# Mind and matter **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 23, 2004, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mind-and-matter/265708 "2004-09-23T16:51:15Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 9\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![II\_Gyan\_II](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/bbe5ce/32.png) [@II\_Gyan\_II](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/II_Gyan_II)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2004, 10:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mind-and-matter/265708/21 "2004-09-24T10:09:15Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > Agreed. However, I consider that it would be an _unnecessary_ entity, Ockhamly speaking, rather like proposing that the computer application came from another “source” and merely _correlated_ with the activity of the physical components. Occam is a useful tool when selecting among alternate working explanations. But metaphysical truth is not constrained by Occam, given that I mentioned that if there is a dual essence, it doesn’t seem to be empirically testable hence always out of Occam’s reach. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2004, 10:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mind-and-matter/265708/22 "2004-09-24T10:21:04Z")
Yes, agreed, Ockham’s Razor is a general principle rather than inviolate law. As I have said in many other threads, there is only so far science and logic can take you - we cannot even “prove” that we are not in the _Matrix_, let alone whether dead brains have qualia! Ultimately, each of our brains outputs a decision based on its memories and inputs as to whether everything, or some things, or _no_ thing is physical. Mine _denies_ the metaphysical, holding that “truth” is merely an encoding of the universe the way it _is_ rather than the way it _isn’t_. I cannot “prove” this. ---
**Author:** ![Scarf-Ace](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bc79bd/32.png) [@Scarf-Ace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scarf-Ace)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2004, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mind-and-matter/265708/23 "2004-09-24T15:30:52Z")
So nobody knows then? ---
**Author:** ![Frankenstein\_Monster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ccd318/32.png) [@Frankenstein\_Monster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frankenstein_Monster)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2004, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mind-and-matter/265708/24 "2004-09-24T15:48:07Z")
Just in case anybody wants to rehash the old cases for dualism (which I think is a load of… uhh… well… rather needlessly multiplicated entities), here is the link: [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/dualism/](http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/dualism/) > [@](#): > > Descartes was a substance dualist. He believed that there were two kinds of substance: matter, of which the essential property is that it is spatially extended; and mind, of which the essential property is that it thinks. (…) The main uncertainty that faced Descartes and his contemporaries, however, was not where interaction took place, but how two things so different as thought and extension could interact at all. (…) Various of Descartes’ disciples, such as Arnold Geulincx and Nicholas Malebranche, concluded that all mind-body interactions required the direct intervention of God. The appropriate states of mind and body were only the occasions for such intervention, not real causes. ---
**Author:** ![SnakeSpirit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snakespirit/32/7271_2.png) [@SnakeSpirit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SnakeSpirit)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2004, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mind-and-matter/265708/25 "2004-09-24T21:34:09Z")
> [@Aeschines](#): > > Yes, the notion of pre-existing “souls” that you are trying to counter is incorrect, as the “soul” is not an object. It is a pattern inhering in what we call “matter.” Aristotle said as much, saying that the soul was the form of the body. Soul is a highly charged term, and means different things to different groups. Old Testament: God formed Adam out of the dust of the Earth and breathed the _spirit_ of life into him and he became a living **soul.** So, body + spirit = soul. Modern Xtianity: Soul is thought of as spirit alone, which carries the mark of your sins. New Agers (some, anyway): Soul is the pattern for the physical body, and persists after physical death and can leave the body to travel to other realms or places. Pretty much corresponds to spirit. I can accept **Aeschines’** definition for the purposes of the discussion. Keeping on the same track. ---
**Author:** ![SnakeSpirit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snakespirit/32/7271_2.png) [@SnakeSpirit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SnakeSpirit)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2004, 6:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mind-and-matter/265708/26 "2004-10-18T06:22:24Z")
So, **Aeschines** and **SnakeSpirit** are right? Halleluhjah! ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2004, 9:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mind-and-matter/265708/27 "2004-10-18T09:03:40Z")
> [@](#): > > So, Aeschines and SnakeSpirit are right? About what? This “pattern” hypothesis? If atoms exist in spacetime then they necessarily conform to some arrangement. Therefore, whither “pattern”? ---
**Author:** ![SnakeSpirit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snakespirit/32/7271_2.png) [@SnakeSpirit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SnakeSpirit)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2004, 7:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mind-and-matter/265708/28 "2004-10-21T07:48:00Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > About what? This “pattern” hypothesis? > > If atoms exist in spacetime then they necessarily conform to some arrangement. > > Therefore, whither “pattern”? Oh yeah, and **Meat,** too. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2004, 8:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mind-and-matter/265708/29 "2004-10-21T08:26:20Z")
> [@](#): > > Oh yeah, and **Meat** , too. I’m not quite sure what you mean. I _fundamentally disagree_ with the “pattern” hypothesis, holding that since “pattern” is a **necessary** component of physicalism it is fallacious to present the physical as a subset of “pattern”: clearly, if the statement “If atoms exist in spacetime then they necessarily conform to some arrangement” is **true** , then it is the other way around. I’m not sure how all three of us can be “right” (and, pray, do not conflate choosing not to post with an admission of _wrong_) if we _disagree_. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mind-and-matter/265708.md?page=1)