Dualism vs Materialism or Mind vs Soul

[Sal]

.. you're, I reckon, unable to realize that the self is an illusion.

Tell me, if I was to say "square circles exist" do you think that makes it so?

Now, how is that different from claiming that the self exists? I've yet to encounter a coherent definition of self that isn't just tricks of language the same way that saying that square circles exists.

That you're unable to see this distinction makes me believe that you think that dualism is correct and that numbers and letters exist apart of our minds. I do not think that, and my views most align with naturalism and I reject any form of dualism.

..

I mean here that, for example, with a fMRI we can see where thought arises in someones brain. But I'm doubly aware that since that can be viewed and is most decidedly part of reality, why should thought or the accumulation of experiences, the Self, be any different?

Dualism is a logically challenged concept whose only saving grace is its leading to slightly less absurd results than Monism. It may be the attempt to apply the Dualism-Monism spectrum which is to blame. Long before I assent to saying my sense of self is an illusion I should prefer to ask what the necessity is in deciding between these two perspectives.

Monism is only applied because dualism exists. It's just to make a distinction between people that think the immaterial exists alongside the material, apart from the ones that think only material things exist.

The illusion is, as I see it, that we use anthropomorphism on things that are reducible to the material. If it is reducible to material things and processes, then the construct of it must be contingent on that, e.g. you can't have a mind without a brain, the same way you can't have a forest without trees.

A duelist thinks you can have some existent form of "forest" without the occurrence of trees. The term "forest" is contingent on the occurrence of trees, and trees are themselves contingent on other material stuff. The usual contention is that, if trees never had arisen, we would never make a concept for forests, because they're contingent on the existence of trees. Every so-called immaterial thing, the concepts, numbers, letters, language, sounds, etc. face the same contingency.

It's the same deal with the question of Free Will. We operate on the notion that our volition is completely unconstrained in decision making. We now know that before we even make a decision, the activity in the brain occurs before by ~1 second before the decision is even made. I think this ~1 second lag alone disproves Free Will. We still have volition, sure, but it is constrained provisionally. Some might say that makes us unthinking robots, I say that it just makes us beings able to change on this information.

I am a thorough naturalist given that no one has demonstrated anything to be supernatural or other than natural. Really the only reasonable use of the word "natural" is in distinction with things man-made, and even then, given that we ourselves are natural, so too must be all that we produce.

When I use the term nature, I mean everything that is, man-made or otherwise.

I would be interested to hear what it is that you reject by calling the "self" an illusion. You seem not to like any existing definition of it, so which do you intend when you call that an illusion?

As with my 4th paragraph in this reply, I think the question of Free Will is an illustration of the same problem and obstacle. I don't really like or dislike it, I just see it as a quick (and making obstacles along the way) short-cut to discussing what it is built upon. I hope you understand what I mean.

I think the problem and the main obstacle that arises is that we give these constructs that are usually attributed to the immaterial undue credit for their operation and use. An illustration of my point is thusly in the next paragraph:

Someone says that criminals should be punished because they exercised their Free Will to break the Law. Case closed.

I would ask: Is the Law correct? What about the mitigating circumstances that made the criminal do what he did and can we learn from that? I seems to me that a lot of this undue attribution of just the language used is a conversation stopper.

Really, dualism is just one long-winded Use-Mention error.

More importantly, who is doing the rejecting if it isn't your self?

The material that consists of neurons doing neural activity in the collection of neurons, called a brain. I have no problem using the term "mind", but I am also aware what "minds" are made of. In my mind, the I is a construction of all the past experiences (i.e. memory), all the functions of the brain, and all of my views that make up myself in the present moment. We call this the Self.

---

That's because you're, I reckon, unable to realize that the self is an illusion.

You're done more than that. You have gone so far as to suggest that consciousness itself is an illusion. If so, of what is it an illusion?

An illusion is a trick. It's a false impression of what is really going on.

What really is going on is the material, the brain, anthropomorphizing and thinking it has a special place in reality, when it's just a puddle thinking the hole it's in was made especially for it, when it's really the other way around.

To me, that I am stuff, a configuration of atoms thinking and doing, makes me outmost humble about reality; I also think it is amazing that the Universe is even possible to produce something as complex as a brain.

Anyway, I see little point in answering the questions of someone who had convinced themselves that they are a zombie.

Hello pot, this is the kettle: you're black.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Hello pot, this is the kettle: you're black.

"Zombie" is a philosophical term used to describe someone who to all outward appearances is a normal human being, but inwardly they experience absolutely nothing. Zombie life is devoid of qualia, an dark silent electro-chemical reaction. Unlike you, I have not claimed to have any of the characteristics of a zombie.