Substance Dualism: True or False ?

[Bugmaster]

Substance Dualism is the belief that, in addition to the material things we see every day -- chairs, rocks, molecules, atoms, radio waves, etc. -- there exist wholly immaterial entities. Some people call them "souls", some people call them "spirits", or "minds", but the basic idea is the same; I'll call the immaterial things "souls" from now on. These immaterial things are, by definition, undetectable by any material means -- they cannot be seen, heard, or measured with any scientific instrument.

According to most religions, a human being consists of a material body, as well as an immaterial soul. The soul is what defines your identity, your sense of self. Some religions believe that souls are eternal; some believe that souls are merely parts of the cosmic consciousness, but the bottom line is, humans have souls. Deities, such as the Christian God, or the Hindu Kali, or the various animistic spirits, can be described as disembodied souls.

As I see it, Dualism is the cornerstone of most religious belief (Scientology and Raelianism being possible exceptions). However, Dualism has a major weakness:

How does your immaterial soul cause your material body to move, to act, to type things, etc. ? Since the soul is completely non-physical, how is it able to interact with the physical world ? And, even if we assume that such interaction is possible, how come we still can't detect it with our material instruments ?

I've never seen a thouroughly convincing defence of Dualism, but I'd love to see one. So... any takers ?

[Curious]

I see your point but is it space that is affected by mass or simply the particles within the space.

No, it's really the space itself. Weird, but true... you can read a simple explanation of it here (random google search result).

I am already well versed in the subject but thanks for the link anyway. Spatial curvature is a nice model but I seriously doubt that the present explanation bears much similarity to reality.

If space was simply curved, in for example the simplistic example of a membrane with a weight in the middle, then a stationary object should shift position slightly but should not accelerate unrestrained towards the centre of gravity.

It would, actually, unless the friction was very high.

Friction isn't the issue here, for friction to even occur the object would need to move through space. The issue here is the objects inertia (or propensity to stay in the same position in space in this case). If space was simply curved then the space would shift slightly which would change the position of the object but it would still occupy the same area of space as before but in a slightly different position(if we were to observe from afar). Why would a stationary object then continue past the new spatial position? Curvature works well when examining moving objects as the motion in a straight line would take the new curved line but a stationary object has no path to follow.

Anyway, we're getting off-topic here. We can debate special and general relativity all we want, but I think we both agree that space (regardless of how it's curving) is, in fact, material.

I agree that we are digressing somewhat. I think here though that you are confusing space with vacuum. A solid object occupies space but space here is not what I am referring to. I was attempting to illustrate that a vacuum (ie. a volume containing no free matter), which is not itself measurable, is able to affect matter. In other words it is possible for an absence to affect a presence or the immaterial to affect the material.

[QED]

I agree that we are digressing somewhat. I think here though that you are confusing space with vacuum. A solid object occupies space but space here is not what I am referring to. I was attempting to illustrate that a vacuum (ie. a volume containing no free matter), which is not itself measurable, is able to affect matter. In other words it is possible for an absence to affect a presence or the immaterial to affect the material.

I'm not at all comfortable with the conclusion you draw there Curious. We have a nonzero Higgs field to consider:

Once the universe cools down enough, below a certain temerature, the Higgs field assumes a certain value (i.e. a value of the Higgs field) which corresponds to the lowest energy level (i.e. the potential energy is zero, but the value of the Higgs field is nonzero; this level may be called vacuum). And this energy level continues to prevail throughout the whole universe (uniform, nonzero Higgs field).

[ST88]

I.e., to talk about souls, you must pretend that souls exist and that they have their own logic on their own terms. You can't expect that a soul would behave as if it were a part of your otherwise materialist realm.

I'm not sure what this means. Are you saying that souls cannot be discussed rationally at all ? If so, then souls do indeed defy description... But this would make dualism an empty concept, since ascribing any kind of properties or behaviors (such as, "they make our bodies move") to souls completely impossible.

Nonetheless, I think I have provided some concrete properties of souls, for the purposes of this debate. I'm not saying that I believe these souls actually exist, of course; I'm merely establishing the cornerstone of dualism so that I can knock it down.

We're not disagreeing about whether or not there are souls. Where we disagree is how you seem to want to ascribe some sort of definite material action to them. I.e., within the definition of a soul that affects the body, there is soul that affects the body somehow. To try and describe the mechanism of this effect would be an exercise in futility rivaling all of theological philosophy.

In other words, these are pins you can't set up just to knock them down. "Substance dualism" defies our understanding of physics, but not because we can't somehow come up with a mechanism by which the soul affects the body. That would be quite beyond physics, and should be beyond any kind of logical proof that the soul doesn't exist.

If this is a concept that people who believe in souls wish to believe in, we can't stop them with a logical proof, because the very concept defies logic.

[Bugmaster]

We're not disagreeing about whether or not there are souls.

Er, I lost track. Do you think souls exist ?

Where we disagree is how you seem to want to ascribe some sort of definite material action to them.

Are you saying that souls have no effect whatsoever on the material world ? That my soul is not making me type these words ?

If this is a concept that people who believe in souls wish to believe in, we can't stop them with a logical proof, because the very concept defies logic.

I agree, but, from where I stand, it seems that the concept is self-contradictory, and therefore cannot be true. It's like a square circle, it just makes no sense.

But if that is true, then pretty much every other supernatural belief that's based on dualism is false as well -- monotheism, polytheism, animism... that's pretty severe.

[Curious]

I'm not at all comfortable with the conclusion you draw there Curious. We have a nonzero Higgs field to consider:

I must admit I am not entirely happy with it myself. If the theory concerning the Higgs field is correct we still have to say that this would still not be a vacuum but may be called a vacuum for almost all intents and purposes. If we were to create a complete hypothetical vacuum (not something practically possible), then the particles of the gas would be affected even more as they would essentially become massless. Now my point here is that unless we actually scientifically observe a subject at the moment of a genuine spiritual epiphany, then we don't know whether it is possible that one material interaction might be circumvented by a change of other material interactions which might allow a different expression of the material's nature. It might be the case that spirit is actually a function of the physical, I honestly don't know, but it does appear obvious from my own experience that the physical aspects of our self tend to encumber the realisation of the spiritual aspects.

[QED]

Now my point here is that unless we actually scientifically observe a subject at the moment of a genuine spiritual epiphany, then we don't know whether it is possible that one material interaction might be circumvented by a change of other material interactions which might allow a different expression of the material's nature. It might be the case that spirit is actually a function of the physical, I honestly don't know, but it does appear obvious from my own experience that the physical aspects of our self tend to encumber the realisation of the spiritual aspects.

Why would we see spiritual experiences in any different light to every other emotion? Emotions are created by particular thought patterns, I personally think that spirituality arises from similar consilience. I watched a TV program recently where several 'regular Joes' were taken to spend a couple of weeks in the care of a Monastery. One fellow who was producing movies for the porn industry had 'one of those moments' right infront of the camera, late one evening in a candlelit Chapel. I can't see this as a spirit making its way through the Holy building, past the camera team and into the subjects forehead. Rather, reflecting on his life and in the tranquility of the surroundings it would seem as if he had found higher ground to look down upon himself.

Surely it is more reasonable to asses matters of spirituality in this strictly internal perspective? The subconscious plays a very important part in all this, it is a very slow learner but has a very strong hold over us once it draws-up a conclusion -- which often comes to us in a flash. It is constantly weighing-up information and regulating our responses to a wide range of life-situations. The sort of epiphany or 'blinding flash' of inspiration that comes over people is a dead-ringer for the subconscious spilling over into the conscious IMO. The only problem with getting people to accept this is that most of the time we are almost totally unaware of our subconscious. Sufferers of panic attacks however will know all too well how this thing works

[ST88]

We're not disagreeing about whether or not there are souls.

Er, I lost track. Do you think souls exist ?

No. But your question was based on the supposition that they would. If there was such a thing as a soul, how would it behave? Your contention appears to be that such a thing would not have the ability to manipulate matter in such a way that it would be able to control the actions of the material host. My contention is that we can't really say what sort of properties this hypothetical soul would have, so it is not unreasonable for someone who actually believes in them -- an irrational belief -- to make whatever claims they wish about them -- also irrational. It's sort of the "fruit of the poisonous tree" argument stood on its ear.

Just as one example, how could we say that a soul is physically "associated" with a material being? If souls do not have the ability to interact with matter, how, then, is a soul "tied" to its material host? It seems to me that questions like this lead us toward the idea that this hypothetical soul would be able to interact with matter, and not away from it.

Where we disagree is how you seem to want to ascribe some sort of definite material action to them.

Are you saying that souls have no effect whatsoever on the material world ? That my soul is not making me type these words ?

What you or I actually believe should be irrelevant to this topic. First, we must assume the existence of the soul. Doing that for two materialists is enough of an intellectual exercise. Next, describe how this soul would interact with the material world, if at all. This is a virtually impossible task given the amount of unknown information. First you would have to define what a soul was, and the problems begin there.

If this is a concept that people who believe in souls wish to believe in, we can't stop them with a logical proof, because the very concept defies logic.

I agree, but, from where I stand, it seems that the concept is self-contradictory, and therefore cannot be true. It's like a square circle, it just makes no sense.

I don't see where you've proven that.

[Curious]

Why would we see spiritual experiences in any different light to every other emotion? Emotions are created by particular thought patterns, I personally think that spirituality arises from similar consilience. I watched a TV program recently where several 'regular Joes' were taken to spend a couple of weeks in the care of a Monastery. One fellow who was producing movies for the porn industry had 'one of those moments' right infront of the camera, late one evening in a candlelit Chapel. I can't see this as a spirit making its way through the Holy building, past the camera team and into the subjects forehead. Rather, reflecting on his life and in the tranquility of the surroundings it would seem as if he had found higher ground to look down upon himself.

I understand your point and there is obviously a great deal of self delusion in many cases. You might well feel particularly strongly if you were to witness a car accident and this emotional response would be purely subjective but the car accident itself would still be real. Just because there is an emotional response does not mean there is nothing "real" that stimulates this response. In any case, all spiritual experience is not restricted to a particular feeling but can seem every bit as tangible as the computer before you now. We have many senses, if we close our eyes for example we might notice sounds or smells we previously ignored. It is unlikely we would have developed eyes if there was no light, or ears if there was no sound. I find it inconceivable that we should have developed this spiritual sense if there was no spirit.

[QED]

We have many senses, if we close our eyes for example we might notice sounds or smells we previously ignored. It is unlikely we would have developed eyes if there was no light, or ears if there was no sound. I find it inconceivable that we should have developed this spiritual sense if there was no spirit.

That's a nice way to put it, but the spiritual sense that you speak of has to be a tangible in this case. If it is a tangible then how come we have no physics to account for it? Where are the spiritual organs? In answering this it's essential to bear in mind that our brains physically alter as we learn and construct specific patterns of thought. The brain is a busy construction site that is continually being physically re-arranged in step with our mental re-arrangements.

I was just thinking -- as a (mediocre) scientist there have been precious few moments when a true insight has been gained, but this sort of epiphany is almost certainly the feeling experienced by people from all walks of life as each goes about contemplating their own 'theories'. Recall that much of the processing goes on in the subconscious which accounts for the often unexpected emergence of those "Eureka" moments. Dare I suggest that the 'rush' that is enjoyed acts as an evolutionary spur for us all? I fully understand that this applies to scientific as well as religious epiphanies.

[harvey1]

That's a nice way to put it, but the spiritual sense that you speak of has to be a tangible in this case. If it is a tangible then how come we have no physics to account for it? Where are the spiritual organs? In answering this it's essential to bear in mind that our brains physically alter as we learn and construct specific patterns of thought. The brain is a busy construction site that is continually being physically re-arranged in step with our mental re-arrangements.

I, for one, would like to see how Curious responds to this issue. This issue has much to do with this thread which I started here. Once you go down the path that material causation is valid, now you have the problem of how spirit causation (or God causation) can affect the physical without there being spiritual organs in us, and physical organs for God.

Notice, I don't have any difficulty answering this question. In my view, there are no need of spiritual organs since our physical organs are restricted by how reality is, and the way reality is happens to be structured by God's mind. Since we can perceive the bread droppings of a mind, we can perceive God's presence in the natural world. These bread droppings are not scientifically analyzable since they require subjective interpretation and are not repeatable in a manner like the lower laws of physics are repeated throughout the cosmos. Although, there are bread droppings in physics (e.g., the special coincidences in physical constant values) which we should accept as indications of God's presense, but those who elect not to see are forever unconvinced. This is not a failing of the bread droppings, but rather, I think God's permissive nature which allows us to interpret nature freely without requireing an element of spiritual mindedness.