RE: Christianity is heading for a full allegorization
January 27, 2022 at 10:13 am
(This post was last modified: January 27, 2022 at 10:33 am by The Grand Nudger.)
There's no particular reason (once we begin multiplying substances) to stop at two. The same can be said of property dualism. Why just two properties - I lead in a little with that.
Traditionally, no, all of the fundamental particles are material. If they explain every interaction, effect, and observation, that would be material monism. I've heard a similar thought expressed as dissatisfaction with materialism. That it is (or has become) too inclusive. That if we detected some new thing x that's just like their other substance...we would declare it to be material, or natural...essentially, just one more representative of the set. I think that's true. We probably would...and we certainly have. It's a long way from "everything is made of rock stuff" to quantum mechanics.
You do bring up a good question, though, if the many fundamental things should be considered different substances, and someone is arguing for some other substance..is there anything already contained in the material that should have been..more accurately, grouped with the immaterial or the mental (or whatever other substances or properties we come up with)? This is a bit of a pickle for property dualism by the way. There's no consensus on where the line between material properties of the brain and mental properties of consciousness are. In most conceptions, everything but qualia is or can be negotiated away without abandoning the position.
-and, to add..when or if we reach that point - for all of the valid and informative comments and observations about consciousness a multiplicative substance theory might have leading to that point - it's been reduced to a pretty severe case of special pleading. The same thing happens to all sorts of good criticism and questions. Inarguably legitimate concerns about the incompleteness of a theory can sometimes turn into a base argument from ignorance.
Traditionally, no, all of the fundamental particles are material. If they explain every interaction, effect, and observation, that would be material monism. I've heard a similar thought expressed as dissatisfaction with materialism. That it is (or has become) too inclusive. That if we detected some new thing x that's just like their other substance...we would declare it to be material, or natural...essentially, just one more representative of the set. I think that's true. We probably would...and we certainly have. It's a long way from "everything is made of rock stuff" to quantum mechanics.
You do bring up a good question, though, if the many fundamental things should be considered different substances, and someone is arguing for some other substance..is there anything already contained in the material that should have been..more accurately, grouped with the immaterial or the mental (or whatever other substances or properties we come up with)? This is a bit of a pickle for property dualism by the way. There's no consensus on where the line between material properties of the brain and mental properties of consciousness are. In most conceptions, everything but qualia is or can be negotiated away without abandoning the position.
-and, to add..when or if we reach that point - for all of the valid and informative comments and observations about consciousness a multiplicative substance theory might have leading to that point - it's been reduced to a pretty severe case of special pleading. The same thing happens to all sorts of good criticism and questions. Inarguably legitimate concerns about the incompleteness of a theory can sometimes turn into a base argument from ignorance.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
