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.

> ^HadouKen24:
In the current (read: last fifteen years or so) state of the discussion of the philosophy of mind, the argument for or against dualism does not hinge upon whether science has yet provided a coherent account of consciousness--we all know it hasn't--but whether it can in principle provide such an account. It is not obvious that any advance in science could provide us with a satisfactory account of consciousness. It is thus not an argument from ignorance.




Argument from ignorance: claiming something is true because it has not been proven false. (or vice versa)

"We do not know" vs "we cannot know". Substance dualism is still filling in the gaps where there is no testable consensus. There is nothing inherently wrong with speculation... it's how we form theories and predictions to test. The problem is when people say "we don't know, so we're unlikely to ever know, therefore it means <insert opinion> is what is really going on".

Of course, it could take pages and pages just to define the exact definitions of the terms and phrases we are debating. I think most of the issue here is when someone mentions "dualism", "non-physical", etc, that different readers assume slightly different meanings. I may be addressing points that weren't even made due to my interpretation the the language used.

I'll try to be specific. My arguments target those who base their conclusions on a lack of evidence rather than reproducible experimental results or observations. I do not accept the argument that any part of consciousness is beyond the scope of science, because there is no evidence for it, other than the fact the we do not currently know everything about the mind. Such and argument my be stronger when cognitive research grinds to a halt despite unanswered questions, but research in that area is currently progressing faster than any other time in human history.

On the other hand, if all substance dualism states is "there are parts of human experience that science cannot currently account for" then I can't disagree. Just realize that such a statement is not evidence for anything.

In summary:

Speculation = fine.
Acceptance of speculation as reality = logical fallacy.

>> ^HadouKen24:
In the current (read: last fifteen years or so) state of the discussion of the philosophy of mind, the argument for or against dualism does not hinge upon whether science has yet provided a coherent account of consciousness--we all know it hasn't--but whether it can in principle provide such an account. It is not obvious that any advance in science could provide us with a satisfactory account of consciousness. It is thus not an argument from ignorance.

One could have said the same on the theory of evolution before we found out about DNA. Before the discovery of DNA one couldn't possible concede of a satisfactory way to fully describe the origin of the species because there didn't exist a way to explain the way information could passed on through generations and how that information changed minutely to make the "survival of the fittest" possible.

In the current (read: last fifteen years or so) state of the discussion of the philosophy of mind, the argument for or against dualism does not hinge upon whether science has yet provided a coherent account of consciousness--we all know it hasn't--but whether it can in principle provide such an account. It is not obvious that any advance in science could provide us with a satisfactory account of consciousness. It is thus not an argument from ignorance.

Granted, there are few substance dualists around in philosophy anymore--most dualists are property or predicate dualists. Nonetheless, the claim that dualism is simply an argument from ignorance applies equally to both.

>> ^Psychologic:
The substance dualism argument is an "argument from ignorance". It rightfully points out that current theories of perception are not complete, but then begins filling in those gaps with unsupported speculation. The fact that our theories are not complete is not evidence for the existence of souls any more than a person's inability to identify a light in the sky is evidence of alien visitation.

Searle rocks.

Even if you don't like the CRE, he's written some of the best overviews of the Philosophy of Mind there is.

re: channel assignment - this belongs more in philosophy than mind&brain

re: nicotine addiction -

I agree with him about using the patch or gum - trying to kick an addiction to a substance by ingesting that substance is absurd. Ever hear of someone weaning themselves off of smoking heroin by shooting it? (Methadone is a completely different substance - not the same as using nicotine gum.)

On the other hand, the bit about withdrawal symptoms not getting worse is just a load of horse shit. This ties in with alizarin's paraphrase from the book about being able to sleep for 8 hours without smoking. Well, I've known people who can't. They wake up in the middle of the night because of withdrawal and have a cigarette. Also, that 8 eight hours of not smoking is the reason why long time heavy smokers light a cigarette before even going to the bathroom or putting their slippers on - because the withdrawal symptoms are stronger after 8 hours than after 1.

Don't know if he addresses this in the book, but physical addiction is also tangled with behavior. Certain activities that a smoker associates with smoking usually spark the desire to smoke, even if it wasn't there immediately before. The point being that part of being addicted to cigarettes is psychological, and for many, that is the harder part to deal with.

Okay- I got the go-ahead from brain.

I'll go create the channel for you now. Then you can modify the details as you wish.

In reply to this comment by jonny:
Well, it really is the most logical choice for the channel. mindbrain.videosift.com is cumbersome at best, and mind.videosift.com, besides being somewhat vague, isn't really appropriate, since the channel is really devoted more towards brain science than psychology or philosophy of mind. Perhaps the user would be willing to use "thebrain" if he or she ever goes charter?

On a side note, I wonder if that user is a reincarnation of SnakePlissken?

In reply to this comment by lucky760:
It's another member's username. Usernames are reserved by default in case they ever go charter and want their nick for their subdomain.

Can you come up with an alternative? If you absolutely must have brain, let me know and if user brain doesn't intend to ever go charter or doesn't care to not have the subdomain, I can make it work for you.

In reply to this comment by jonny:
Thanks for the info. One problem though - it says my chosen subdomain name, "brain", is reserved or already used. But when I navigate to brain.videosift.com, I get a 404. Is siftbot reserving that domain for his future consciousness?

Okay- I'll see what he/she/they thinks about it.

What makes you think it's old SP? The brain account has been around since 2006. Is it possible he switched personalities on us back then?

In reply to this comment by jonny:
Well, it really is the most logical choice for the channel. mindbrain.videosift.com is cumbersome at best, and mind.videosift.com, besides being somewhat vague, isn't really appropriate, since the channel is really devoted more towards brain science than psychology or philosophy of mind. Perhaps the user would be willing to use "thebrain" if he or she ever goes charter?

On a side note, I wonder if that user is a reincarnation of SnakePlissken?

In reply to this comment by lucky760:
It's another member's username. Usernames are reserved by default in case they ever go charter and want their nick for their subdomain.

Can you come up with an alternative? If you absolutely must have brain, let me know and if user brain doesn't intend to ever go charter or doesn't care to not have the subdomain, I can make it work for you.

In reply to this comment by jonny:
Thanks for the info. One problem though - it says my chosen subdomain name, "brain", is reserved or already used. But when I navigate to brain.videosift.com, I get a 404. Is siftbot reserving that domain for his future consciousness?

Well, it really is the most logical choice for the channel. mindbrain.videosift.com is cumbersome at best, and mind.videosift.com, besides being somewhat vague, isn't really appropriate, since the channel is really devoted more towards brain science than psychology or philosophy of mind. Perhaps the user would be willing to use "thebrain" if he or she ever goes charter?

On a side note, I wonder if that user is a reincarnation of SnakePlissken?

In reply to this comment by lucky760:
It's another member's username. Usernames are reserved by default in case they ever go charter and want their nick for their subdomain.

Can you come up with an alternative? If you absolutely must have brain, let me know and if user brain doesn't intend to ever go charter or doesn't care to not have the subdomain, I can make it work for you.

In reply to this comment by jonny:
Thanks for the info. One problem though - it says my chosen subdomain name, "brain", is reserved or already used. But when I navigate to brain.videosift.com, I get a 404. Is siftbot reserving that domain for his future consciousness?

"Colin McGinn (born 1950) is a British philosopher currently working at the University of Miami. McGinn has also held major teaching positions at Oxford University and Rutgers University. McGinn is best known for his work in the philosophy of mind, though he has written on topics across the breadth of modern philosophy. Chief among his works intended for a general audience is the intellectual memoir The Making of a Philosopher: My Journey Through Twentieth-Century Philosophy (2002)." - Wikipedia