RE: Seeing red
January 20, 2016 at 9:23 pm
(This post was last modified: January 20, 2016 at 9:25 pm by bennyboy.)
(January 20, 2016 at 6:28 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: The writer implies a kind of pan-psychism (option 3) and seems unaware of property dualism and functionalism. However, ruling out substance dualism is premature for two reasons. First, dismissing substance dualism because its proponents currently lack a robust theory explaining how the material and the immaterial interact is an argument from ignorance.
Just because we don't know something doesn't make it an argument from ignorance. Your position is that there are two distinct substances which are causally connected, but no interface. Because if there were an interface that is not one of those two substances, you'd be a triplist or a pluralist.
Your argument:
Stage 1: Mind wants to do something
Stage 2: ???
Stage 3: Stuff happens in a body that is completely substance-independent of mind.