Descartes thought, but once the gist sinks in you are on your way to understanding western philosophy.

[Will Bouwman]

Well, that's an odd question. Maybe you can explain why you think finding the physical brain is a problem.

I'm probably wrong (I like uwot so I hope I'm wrong), but: he might be screwin' around with you. I'm probably wrong. He's just settin' up some philo-example (you'd be hard-pressed to prove, on the spot, there was a brain, so how much harder will be to prove there's an immaterial mind?) or somesuch.

You can't prove either as it happens, but there are fewer steps needed to argue for mind, so if anything, it's easier.

[Immanuel Can]

Can you prove there is a physical brain?

Well, that's an odd question.

Not to anyone who understands western philosophy.

Maybe you can explain why you think finding the physical brain is a problem.

Because the evidence for a physical brain is the same as for an ideal brain.

It's not, actually. Idealism has to assume the existence of the real, in order to account for the existence of any non-hallucinogenic/mystical ideas or perceptions, and to distinguish the idea from reality. But Physicalism is of a different kind; it recognizes ONLY physical reality as real, and simply denies any evidence that ideation has any real-world effect.

What the first positively requires, the second simply refuses to recognize: namely, the existence of an "other" to reality.

Descartes (or more precisely, Descartes chosen gnostic methodology, not the man himself, obviously) is squarely in the epistemological not ontological realm. It's nowhere near denying the existence of reality, which Descartes does not even bother to interrogate; but rather it's interrogating the extent and possibility of human certainty or knowledge about reality. The question of whether there actually IS a reality is really not on the table; whether or not human beings can know with certainty there IS an external reality is his question-of-the-moment.

So I'm not sure you get any mileage from Descartes...at least, not on ontology. You'd have to show me you do.