# In Defence of Dualism **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 24, 2019, 12:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-defence-of-dualism/832962 "2019-04-24T00:18:39Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2019, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-defence-of-dualism/832962/41 "2019-04-24T21:21:36Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > I am trying to show differences between Dualism and non-dualist thought so as to discover whether a rational comparison might favor one over the other. If there is some sort of inconsistency in a non-dualist theory that would certainly help my defense, but that is not the express purpose of my line of inquiry. > > Perhaps I should stop calling it Dualism and start calling it Moral Dualism, because I am of the opinion that Dualism itself is nonfalsifiable. My defense is not that Dualism is true, but that the leap of faith is justified if morals based on Dualism are “better” than non-dualist moral systems. > > I don’t do this because I want to push my views on others. I defend Dualism as a devil’s advocate and take up the debate so as to convince myself. > > ~Max Of course dualism is falsifiable - beer falsifies it. And how are dualist moral systems better than non-dualist moral systems? ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2019, 9:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-defence-of-dualism/832962/42 "2019-04-24T21:22:50Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > (Note: I’m not **MrDibble** and can’t speak for him. I’m also not his clone, as far as I know.) > > From the point of view of the ‘new you’, the new you is the same you as the old you. And, conveniently, there’s not any other spare versions of you left lying around to contest your claim. (Which is not always the case in these thought experiments.) > > If you agree to the process, and everything turns out as you wished, and everyone involved is a materialist, then why would there be a problem? > > From any reasonable point of view the new you _is_ the old you, and in transporter hypotheticals there’s typically no pain involved in the process for anyone to worry about, forgotten or not. Unless this transporter disassembles your molecules with a hacksaw or something? That is exactly the next step in this inquiry. What if the machine malfunctioned and the original “you” survived being zapped, reports extreme pain, and appears on all the evening holo-news decrying teleportation booths as immoral murder machines? We need not limit ourselves to sci-fi. There is a real question as to whether guillotines or injected death are as humane as they were advertised. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2019, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-defence-of-dualism/832962/43 "2019-04-24T21:30:14Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > That is exactly the next step in this inquiry. What if the machine malfunctioned and the original “you” survived being zapped, reports extreme pain, and appears on all the evening holo-news decrying teleportation booths as immoral murder machines? I imagine there would be a drop in teleporter stock in that case. As for morality, if the person operating/managing the teleporter honestly didn’t expect that to happen, then they’re not really culpable (unless they stood there pointing and laughing as they watched, or something). Afterwards morality would require that they make it clear to potential users that there are risks involved, and let them make their own decision as to whether to use the service. If the client is aware and willing to take the risk, then all good. On other words, it’s the same moral quandary airlines face. > [@Max\_S](#): > > We need not limit ourselves to sci-fi. There is a real question as to whether guillotines or injected death are as humane as they were advertised. Would souls help or hurt these scenarios, in your opinion? ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2019, 9:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-defence-of-dualism/832962/44 "2019-04-24T21:38:47Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > Of course dualism is falsifiable - beer falsifies it. I must be falling behind in the thread… I think some posts are being marked as read before I read them. I’ll address this shortly. > [@begbert2](#): > > And how are dualist moral systems better than non-dualist moral systems? This is the point of the thread. I have thus far been presented with a form of physicalism where there are degrees of self and I am told qualia or experience does not exist. Having “degrees of self” makes it much harder, possibly impossible to evaluate the morality of events where the injured party physically cannot complain. This does not sit well with me - it is dangerously close to a system of morals where the ends justify the means and morality is assigned after the fact, and is therefore almost useless in-the-moment. The truth of physicalism I need not decide, but it certainly runs against my intuitions. I will be heading to a library to read Dennett and find out why. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2019, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-defence-of-dualism/832962/45 "2019-04-24T21:43:33Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > I am told qualia or experience does not exist. Qualia =/= experience. > [@](#): > > Having “degrees of self” makes it much harder, possibly impossible to evaluate the morality of events where the injured party physically cannot complain. I don’t see how having degrees of selfhood negates the sentience of injured entities. ---
**Author:** ![CurtC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ce73a5/32.png) [@CurtC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CurtC)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2019, 9:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-defence-of-dualism/832962/46 "2019-04-24T21:46:45Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > With physicalism on the other hand, you seem to be saying that “self” is always a nebulous term and there are always degrees of “self-ness”. This goes against intuition, for me at least, and makes it difficult to decide whether an organ transplant is moral. A physicalist facing the decision might ask, “does this transplant change who I am? Is that change a moral change?” Yes, the physicalist says that there are degrees of self-ness. It goes against the assumptions of our language, and in some ways against some of our intuitions, but those are limitations of our language and intuitions, not of physicalism. > [@Max\_S](#): > > I am trying to show differences between Dualism and non-dualist thought so as to discover whether a rational comparison might favor one over the other. You have mentioned several aspects that you consider to be problems for physicalism somehow, but so far you haven’t convinced anyone here that anything you’ve mentioned is actually a problem. IMO, you seem to be dragging some of the dualist ideas (a “soul”) into a physicalist world and that is causing you confusion, but you just need to leave the dualist ideas behind completely and then there are no inconsistencies. Yet there are inconsistencies with a dualist approach in the very examples you cited. > [@](#): > > My defense is not that Dualism is true, but that the leap of faith is justified if morals based on Dualism are “better” than non-dualist moral systems. So you may pretend to accept that something is true because it leads to you to better behavior? I don’t know how that works. I want to accept things that are _true_ and then just choose to behave morally without it being propped up on falsehoods. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2019, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-defence-of-dualism/832962/47 "2019-04-24T21:47:23Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > This is the point of the thread. I have thus far been presented with a form of physicalism where there are degrees of self and I am told qualia or experience does not exist. Having “degrees of self” makes it much harder, possibly impossible to evaluate the morality of events where the injured party physically cannot complain. This does not sit well with me - it is dangerously close to a system of morals where the ends justify the means and morality is assigned after the fact, and is therefore almost useless in-the-moment. I don’t really know about degrees of self, and don’t really think that removing a person’s ability to complain makes things more moral. I’m just confused what you think souls _add_. Presume, for a moment, that everything you imagine a soul does is instead done by the human brain, with the following exceptions: 1. brain-minds don’t survive the loss of the body. 2. brain-minds don’t exit the body. 3. brain-minds are effected by things done to the body. If, other than those things, brain-minds are functionally equivalent to soul-minds, what moral changes are introduced by introducing souls? ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2019, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-defence-of-dualism/832962/48 "2019-04-24T21:50:19Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > I imagine there would be a drop in teleporter stock in that case. > > As for morality, if the person operating/managing the teleporter honestly didn’t expect that to happen, then they’re not really culpable (unless they stood there pointing and laughing as they watched, or something). Afterwards morality would require that they make it clear to potential users that there are risks involved, and let them make their own decision as to whether to use the service. If the client is aware and willing to take the risk, then all good. > > On other words, it’s the same moral quandary airlines face. > > Would souls help or hurt these scenarios, in your opinion? Well, with my form of Dualism the new “you” is actually a zombie so it makes less sense to step into the booth to begin with. Maybe as a form of suicide but not as an option to “teleport” your “self”. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2019, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-defence-of-dualism/832962/49 "2019-04-24T21:59:09Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > Well, with my form of Dualism the new “you” is actually a zombie so it makes less sense to step into the booth to begin with. Maybe as a form of suicide but not as an option to “teleport” your “self”. > > ~Max Right - which casts **serious** doubts on the morality of any moral system that relies on whether people are arbitrarily declared to have one of these fictional ‘soul’ things. The dude who walks out of the the other end of the transporter is in literally every observable way the same person who walked in. His thoughts, beliefs, actions, ability to feel and react to pain - all the same. All that has happened is that he, like all accountants, has now been arbitrarily designated as a “p-zombie” and marked for torture and murder by the dualist set. He is no longer human, in their arbitrary eyes, so evil can be done to him, despite the fact that he’s obviously aware and able to feel pain. This don’t feel right to me, for what I hope are obvious reasons. Now, if souls were actually _real_, then there wouldn’t be any of this made-up p-zombie bullshit, and if the real souls also didn’t carry through when somebody was teleported, then you wouldn’t end up with zombies, you’re end up with corpses. Which would have the effect of _really_ tanking the stock prices. ---
**Author:** ![CurtC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ce73a5/32.png) [@CurtC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CurtC)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2019, 10:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-defence-of-dualism/832962/50 "2019-04-24T22:06:11Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > Well, with my form of Dualism the new “you” is actually a zombie so it makes less sense to step into the booth to begin with. Oooohh, you hadn’t explained your view earlier. I assumed that the new person created was every bit a person as the old one, therefore the machine has created a new “soul.” But you’re saying that this new instance of me is a zombie, that it has no self-awareness, even though it tells you that it does and acts in every way just like the old “me.” And therefore you feel this lack of “soul” means that we don’t need to consider its feelings in deciding morality. Man, that’s fucked up. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2019, 10:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-defence-of-dualism/832962/51 "2019-04-24T22:15:03Z")
I will note that all this really depends on what souls _do_ - which as far as I can see has not been made clear. If souls control (or even influence) the behavior of the human they’re attached to, then p-zombies are impossible. Losing the soul would cause an obvious change in behavior, or death. If souls merely follow fully autonomous material humans around without contributing to their minds and behavior, then souls are superfluous and irrelevent, and p-zombies are…_still_ impossible, because I don’t think it even makes a shred of sense to say that a person without self-awareness could plausibly act like people do, and that’s the actual definition of a p-zombie. ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2019, 10:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-defence-of-dualism/832962/52 "2019-04-24T22:29:00Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > I don’t really know about degrees of self, and don’t really think that removing a person’s ability to complain makes things more moral. I’m just confused what you think souls _add_. > > Presume, for a moment, that everything you imagine a soul does is instead done by the human brain, with the following exceptions: > > 1. brain-minds don’t survive the loss of the body. > 2. brain-minds don’t exit the body. > 3. brain-minds are effected by things done to the body. > > If, other than those things, brain-minds are functionally equivalent to soul-minds, what moral changes are introduced by introducing souls? Souls don’t “do” anything to the physical world so there would be no difference. Your usage of “brain-mind” is synonymous with my usage of “brain”. You are asking the wrong question. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2019, 10:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-defence-of-dualism/832962/53 "2019-04-24T22:32:03Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > Souls don’t “do” anything to the physical world so there would be no difference. Your usage of “brain-mind” is synonymous with my usage of “brain”. You are asking the wrong question. > > ~Max Is the right question “Why should we give even the slightest crap about these ‘soul’ things if they don’t do anything?” ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2019, 10:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-defence-of-dualism/832962/54 "2019-04-24T22:54:44Z")
I suppose it bears asking explicitly: If I were to say to you, “I prefer not to be tortured, thanks,” would that be my brain saying that, or my soul saying that? ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2019, 11:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-defence-of-dualism/832962/55 "2019-04-24T23:16:01Z")
That is… a good point. It doesn’t sit well with me, either. I will have to adjust the form of Dualism I am defending to as to disallow p-zombies. This means, yes, physical events can cause new souls to come into existence in the spiritual realm. The receiving machine creates a new soul in the spiritual realm. Conveniently this works for birth, too. As such I also adjust the dualist’s approach to the teleporter problem. His response is more similar to MrDibble’s in [POST=21607494]post #22[/POST]. It is no more or less moral than other forms of suicide, excepting the positive implications of creating a new, identical person at the other end of the teleporter. To an external observer you may as well have teleported, although at an individual level you must give informed consent. If the information required to make informed consent is not available (nobody knew the machine could malfunction), just like other natural events, there is nobody to blame for the resulting harm. If someone withheld information that is a misrepresentation on their part. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2019, 11:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-defence-of-dualism/832962/56 "2019-04-24T23:28:05Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > That is… a good point. It doesn’t sit well with me, either. > > I will have to adjust the form of Dualism I am defending to as to disallow p-zombies. This means, yes, physical events can cause new souls to come into existence in the spiritual realm. The receiving machine creates a new soul in the spiritual realm. Conveniently this works for birth, too. > > As such I also adjust the dualist’s approach to the teleporter problem. His response is more similar to MrDibble’s in [POST=21607494]post #22[/POST]. It is no more or less moral than other forms of suicide, excepting the positive implications of creating a new, identical person at the other end of the teleporter. To an external observer you may as well have teleported, although at an individual level you must give informed consent. If the information required to make informed consent is not available (nobody knew the machine could malfunction), just like other natural events, there is nobody to blame for the resulting harm. If someone withheld information that is a misrepresentation on their part. > > ~Max So souls are a side effect of brain activity…are they still eternal? Because if they are, then the transporter would result in _two_ souls, one of which is presumably annoyed to find itself floating in the void rather than arriving at its destination. The moral implications of this are…weird. ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2019, 11:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-defence-of-dualism/832962/57 "2019-04-24T23:50:38Z")
Suppose I had the ability to analyze and modify people’s brains from a distance, without them or anyone else noticing. Am I entitled, by virtue of these superpowers, to sit in a park and analyze and possibly modify the brains of any passerby as if I were some sort of moral police? Why so, or I hope, why not? Joe would still, to a degree, be the same person after I messed with his brain. But he would not be able to raise a defense because the parts of Joe that were “wronged” are unable to complain. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2019, 12:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-defence-of-dualism/832962/58 "2019-04-25T00:05:25Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > Is the right question “Why should we give even the slightest crap about these ‘soul’ things if they don’t do anything?” If it turns out Dualism is functionally equivalent to physicalism, Dualism falls to the argument from simplicity. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2019, 12:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-defence-of-dualism/832962/59 "2019-04-25T00:11:16Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > Sure, without the exceptions, I don’t see property rights ever trumping human rights, myself… > > Depends on the organ. Generally yes, a bit, I imagine. But then so does every other life experience, so it’s not particularly special. > So you admit your reasoning is just ad hoc reactionary response at this point? How the heck is that honest debate? > > If you don’t actually know the Devil’s arguments, don’t be his advocate. > Dennett has quite a bit to say about intuition… > > I wouldn’t care about the former identity of my new kidney if it was properly sourced. It’s an identity change, but not a moral challenge. > > And if I \*willingly \*accept even a \*radical \*identity-altering transplant (say, a partial brain transplant) there’s no moral quandary to me. > > Please explain how they’re extensions, I don’t really see the chain… I keep on arguing because I’m not convinced. There’s a limit to how many ad hoc changes I will make before admitting I’m licked. I like the debate and I want to be convinced one way or the other. I will be reading Dennett’s book at the next opportunity. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2019, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-defence-of-dualism/832962/60 "2019-04-25T16:27:57Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > If it turns out Dualism is functionally equivalent to physicalism, Dualism falls to the argument from simplicity. > > ~Max So let’s establish where we are, then. I myself am not sure, because I’m not really the one holding the image-of-dualism-under-discussion in my head; I’m the one taking potshots at it. And it does seem to be a moving target. 🙂 So the theory is that there’s a supernatural plane. Fair enough. The theory is that there are these ‘soul’ things that exist on the supernatural plane. Fair enough. ‘Souls’ have six eyes, seven horns, and breathe fire. No wait, that’s something else. Souls…wait, what do they do again? My brain is telling me that there are at least a couple ideas under discussion: 1. They are the mind behind the brain, providing consciousness and thought to humans. Without souls humans stand around and drool, or die. There are therefore a massive number of constantly operating magical interventions in brain matter to make the ‘puppet strings’ work, which science hasn’t noticed because scientists are doody-heads. (There are also serious concerns regarding things like booze, which we can get into if this is actually the model.) 2. Souls are do not have a causal connection to the brain, and thus are completely irrelevant to consciousness and behavior as observed in everyday life, and as it is experienced by humans. They’re mostly like ectoplasmic barnacles that adhere to humans and ride around on them, providing the humans no benefit.\* - There’s a _big_ caveat here, because barnacle-souls could in theory provide one benefit - they could operate as an offsite backup, which after the person dies is used to ‘reboot’ the mind in a different environment. (Probably hell.) Of course with the level of discussion we’re having in _this_ thread we’re obligated to note that this doesn’t actually help the human at all - it just creates a new spirit human later that _thinks_ it’s the original resurrected. The original human, the physical one, is still very dead. I’m honestly not sure which version of ‘soul’ we’re discussing at this point. For either of the above soul-versions it’s worth wondering when and how they come to exist. Two obvious approaches are that every soul predates its human, and merely attaches to it at birth and separates from it upon death. If this is the case then a particularly spry soul could notice when its deconstructed body had gone through a transporter and reattach to the new copy body on the other end. This works less well if the transporter fails to disintegrate the original first or produces multiple output copies simultaneously. The other obvious approach regarding souls is that they’re dynamically produced as a side effect of brain activity. This would handily solve transporter issues, though the soul at the source of the transporter would not end up attached to the copies and would presumably die. Or if such souls are eternal you could end up with one person spawning lots of copies of his soul at different stages of life each time he transports (killing himself in the process). And on a completely different subject, I’m really not sure how any of these souls are supposed to impact morality. Every way I can think of the souls would either have no effect on morality (as compared to materialist moral models), or possibly would even allow more loopholes to be punched in it, because if people live on after death why is murder immoral? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-defence-of-dualism/832962.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-defence-of-dualism/832962.md?page=4)