QualiaSoup - Superstition has been added as a related post - related requested by messenger on that post.

Thanks for the promote!
In reply to this comment by nanrod:
*promote

The claim is that there is a special substance that is our consciousness, not that it causes our consciousness.

Those who propose that this is true usually attempt to support this with arguments showing not only do we not yet have any explanation for how consciousness could arise solely from physical matter (which is true), but we cannot in principle show that consciousness could arise from matter (which is debatable). If it is not possible to explain consciousness in terms of matter only, then we have to posit a non-physical substance--or at least non-physical properties. (The philosophers who argue for non-physical properties are called property dualists, like David Chalmers, and should be contrasted with substance dualists like Plantinga.) So, according to dualist philosophers of mind, postulating a non-physical substance is not an unnecessary complication, but an essential element of any complete account of the mind.

The arguments themselves can get very complicated. Philosophy of mind is a sonuvabitch.

>> ^messenger:

If someone's going to propose that there's a special substance that causes our consciousness and is non-physical, it has to be explained how this different substance creates consciousness AND how it interacts with physical objects. To propose an as-yet undetected type of physical matter (similar to how "dark matter" has mass, but remains undetected) only requires explanation of how it creates consciousness. Proposing that it's "non-physical" adds complexity, and doesn't provide any answers. It's a dodge.
@GeeSussFreeK
It's possible that we could know all the physical properties by empirical investigation, eventually. Why not? And if we can create robot intelligence, it might become superior to our own, as in chess. It might then create yet another higher form of intelligence, and so on until one is created that can derive all the physical laws of the universe and communicate them to us with proofs. We do have more than a billion years before the sun dries up all our water. Maybe we've got time.

Well... not really.

First off, this isn't a specifically religious line of argument. Sure, the philosophers that he's quoting are indeed well known Christian philosophers. But one doesn't need to be Christian, or to be religious, or even broadly theistic in order to recognize the strength of some arguments for dualism.

So let's start with QualiaSoup's repeated comments about what would constitute a coherent account of dualism. His constant question is what an account of dualism would even look like without a physical account. For example, "How would an agent with no physical manifestation differ from no agent at all?"But this borders on circularity--if the only kind of coherent account that exists is a physical account, then there clearly cannot be a coherent account of dualism. Which is to say that QualiaSoup appears to be rejecting dualist accounts because they are dualist. Which is circular reasoning. If QualiaSoup wishes to advance such an objection, then it demonstrates nothing but the state of his beliefs about dualism, and says nothing about the truth or falsehood of the substance dualist theory of mind.


Moreover, he consistently conflates consciousness with cognition. Cognition pertains to the processing of data. An entity that is not conscious could certainly go through processes we would recognize as cognitive. Consciousness pertains to the awareness or the internal experience of, among other things, the objects of cognition. Even if cognition were largely handled by a physical brain, one could still assert a non-physical consciousness without any contradictions.

QualiaSoup does not seem to realize that substance dualism all but requires that damage to the brain result in bizarre functioning. One of the most consistent elements of dualist theories since the 17th century has been an understanding that the mind and the brain have causal relationships with each other. Pointing out the bizarre effects of brain damage on mental functioning no more disproves dualism than pointing out that drinking too much alcohol gets you drunk--the dualist already understands that these kinds of relationships must hold, and there are already the broad outlines of an account in place in dualism.

In his discussions of Swinburne's modal argument for dualism, QualiaSoup fundamentally misunderstands possibility and "apparent conceivability." Let's quote from the revised edition of Swinburne's Evolution of the Soul:

"The only arguments which can be given to show some supposition to be logically possible are arguments which spell it out, which tell in detail a story of what it would be like for it to be true and do not seem to involve any contradictions, i.e. arguments from apparent conceivability. Apparent conceivability
is evidence (though not of course conclusive evidence) of logical possibility." (pp. 324-325)

QualiaSoup's objection is clearly a straw-man argument when you look at the full passage. The counter-example of the time-traveler fails the "apparent conceivability" test immediately because it involves an obvious contradiction. Which is to say that, by Swinburne's definition, QS's example is NOT apparently conceivable. Moreover, QualiaSoup clearly misunderstands the notion of "logical possibility." A statement can be logically possible without being physically possible. It is logically possible that the moon is made out of cheese--there are no logical contradictions that would follow--despite its being a physical impossibility. Swinburne's argument has nothing to do with physical possibility--only logical possibility.

tl;dr
QualiaSoup needs to take some more philosophy classes. Philosophy is totally badass.

>> ^hpqp:

Once again QualiaSoup delivers a quality take-down of religious sophistry.

And thanks for this quality.
In reply to this comment by hpqp:
Once again QualiaSoup delivers a *quality take-down of *religious sophistry.

Yep. The hexatexamexaflexagons seem to be following that pattern.

Also, I wanna *quality your newspaper clipping at the top.
In reply to this comment by hpqp:
I think sifting separately is fine, so long as you link each one in the description of the other (I had to go look for this one, the horror! )
In reply to this comment by messenger:
It is better form to just put part 2 in the same sift as part 1 or sift them separately?

Once again QualiaSoup delivers a *quality take-down of *religious sophistry.

I think sifting separately is fine, so long as you link each one in the description of the other (I had to go look for this one, the horror! )
In reply to this comment by messenger:
It is better form to just put part 2 in the same sift as part 1 or sift them separately?

>> ^messenger:

I too like talking about this stuff, and I don't like all of his arguments either, but some of it is worth examining.
First, are you a) proposing a certain kind of substance outside of the physical that has specific properties; or b) do you deduce that some non-physical substance must exist because you don't believe that physical substances can give rise to consciousness? If a), what properties? What's your evidence? If b), why do you mean by "substance", and how did you come to the conclusion that physical substance could not give rise to consciousness?>> ^enoch:
yep.
i am a dualist and damn proud of it.
i really enjoy this guys videos but i wouldnt specify this particular video as one of his best.
maybe it is because he is making a very specific argument on a subject i absolutely love talking about "what IS consciousness"?
still...
he makes some great points against those who may push the "substance dualism" argument.



as @HaduoKen24 mentioned, i am not a "substance dualist" for a number of reasons.the main one is that spirit cannot be measured in any material sense.the body is the material that interacts with this physical plane.

@messenger please redefine the parameters of discussion my friend.otherwise i will end up writing a book here in the comment section and bore you to tears.

Part 2 is here, but I can't edit the video details right now for technical reasons.

http://videosift.com/video/QualiaSoup-Substance-Dualism-Part-2-of-2

It's not the same video. The old one was less than 10 minutes and has been removed from QS's channel. Fragments of the old one can still be found on YT in reaction videos to the original, but I can't find the whole thing. I hope you can remove this embed before someone declares dupe on the new one I just sifted: http://videosift.com/video/QualiaSoup-Substance-Dualism-Part-1-of-2

@dag @lucky760 Is it possible to remove an embed without replacing it?

[Edit: Also, since my sift of this embed is the same as this embed here, I cannot modify video details, which I'd like to do. Is there any way around that?]>> ^Almanildo:

I think QualiaSoup removed his video and replaced it with an HD version. Let's hope it's the same one.

I assumed he was using the word in the same sense as the video, but perhaps not. Anyway, hopefully he comes back and engages on one of his favourite topics.>> ^HadouKen24:

Enoch did not specify that he was a substance dualist. As QualiaSoup recognizes at the beginning of the video, there is more than one kind of dualism.
>> ^messenger:
I too like talking about this stuff, and I don't like all of his arguments either, but some of it is worth examining.
First, are you a) proposing a certain kind of substance outside of the physical that has specific properties; or b) do you deduce that some non-physical substance must exist because you don't believe that physical substances can give rise to consciousness? If a), what properties? What's your evidence? If b), why do you mean by "substance", and how did you come to the conclusion that physical substance could not give rise to consciousness?>> ^enoch:
yep.
i am a dualist and damn proud of it.
i really enjoy this guys videos but i wouldnt specify this particular video as one of his best.
maybe it is because he is making a very specific argument on a subject i absolutely love talking about "what IS consciousness"?
still...
he makes some great points against those who may push the "substance dualism" argument.

Enoch did not specify that he was a substance dualist. As QualiaSoup recognizes at the beginning of the video, there is more than one kind of dualism.

>> ^messenger:

I too like talking about this stuff, and I don't like all of his arguments either, but some of it is worth examining.
First, are you a) proposing a certain kind of substance outside of the physical that has specific properties; or b) do you deduce that some non-physical substance must exist because you don't believe that physical substances can give rise to consciousness? If a), what properties? What's your evidence? If b), why do you mean by "substance", and how did you come to the conclusion that physical substance could not give rise to consciousness?>> ^enoch:
yep.
i am a dualist and damn proud of it.
i really enjoy this guys videos but i wouldnt specify this particular video as one of his best.
maybe it is because he is making a very specific argument on a subject i absolutely love talking about "what IS consciousness"?
still...
he makes some great points against those who may push the "substance dualism" argument.

I think QualiaSoup removed his video and replaced it with an HD version. Let's hope it's the same one.

I too like talking about this stuff, and I don't like all of his arguments either, but some of it is worth examining.

First, are you a) proposing a certain kind of substance outside of the physical that has specific properties; or b) do you deduce that some non-physical substance must exist because you don't believe that physical substances can give rise to consciousness? If a), what properties? What's your evidence? If b), why do you mean by "substance", and how did you come to the conclusion that physical substance could not give rise to consciousness?>> ^enoch:

yep.
i am a dualist and damn proud of it.
i really enjoy this guys videos but i wouldnt specify this particular video as one of his best.
maybe it is because he is making a very specific argument on a subject i absolutely love talking about "what IS consciousness"?
still...
he makes some great points against those who may push the "substance dualism" argument.