In Defence of Dualism

[eschereal]

@Max_S

The brain doesn’t feel pain, it reacts to painful stimuli.

That is a distinction without a difference. It is like saying “This computer does not generate sums, it just adds numbers”.

[Max_S]

@Czarcasm

Are you proposing that there is a “soul gene”?

I don’t want to incorporate any specific non-physical process into my form of Dualism unless necessary for its defense. The more arbitrarily complex it is, the harder it is to defend.

~Max

[Czarcasm]

@Max_S

I don’t want to incorporate any specific non-physical process into my form of Dualism unless necessary for its defense. The more arbitrarily complex it is, the harder it is to defend.

~Max

You don’t provide details, because then you would have to defend them. Got it.

[Max_S]

@begbert2

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.

Self-awareness in the physical sense means something different than self-awareness in the dualistic sense. The physical self-awareness still exists in my form of dualism, but it is not a basis for moral rights. Sentience is.

After all, a network modem is rudimentally self-aware. Does this entitle the local area network to moral rights? I mean there are some philosophies who say so, but I assume you factor other things into assigning moral rights.

~Max

[Czarcasm]

@Max_S

After all, a network modem is rudimentally self-aware.

No, it isn’t.

[Max_S]

@Czarcasm

You don’t provide details, because then you would have to defend them. Got it.

Well, I’m not providing details because I don’t see a need to. Any non-physical process in my form of Dualism is nonfalsifiable. If you want to we can go into details, but all I see that accomplishing is aligning my form of Dualism on the abortion debate.

~Max

[Max_S]

@Czarcasm

No, it isn’t.

Maybe not the hardware, but the software is. I see a parallel between tagging network packets and recognizing your own speech. I also see a parallel between integrity checks and biologic self versus non-self.

~Max

[Czarcasm]

@Max_S

Maybe not the hardware, but the software is.

The software isn’t self-aware either. Would you consider looking up the definition of “self-aware” before going any further down this road?

[Max_S]

@begbert2

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.

Souls aren’t necessarily eternal. If you think it is important we can discuss the moral implications of disconnected souls. I think it would be enough to say the soul feels pain even when the body dies a painful death, even if the body is dead before we can observe a pain reflex.

~Max

[Czarcasm]

@Max_S

. I see a parallel between tagging network packets and recognizing your own speech. I also see a parallel between integrity checks and biologic self versus non-self.

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.” “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.” “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that’s all.”

[begbert2]

@Max_S

If you were to physically say anything, that sense of “you” is the physical brain. But this is merely a reflex.

Let me be clear about this, in dualism the soul is sentient, not the body. The brain doesn’t feel pain, it reacts to painful stimuli. Not my brain, not your brain, not an ant brain. Pain is not itself immoral, but sending that pain up to a soul is.

You are saying that you’ve never seen a sentient thing. You are saying that you’re not sentient. You are saying that sentience doesn’t exist.

I disagree, because I am sentient. This has already been covered. (You should probably read all the posts before replying to any of them to avoid saying things that have already been answered.)

@Max_S

Damaging an object is not itself immoral, but damaging an object that another soul has rights over is.

WHY? Souls in your model are stupid worthless things that do nothing, never impact us, and have no relevance on reality. They’re basically soap scum that accumulates on the backsides of humans. According to you they’re not even sentient - sentience is what humans have, and these things don’t have that. They’re just blobs of worthless nothing. What possible claim could globs of parasitic protoplasm have on morality?

[begbert2]

@Max_S

Souls aren’t necessarily eternal. If you think it is important we can discuss the moral implications of disconnected souls. I think it would be enough to say the soul feels pain even when the body dies a painful death, even if the body is dead before we can observe a pain reflex.

~Max

I don’t care if souls feel pain. I don’t care if flies feel pain; I don’t care if fish feel pain; I don’t even care if mice feel pain. Why should I care if alien parasites feel pain?

[Max_S]

@begbert2

And it does seem to be a moving target.

Sometimes I want to be on the other side so badly. But who else would defend Dualism? I would have to continue on in ignorance. Any good theory will adapt to a valid criticism, or die.

@begbert2

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.)

Well… they are the consciousness behind the meat-sack. The meat-sack, or brain+body, acts on its own, without consciousness, in response to stimuli. If the body acts as if it has a soul, then it is safe to assume it really has a soul. If it acts like a zombie, say a persistant vegetable state, in that case we can say the soul is disconnected and this is the only p-zombie still compatible with my form of Dualism.

@begbert2

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.

This description is more accurate, except that the meat-sack don’t have consciousness, the soul does. The meat sack doesn’t feel or experience in the philosophical sense, the soul does. This is why the soul is the basis of morality.

It is also important to say that in Dualism, “self” is not the meat-sack. “Self” is the soul. Your continuity of thought is not that of the brain, it is of the soul. The soul doesn’t “store” memories, it looks at the brain and retroactively pieces things together.

~Max

[Czarcasm]

@Max_S

Your continuity of thought is not that of the brain, it is of the soul. The soul doesn’t “store” memories, it looks at the brain and retroactively pieces things together.

(italics mine) Please define “retroactively”, because the way you are using it suggests that your proposed “soul” time travels.

[begbert2]

Let’s be clear here - the traditional way that dualism supposedly drives moral behavior and improved outcomes.

1. There is a god. It is the ultimate arbiter of morality; morality is basically defined as “whatever the god autocratically demands”.

2. People don’t actually die - they live forever. Physical death doesn’t kill them; it just sheds their unnecessary physical bits and leaves their persisting physical bits. Humans are the soul; when you interact with a human, you’re really interacting with the eternal soul inside.

3. The god will punish the undying people for anything they did that the god considers “immoral”.

4. Based on the above, people do “moral” things because they wish to keep the god happy either because they love the god and don’t want to displease the one they love, or because they fear the god and don’t want to displease the one they fear (and get punished for it).
   That’s the source of dualist “morality”. (Note that “morality” is in quotes, because I personally don’t consider this to be morality at all - what it is is obedience, which is different from morality.)
   Now let’s look at your model. First thing to notice is that your model lacks a god, and thus you’ve just lost everything that gave dualism is supposed claim to supposed morality. Not a good start. Second thing to notice is that people no longer have eternal souls - they are simply adjacent to things called “souls”, which may or may not be eternal. So humans don’t live past death or experience life past death. So even if there was a god, there’d be no threat of punishment - the only reason to follow god would be because you love him. And you don’t need a soul to do that.

Your dualist model strips away everything that even pretended to impart morality to the system.

[begbert2]

@Max_S

Sometimes I want to be on the other side so badly. But who else would defend Dualism? I would have to continue on in ignorance. Any good theory will adapt to a valid criticism, or die.

I look forward to helping it die.

@Max_S

Well… they are the consciousness behind the meat-sack. The meat-sack, or brain+body, acts on its own, without consciousness, in response to stimuli. If the body acts as if it has a soul, then it is safe to assume it really has a soul. If it acts like a zombie, say a persistant vegetable state, in that case we can say the soul is disconnected and this is the only p-zombie still compatible with my form of Dualism.

This description is more accurate, except that the meat-sack don’t have consciousness, the soul does. The meat sack doesn’t feel or experience in the philosophical sense, the soul does. This is why the soul is the basis of morality.

It is also important to say that in Dualism, “self” is not the meat-sack. “Self” is the soul. Your continuity of thought is not that of the brain, it is of the soul. The soul doesn’t “store” memories, it looks at the brain and retroactively pieces things together.

This is not possible within your model. By declaring that the soul cannot influence the material world, you are saying that the thoughts in the soul’s mind can’t influence the movements of the body.

In your model I can’t possibly be typing this post. My thoughts, in my mind, in the “soul”, are being conveyed to the computer by the movements of my fingers.

If you are reading this post, that is ironclad proof that your model is not representative of reality.

[Max_S]

@begbert2

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).

Either interpretation would be compatible at this point. Man, this is getting complicated.

It seems I must pick and choose and I just can’t defend every interpretation on my own. So I am going with this:

The non-physical world doesn’t have time like the physical world. There is a gathering of souls, all the souls that ever have or ever will exist. They exist in the non-physical world with access to all the qualia from their physical counterpart. Each soul can present their physical record as evidence for or against another soul. Among themselves they decide who did better, morally. That’s it.

~Max

[Czarcasm]

@Max_S

Either interpretation would be compatible at this point. Man, this is getting complicated.

It seems I must pick and choose and I just can’t defend every interpretation on my own. So I am going with this:

The non-physical world doesn’t have time like the physical world. There is a gathering of souls, all the souls that ever have or ever will exist. They exist in the non-physical world with access to all the qualia from their physical counterpart. Each soul can present their physical record as evidence for or against another soul. Among themselves they decide who did better, morally. That’s it.

~Max

If they don’t have time like in the physical world, then they have all already presented their cases and made their decisions, haven’t they? I’ll guess I’ll have to add “time” to the list of concepts you’re just a mite fuzzy on.

[crowmanyclouds]

@Max_S

{…} There is a gathering of souls, all the souls that ever have or ever will exist. They exist in the non-physical world with access to all the qualia from their physical counterpart. Each soul can present their physical record as evidence for or against another soul. Among themselves they decide who did better, morally. {…}

How is it that the rest us of are unfamiliar with any evidence that ‘souls’ exist, but you know what their hobbies are? :dubious:

CMC fnord!

[Max_S]

@Czarcasm

If they don’t have time like in the physical world, then they have all already presented their cases and made their decisions, haven’t they? I’ll guess I’ll have to add “time” to the list of concepts you’re just a mite fuzzy on.

You have made a category mistake by implying something already happened in the non-physical realm relative to time in the physical world.

~Max