>> ^Almanildo:
How does non-physicality allow something to account for awareness any more than something physical?.
Because there's no place for awareness in the current physical model of the universe.



Free will is another potential hangup with the current physical model (contradictory to it, in fact, where awareness is simply unaccounted for), but free will is easily dismissed as illusory, or a result of our limited perception of time.
Other seemingly-ethereal concepts like emotions and ideas are relatively easily explained by the model as chemical responses and imprinted patterns and associations.
There are even areas of the brain identified as dealing with the concept of "self" vs "non-self", though I believe this is more in terms of one's body.
These things, the model accommodates, awareness, not so much - at least, not yet.

I am very tired, so this post may be extremely error-ridden.

Notes as I proceed through the video:

Uh-oh. QualiaSoup's first point seems quite wrong-headed. He claims that "non-physical substance" illegitimately smuggles in the physical concept of "substance." But here I think he's problematically confusing our everyday colloquial use of the word "substance" with the philosophical meaning(s). To speak of a substance in philosophical jargon is merely to say that the "substance" is that which underlies all other properties of a thing and make it what it is. Thus, Spinoza was able to say that there is only one substance, underlying all materiality but not itself material. Leibniz made a somewhat similar claim, but allowed for the existence of an infinite number of substances called monads.

Second, even if it's true that speaking of a "non-physical substance" requires an analogy from physical substance, it's not at all obvious that this is problematic. Insofar as the non-physical shares some subset of properties with the physical, or has similar but somewhat different properties, one may legitimately borrow physical language to speak of it. The substance dualist might easily accept that there is some shared subset of properties.

Next, QS claims that substance dualists often conflate mind, soul, and consciousness without substantiating argument. This is either a straw man or an attack on the very weakest defenders of substance dualism. Waste of time making this point.

Next, QS offers an apparently coherent account of the public and private access of "physical" and "mental" events respectively, as against the dualist argument that such an account seems impossible. However, it is not at all obvious that he genuinely succeeds. A robust dualist argument would proceed under the assumption that the contents of the mind can be inferred perfectly from the contents of the brain (this is acceptable even under substance dualism). Even under such conditions, it is not obvious that the processes so identified are identical to my conscious experience. It has been argued even by atheist physicalists like Thomas Nagel that there is something in subjective experience uncaptured by physical accounts. As Nagel says in his most famous essay, even the most robust physical theory seems incapable of telling us what it would be like to be a bat. A dualist account might provide us with a coherent way to deal with this problem in a way that physicalism is incapable of.

Next, some nonsense about split brains. Yawn. No ground is going to be gained or lost for dualism on these grounds; the most QS can show is that a monist account is equally capable of accounting for such phenomena. I suppose he's correct that this can't be used as a good argument against

Next, a discussion of replacement of all one's cells every seven years. Not only is it not the case that this happens, but this would be a particularly bad argument for dualism. Is QS just going after the easy objections to his position and leaving alone the strong ones?

Next, damage to the body causing changes and/or damage in mental functioning. So what? Under substance dualism, there must be reciprocal causal relationships between the brain and the mind. This kind of thing is just what one expects under substance dualism.



This may be QS's most poorly argued video. At the most compelling point in the video, QS offers an apparently coherent account of private and public access which, if the dualist position is correct, should not be at all likely, if even possible. And, to be sure, there are philosophers of mind who will agree with him, such as Daniel Dennett. Yet there are just as many who will not, including very prominent philosophers like David Chalmers and Thomas Nagel. At every other point, he is either wrong or irrelevant.

If elementary particles undergoing quantum effects isn't physical, then I don't know what is.

>> ^raverman:
This makes some broad generalisations to make a point specifically against religion.
Most quantum theory also enters this area of non-physical substance. By this measure we should stop all research and say "only what we can physically percieve is real".
Dark matter is considered to exist because it is inferred by the nature of the physical universe. In yet it has not been physically proven to have substance.
Quantum entanglement was impossible in earlier physics. Physical objects should not be able effect each other in a seemingly non-physical way.
Most mathematical theories of the universe require non-physical substance to complete the picture. Extra dimensions, time as a 4th layer, Branes of time and space.
If non-physical can exist outside the our 3 physical percievable dimensions it says more about our tools for detection than it does about the known vs. unknown of the universe.

> ^raverman:
We can be 'good' and productive without god or the metaphysical. But why should we bother?




My version of this question is "life is complicated enough, why invest in unsupported ideas?"

It's true that we cannot observe "dark matter", but no one can rightly say dark matter absolutely exists. It's just an attempt to explain the measurements we have showing that there is more mass in the universe than we can account for. Our observations will improve, so the theory will either be improved or replaced.

A belief in gods is very similar in spirit. It is an attempt to explain the workings of the observable world. Like dark matter, we cannot observe gods directly... they are just a possible explanation for why seemingly impossible (highly improbable) events occur. Lots of people are "good" and productive without any belief in gods, in many cases because the behavior of police can be tested. Some people's "personal software" may not deal well with the idea of no afterlife, but that does not mean there is evidence for one.


I do believe that my personal preferences are due to both evolution and my life experiences. I have a rather strong instinct to avoid death, but I have no logic-based reason to fear death other than its effects on those I care about. My "caring for others" is probably automatic as well... it kept the human race going this long at least. Our physical theories fit our observations well enough... I see no reason to believe in souls based on our currently-available scientific data. I am completely comfortable considering the possibility that I am nothing but a combination of meat and electrical impulses, along with the ability remember past experience and see patterns in those memories.

Eventually I will die. I will worry about gods when their existence makes an observable impact on my personal reality.

>> ^Almanildo:
What non-physical substances are supposed to do is to affect the bodies of conscious beings. Since the bodies themselves are considered physical, however, this is a logical paradox.

Another possibility is that we're just getting our definitions in a bind. What some might be referring to as "non-physical" might simply mean some aspect of the physical universe (some additional property or "layer") that we simply have not yet discovered or observed.

The crux of my argument is that the current model simply cannot account for the concept of unified experience, or awareness, or consciousness, or whatever we're calling it.

> ^ReverendTed:
The problem with his argument is that consciousness (or at least awareness) IS non-physical, at least given our existing model. Our model of the physical universe does not account for awareness.




As far as awareness being non-physical, it depends on what definition you're using for "non-physical".

"Thoughts" are not generally considered to be physical things, but they come from a physical source. Computer software is similar... while the software is only a pattern, it cannot run without its physical basis (the computer). Likewise, the mind (as far as we know) cannot exist without a physical basis. If the brain is destroyed, so is the mind.

His point seems to be that there is no reason or need to believe there is any part of a person's consciousness or awareness that lives on past the death of the physical body (other than a desire to believe in an afterlife). It is certainly true that we do not yet have a complete, verified theory of consciousness or perception, but that does not mean that there is evidence for any form of cognition that does not require a physical component.

>> ^gwiz665:
but one thing is fairly evident, there is no ethereal element to it.
How is this "evident"? The physical model does not accommodate unified experience. Just as you suggested, the body and the brain are simply organic machines. They should only "do" - impulse in, algorithm run, impulse out, and there is no reason for them to "be aware" of it. There is no step in the prescribed process where a cell does anything more than pass along an electrical stimulus to some other cells. (Which, again, I'm fine with - it's just that awareness remains completely unaccounted for.)

Silvio Berlusconi's teeth subscribe to substance dualism - some think that they are inside his head, while others know that they are not.

In that model, awareness only "receives" or "detects" the damaged, impaired, or less-developed view of the world that a damaged, impaired or less-developed brain produces. But are you any less "aware" when you're drunk or dreaming? Less inhibited, less in control, and the perception is muddled, but you're still experiencing it as a unified whole.
A more compelling argument against the model, in my opinion, are those times when awareness is lost completely.
When you lay your head on your pillow and then wake up what seems like only an instant later without having dreamed at all, or when you wake up the morning after passing out from intoxication.
That said, they're still explicable within the confines of the model. During those times, you may have awareness, but no memories are formed (in the brain), so once your brain begins forming memories again, it seems as if that time has been lost.>> ^thinker247:
If your philosophy is based upon awareness as a non-physical entity, then how do you explain the fact that babies are not as aware of their surroundings as adults are? Or that Alzheimer's patients are not as aware as people of the same age? When I'm asleep, I am not aware as I am while awake. When I am high, I am not aware as when sober. If "awareness is distinct from personality and memory," can one be aware without a constant level of understanding?

>> ^ReverendTed:
"awareness is distinct from personality and memory"


If your philosophy is based upon awareness as a non-physical entity, then how do you explain the fact that babies are not as aware of their surroundings as adults are? Or that Alzheimer's patients are not as aware as people of the same age? When I'm asleep, I am not aware as I am while awake. When I am high, I am not aware as when sober. If "awareness is distinct from personality and memory," can one be aware without a constant level of understanding?

Your video, Substance dualism, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

I want to upvote this, because it's a topic I'm very interested in and it's a well-presented argument, but I disagree with some of his conclusions.

He challenges dualists for incorrectly equating soul=consciousness=mind, saying that terminology is very important, but at ~7:30 he equates personality with consciousness, which I don't think is a given. This is possibly because he's challenging a particular subset of dualism.

Another terminology problem is that the term "awareness" is never mentioned, presumably equated with consciousness, another non-given.

One argument that he deconstructs is the "cells are replaced so we're not even the same body" argument. Surprisingly, he doesn't mention that brain cells have traditionally been held NOT to do so, though this may have been an abandoned argument in light of recent studies that suggest some regrowth\repair may be possible. (In case my wording was confusing, this is an argument that would support his position.)

The problem with his argument is that consciousness (or at least awareness) IS non-physical, at least given our existing model. Our model of the physical universe does not account for awareness.
It DOES account for behavior. The body (including the brain) is a machine, albeit an organic one, and machines behave physically. Awareness, though, is a hole in the model. That doesn't prove dualism, but it allows for it until we're able to plug that hole.

My personal philosophy is more of a stopgap - acknowledged to possibly be incomplete or incorrect, but consistent with what's "known".
I have no problem accepting the physical model of the universe - evolution, etc. And I have no problem accepting that my body would function just fine without "me", right down to a "personality". The sensory organs feed electrical impulses up through the thalamus into the sensory cortexes, out into the prefrontal cortex and back to the motor cortex. (Oversimplified - it's all intertwined.) All the while making the synapses necessary for associations to be imprinted. I can believe that these "behaviors" were selected through evolution, right down to the development of language and abstract "thought".
Structures that tend to reproduce themselves will tend to reproduce themselves. Structures that are more effective at reproducing themselves will do so more effectively.
But it's just a structure. An amalgamation of individual cells each doing exactly what it's expected to do as an individual cell. There's no point in the process at which awareness is accounted for.

What I believe does take some elements from the Christian religion of my upbringing, which should come as no surprise. Christians are told that we leave our bodies, the vessels, behind when we leave this earth and proceed "into Heaven" to be "one with God." I believe that means everything about this earth is left behind. Not only the physical body and the physical brain, but everything contained in it, which constitutes our accumulated earthly experience - memories, personality. Why? Specifically for those reasons stated above: personality is a functional concept, alterable by physical and chemical changes. The question remains - if memory and personality are lost, what remains? What, indeed.
That said, I do believe there is something separate from the physical existence of the body (and brain) that accounts for awareness. I believe it to be, I guess I'll say an "element" of awareness. It's been suggested that the areas of the brain responsible for "consciousness" are sensory organs as much as the eyes or ears - because of their unique structure able to detect this outside influence.

The problem there, obviously, is that implies a physical influence by what's already been defined as a non-physical object.

I've separated that comment out into its own paragraph because if you really want to discredit dualism, that's all you need to say.
The counter-arguments tend to deal with current physical unknowns, shenanigans in the realm of quantum physics. That "consciousness" or "awareness" exerts its influence on the electrical behavior of the cells in the prefrontal cortex through quantum "nudges". That argument utilizes another hole in the existing deterministic physical model of the universe.

It's also been suggested that consciousness is all post-hoc. That everything we experience has already happened, even if it's fractions of the second later. That we "feel" like we've made decisions but really we're just experiencing the machinations of the brain's processes after the fact. This works pretty well for dualism, because then you no longer have to account for influence on the process. (However, it blows a hole through the theories of most dualists, who are arguing for a soul and the free will that accompanies it.)
Essentially, in this model of dualism, awareness simply detects what the brain is doing, possibly in a specific area of the brain (most likely the prefrontal cortex) - piecing it together into a coherent narrative simply for the purposes of experiencing it. When the brain is damaged, or its behavior altered, awareness is still simply detecting what the brain is doing. This accounts for alterations in personality due to disease, etc. It is however, purely academic, because if it has no influence, then who cares? Only the curious.
There's an island in the middle of the East river - North Brother Island. I've never been there, and I'll never go there. Few people ever will. It has no influence on me, but I'm curious about it because I find it fascinating. It's so far removed from my typical experience - and that's what makes it compelling.

Ok, I've typed too much already and I realize I never really specified what my viewpoint was.
My viewpoint is probably best described as agnostic - I know there are aspects of this discussion that are currently unknowable, so I ascribe to several options that seem to be equally believable.
I guess it's the "prefrontal cortex as awareness-sensory organ" with or without "quantum influence on output by awareness", combined with "awareness is distinct from personality and memory", which allows for some interesting (if not necessarily deep) philosophical musings on what happens to that elemental awareness once it's separated from the earthly body.

>> ^bluecliff:
too bad human experience is dualistic.


Go on..

The best is so much again.. pretty awesome, but best? Ah who am I kidding, of course I am!

In reply to this comment by Almanildo:
Thanks, you're the best.

In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
*quality!

Thanks, you're the best.

In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
*quality!