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 ?

[QED]

I think this is an excellent topic for debate. I feel a bit uncomfortable using the term soul to mean all that is immaterial, however I can think of the Jaguar car brand as having a soul, as well as other 'things like Cities, Islay malt whiskies and yes... people. So here, I think, is a property we can attach to material things in our minds. The soul of these things can act in a material way through our senses and cognition... however they cannot operate on anything other than consciousness. That is, they are mental constructs in the minds of observers. This accounts for the fact that no instruments can directly determine their presence 'in the wild'.

Harvey is probably fed up hearing me talk of mind supervening on matter, software on hardware; but this is the way of the world. And it makes sense. All the immaterial things I mentioned above are quite capable of being recognized and can readily influence the world of the material: the soul of the Jaguar motor car can cause people to spend money in car showrooms, and the lure of a City can attract visitors. But there is no way for a City to lure the spirit of a motor car. Period. Matter (in the form of our minds) has to intervene. So soul, spirit or whatever are identities formed in consciousness and are confined within the neural networks of brains in the same way that software is encoded onto hard disc drives and computer memory.

[Bugmaster]

I feel a bit uncomfortable using the term soul to mean all that is immaterial, however I can think of the Jaguar car brand as having a soul, as well as other 'things like Cities, Islay malt whiskies and yes... people. So here, I think, is a property we can attach to material things in our minds.

Wait, wait, let's be clear about this.

When I refer to souls (or minds, if you prefer), in the context of this debate, I mean an actual entity. This entity is immaterial, but does indeed exist.

A materialist could use the word "soul" as a metaphor: when he says, "this car has a storng soul", he means, "when people see this car, the electrochemical processes in their brains alter in such a way that causes them to experience subjective feelings of beauty and power". However, this is not what I mean when I say "soul" -- instead, I mean a bona fide, non-physical entity, that has an existence independent of the observer. Whether a car can have such a soul is debatable, but not really important for the purposes of this discussion.

[ST88]

I, for one, do not believe in an entity called a "soul". But I think the objection about physical control is not really valid. As humans, we are a mind trapped in a particular body, and we have been able to determine that the body has very little bearing on what goes on in the mind (barring the senses). As such, it is merely a machine for carrying us around, especially with regards to the autonomic systems. Assuming the existence of a soul, it would also be possible to assume a type of metaphysical control that the soul has on the mind, which, in turn, can then affect how the body works. In my opinion, no physical evidence is required to claim this.

There is also an alternate hypothesis that states the soul is merely a piggy-back rider on our being, possibly whispering into our subconscious ears from time to time but really having no actual control over our actions.

[QED]

A materialist could use the word "soul" as a metaphor: when he says, "this car has a storng soul", he means, "when people see this car, the electrochemical processes in their brains alter in such a way that causes them to experience subjective feelings of beauty and power". However, this is not what I mean when I say "soul" -- instead, I mean a bona fide, non-physical entity, that has an existence independent of the observer. Whether a car can have such a soul is debatable, but not really important for the purposes of this discussion.

I think it's highly important for this discussion. This sort of soul is undeniable and has all the hallmarks of the type of soul you say it is not. That, together with the fact that no physical determination is possible for any other type of soul leads to only one reasonable conclusion in my mind. It is easy to understand how the two might be conflated in earlier philosophies, but we well understand now that all observable phenomena rides on material subsystems. When we analyse biological systems we can generally account for function. How would we miss some biological structure with the properties of soul afforded by pop culture? Particularly when it's mode of operation is beyond all current sicentific probing. It's like someone proposing that each of us has something more sophisticated than RADAR but with no obvious biological components to implement it. I think such a person could reasonably be labelled a crank.

[bernee51]

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.

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

A very interesting topic M. Bugmaster.

This dualism exists I believe because we are inculcated with a subject/object environment. Actually it is subject/act of observation/object environment. We are aware of our physical body. It is basically a biomechanical object. We are also aware of our thoughts, intellect, emotions, memories, hopes, dreams, aspirations, suffering, loves, joys, hates, sorrows, regrets, creativity, spite, knowledge, learning, understanding, empathy, sympathy, pity, greed, lust, desire, initiative, and instinct.

These are not part of the biochemical unit. Some people might call this 'soul'.

As I have noted, these, like the body, are something in our awareness. They, like the body, are an object.

Who is observing?

The reason for the dualism? The answer to the question, while disarmingly simple, is difficult to 'realize'. The dualism exists in order for us to make sense of the phenomenal world.

[Bugmaster]

But I think the objection about physical control is not really valid. As humans, we are a mind trapped in a particular body, and we have been able to determine that the body has very little bearing on what goes on in the mind (barring the senses).

This is not true. In the extreme cases, brain damage can radically alter or even destroy your mental functions. In the less extreme cases, drugs can alter your thoughts in various ways; we can even use drugs to treat certain diseases which, until recently, were ascribed to dualistic causes -- schizophrenia (a.k.a. demon possession), depression, ADD, etc.

The reason we are able to develop so many drugs (both recreational and medicinal) is that we know a lot about brain chemistry. It appears that the brain (which is part of our body) is deeply involved in the functioning of the mind. Now, this does not completely invalidate dualism, of course, but it does make it a lot more suspect.

Assuming the existence of a soul, it would also be possible to assume a type of metaphysical control that the soul has on the mind, which, in turn, can then affect how the body works. In my opinion, no physical evidence is required to claim this.

All right, but you still haven't answered the question. How does this "metaphysical control" work ? How can a completely non-physical entity, such as the mind (or the soul, if you prefer) control a physical body ? This is not a scientific question, but a philosophical one; you don't need to provide detailed formulas, but you do need to provide some sort of a logical proof. How can an immaterial entity interact with the material world in any way ? To me, this sounds like a contradiction, so it's up to you to resolve it.

[Bugmaster]

A materialist could use the word "soul" as a metaphor: when he says, "this car has a storng soul", he means, "when people see this car, the electrochemical processes in their brains alter in such a way that causes them to experience subjective feelings of beauty and power". However, this is not what I mean when I say "soul" -- instead, I mean a bona fide, non-physical entity, that has an existence independent of the observer...

I think it's highly important for this discussion. This sort of soul is undeniable and has all the hallmarks of the type of soul you say it is not.

Sorry... which kind of soul do you mean ? Do you mean, "certain objects, such as cars, seem to affect people in a strong way", or do you mean, "there exists a bona fide, non-physical entity, that has an existence independent of the observer" ? See below for my explanation of the metaphoric "soul".

That, together with the fact that no physical determination is possible for any other type of soul leads to only one reasonable conclusion...

I don't understand what you mean by "physical determination" :-(

How would we miss some biological structure with the properties of soul afforded by pop culture? Particularly when it's mode of operation is beyond all current sicentific probing. It's like someone proposing that each of us has something more sophisticated than RADAR but with no obvious biological components to implement it. I think such a person could reasonably be labelled a crank.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. It seems to me that you're saying something similar to the following (warning: all of the below might be a big strawman, since I'm not entirely certain what you're saying):

1). Certain cultural icons, such as car brands, affect people strongly; most people are affected in the same way by the same icon.
2). The reasons for this are either materialistic, or dualistic.
3). There's no scientific explanation for this phenomenon
4). Therefore, the dualistic explanation is true.

There are several things wrong with this argument. First of all, points #2 and #3 set up a false dillemma: a). there could be other explanations for this phenomenon; and b). even if we don't have a scientific explanation now, doesn't make the dualistic explanation is automatically true.

Secondly, I believe that there's a simple materialistic explanation for why people are affected by pop culture icons. We humans are pretty similar to each other, genetically as well as culturally. We are similar because we all share the same physical world, as well as nearly identical sets of genes. Thus, our brains (which develop according to our genes and external stimuli) are pre-disposed to thinking in certain ways. Humans who live in America are even more similar, since they share a common culture: we share language, foods, entertainment, etc. Thus, it would make sense that we'd react to certain stimuli in nearly identical ways.

Car manufacturers know this, and thus they design cars that would appeal to the largest number of people possible, because appealing cars sell better.

Note that, in some cases, our similarities break down, due to the difference in culture. For example, many European TV commercials which appeal strongly to Europeans cause nothing but disgust and loathing in many Americans ("oh my God ! That woman has no clothes on !!!"). Similarly, a great majority of our pop culture icons evoke rage in many Muslims (causing them to call for a jihad). I don't think your notion of a soul can account for this.

[ST88]

But I think the objection about physical control is not really valid. As humans, we are a mind trapped in a particular body, and we have been able to determine that the body has very little bearing on what goes on in the mind (barring the senses).

This is not true. In the extreme cases, brain damage can radically alter or even destroy your mental functions. In the less extreme cases, drugs can alter your thoughts in various ways; we can even use drugs to treat certain diseases which, until recently, were ascribed to dualistic causes -- schizophrenia (a.k.a. demon possession), depression, ADD, etc.

You're correct about this. I was speaking in the abstract. But, of course, since the physical nature of the brain affects the mind, this is a good point. However, the body/mind paradigm stops with the brain. If we were to state that a soul controls the mind, and we already know that mind=brain, then the soul would then have to deal with that particular damaged brain, wouldn't it?

Assuming the existence of a soul, it would also be possible to assume a type of metaphysical control that the soul has on the mind, which, in turn, can then affect how the body works. In my opinion, no physical evidence is required to claim this.

All right, but you still haven't answered the question. How does this "metaphysical control" work ? How can a completely non-physical entity, such as the mind (or the soul, if you prefer) control a physical body ? This is not a scientific question, but a philosophical one; you don't need to provide detailed formulas, but you do need to provide some sort of a logical proof. How can an immaterial entity interact with the material world in any way ? To me, this sounds like a contradiction, so it's up to you to resolve it.

I have already resolved it. Since I do not believe in a soul, I would have to concede that believing in a soul means accepting that there is a metaphysical realm about which we know nothing. Logically, if there is a realm about which we know nothing that controls the realm we think we understand, it would follow that there would be forces at work we could never understand. I.e., if the soul controls the mind, then there must be a mechanism by which this happens. Because this must be a metaphysical mechanism, there would be no possible way to describe it.

[Bugmaster]

If we were to state that a soul controls the mind, and we already know that mind=brain, then the soul would then have to deal with that particular damaged brain, wouldn't it?

How does the soul control the brain ? Why does it need to control the brain, why can't it control my other organs (arms, legs, etc.) directly ? Read on to see where I'm going with this...

Since I do not believe in a soul, I would have to concede that believing in a soul means accepting that there is a metaphysical realm about which we know nothing. Logically, if there is a realm about which we know nothing that controls the realm we think we understand, it would follow that there would be forces at work we could never understand. I.e., if the soul controls the mind, then there must be a mechanism by which this happens. Because this must be a metaphysical mechanism, there would be no possible way to describe it.

I think you're begging the question. Here's what we have so far, in shorthand:

B1: Let's assume there are two separate types of entities: physical and non-physical.
B2: The non-physical entities, known as "souls", interact with our brains, which are physical.
B3: These "souls" cannot be detected by any physical means, since they do not contain any physical components at all.
B4: Points B2 and B3 are in contradiction, since it looks as though souls both can and cannot affect physical entities.
B5: Therefore, souls cannot exist.
---
S1: There's a mechanism that allows souls and brains to interact, but it's impossible to describe it.

First of all, your reply is self-contradictory, because it describes a mechanism which is allegedly impossible to describe. Second of all, your reply does not resolve the original contradiction in any way. How can non-physical souls affect physical entities ? And if they can somehow affect physical entities, why doesn't this render them susceptible to detection ?

Secondly, a mechanism which is "impossible to describe" is no mechanism at all. "F=ma" is a mechanism; "things happen" is not. An impossible-to-describe mechanism has no explanatory power.