(August 6, 2021 at 9:47 am)HappySkeptic Wrote:(August 6, 2021 at 8:23 am)vulcanlogician Wrote: I've always said that property dualism (or aspect dualism) isn't that bad.
It simply says that there is physical properties and nonphysical properties. Our mental experiences, like the image of a coffee cup in front of you... has mental properties. After all, the "image" of the coffee cup that your brain produces isn't a physical object with physical properties.
I've also found criticisms of property dualism lacking. Property dualism isn't an ambitious theory. It doesn't posit some other kind of substance. It just says there is something distinct about mental experiences.
Occam's razor has me preferring materialism, but I still think property dualism is an okay theory of mind.
I just read about aspect dualism. Basically it says that mind and matter as aspects of something else.
As a mystical position, positing "something else" as an explanation for the what we CAN perceive is a cop-out. On the other hand, if mind comes from matter, and matter comes from something more fundamental, then I guess you could say that both come from something else.
I am drawn to the model that information is more fundamental than matter. I don't know if it is the "most" fundamental -- it probably isn't. If information is more fundamental than matter, then what is the problem with mind coming from matter? Mind is about information processing, in way that produces the impression of a "self".
"Information" when used this way seems highly Platonic without any better way of approaching the ancient dilemmas around concepts like universals, Ideas, and essenses.
<insert profound quote here>