How the hell did Sifty pick "The Melanie Iglesias Flip Book: Part 2" as a related video??

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 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.

Evidence for its existence would have to be logically derived, because it is by nature not physically provable. This is similar to how our mathematical models are the new tools of science because we no longer have the proper sense to make since of the world. In that same way, having physical evidence of something non-physical isn't giving dualism its proper shake. At a certain point in epistemology, you run out of ways to "show" things empirically. Investigation can only be in the realm of thought and logical deduction and as a result will provide the range of possibilities instead of the actual details, this is the proper setting for dualism...a logical possibility that would resist any internal investigation.

He swindles us a bit on the thinking computer bit, because it still doesn't address that main problem of thinking not being representing in pure physical interactions. Atoms bouncing around doesn't always cause thinking, so what is thinking if it can't be explained by sets of atoms bouncing around? How do disjointed sets of brain activations result in a single consciousness? This kind of spooky "thinking at a distance" effect is still one of the more baffling parts of the mind and where thinking arises. If this spooky thinking at a distance is happening, why is it limited to just the spooky motion of neurons within your own brain, why not the motion of atoms in the sun? If your brain can be thinking and disjointed, what is thinking...or more importantly...where is thinking happening!?

It also doesn't explain if thinking is a result of brains like we have them. Could a machine ever be made to think? What is thinking? Computers process information in a very similar respect to our own, but they aren't thinking when they are, are they? I don't think so! A study on how humans think isn't a study on thinking itself, just a kind of thinking...if other things than brains can think and there isn't a really good way to probe thinking itself because you are always going to be thinking like a human and not thinking like all the possible types of thinking that could exist. He makes this exact point with robotic technology advancing, we don't understand the limit of physical reality to know the limits of this end. To that end, you can't EVER know ALL the physical properties via empirical investigation so you can never know the ends of robotic technology, and perhaps the same could be said of thinking, you never will know if there isn't another way that thoughts could be formed with a physical understanding any more than you could with a duelist. Logical investigation can give you the range, just not the specificity he demands of dualism, and the same goes for materialism.

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.

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.

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

FYI, this isn't a dupe. The http://videosift.com/video/Substance-dualism embed went down, and was replaced with the embed from this one, but it was a different video.

>> ^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.

@enoch

Based on what you've written before, I don't think I'd mind a book, but to save you some time (maybe):

How do you define yourself as a dualist, if not a substance dualist?

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

Thanks again for the detail. I'll just accept that it's complicated. I don't like theories from: "It's complex and we don't know how it's possible, therefore it's not true," any more than: "My faith requires X to exist, therefore it's a good theory/true". As a philosophical hobby, OK, go down that hypothetical rabbit hole and see where it leads, but not as a serious discussion of the way things are.

hehe..i just left a private message for you @messenger then came here to @HadouKen24 has packaged things very nicely.

he is far more versed in these matters than i and has a spartan,yet succinct way in conveying his ideas.

I..on the other hand,am a ramblomatic confuse-a-thon.
now back to the never ending hecticness i have been experiencing of late.

cheers you two!