Dualism vs Materialism or Mind vs Soul

[Raven]

With a lot of religions you have the idea of dualism, that non-material something usually called a soul. It is supposed to be what contains everything that makes you “you”. This is supposed to be everlasting and what goes on to Heaven, Hell or reincarnation after you croak. Now, I'd like to know what evidence is there for the existence of this non-material whatever.

Your mind we have evidence for. The brain is an organ and the mind is what the brain does, so to speak. Nowadays a lot of what the brain is up to can be measured, mapped, etc. The mind is not something separate from the brain, but is the result of neural activity. If the mind is not the result of neural activity, but the result of some non-material soul then it should not be dependent on the organ known as the brain.

But, if various parts of the brain get damaged in an accident, or due to illness, things can and sometimes do occur that greatly change you. You become a different person. How depends on what gets damaged. Everything that makes me the unique person that I am is contained in my brain – personality, memories, ability to process everything our senses detect, etc. Now if your brain gets damaged, and you become a different person, what happens to your soul?

The way I was taught about the human soul was that it contained everything that made me “me”. After death, you'd end up before the creator and be judged for whatever you did while alive and treated accordingly. You would either go up or down, so to speak. So, where is this thing? Why can't we detect it? If my brain contains everything that makes me who I am, of what use is this soul?

There are people on this site that know a lot more about this than I do. Any input from both believers and unbelievers alike will be much appreciated by me. I came here hoping to learn, so please respond. Thanks.

[Neo-Scholastic]

I do not know. Nobody really does. One idea is that the brain acts more like a radio. Certain brain states tune in to receive non-physical attributes like sensation. A damaged brain would thus not be able to receive or interact effectively with whatever it is that supports mental properties. Dualism is about much more that the 'soul'. It has to do with all mental properties regardless of whether in the form of a soul or something else. Here is a link to a self-avowed materialist who seems to think dualist claims are not totally out of the running.

Article on Dualism

One interesting problem to me is that so much of the brain is NOT conscious. One thing everyone agrees on is that the brain is extremely chaotic, in that slight changes in one area cascade throughout the entire system. It seems to me that if something non-physical acted upon the brain it would not need a very large footprint. In one theory, Roger Penrose speculates about consciousness coming out of microtubules within neurons. I hate quantum based theories of consciousness, but it seems to be the only game in town, since Newtonian interactions have no insertion point for qualia or intentionality. However, if the 'soul' were able to manipulate chance at the quantum level it's effect could be amplified by the brain's complexity. That could be one means of interaction between the physical and no-physical parts of reality.

To me qualia and intentionality are two aspects of reality that strongly imply some form of dualism. And that is one reason why I favor dualist theories.

[fr0d0]

@Raven: what non material evidence would you accept?

[Cato]

C'mon Chad?!? What the fuck????

I got to page two of your link and was confronted with this: "...materialism is an article of faith based on the worship of science". Note 4 left much to be desired.

[Raven]

@Chad: Thanks for your input, and for the link to that article. Most interesting stuff. I had not given Descartes even a fleeting thought since my student days (a long time ago). Said article gave me a great deal to think about.

@FrOdO: That is a fair question, but I'm not sure what kind of answer to give you. The ideas advanced in the article referenced by Chad certainly qualify, but I would never stop there. I would put forward that if we mean to discuss that which is non-material we've let ourselves in for a great many evidentiary difficulties. That is kind of why I asked for input, I'm a bit at sea with this.

[Faith No More]

I think one of the biggest flaws that the proponents of a soul have going for them is that they are unable to define exactly what a soul is and what it does. I have only seen it used as a filler for the gaps in our understanding of natural mechanisms. Until something more substantial can be put forward, I see no reason to consider it likely.

---

C'mon Chad?!? What the fuck????

I got to page two of your link and was confronted with this: "...materialism is an article of faith based on the worship of science". Note 4 left much to be desired.

Actually, the whole sentence goes like this...

Tyler Burge and others have maintained that the naturalistic picture of the world is more like a political or religious ideology than like a position well supported by evidence, and that materialism is an article of faith based on the worship of science.

That was not the author's opinion as he was referencing someone else, even though he readily admits that he doesn't have a solid philosophical argument for materialism.

[Ben Davis]

---

I do not know. Nobody really does. One idea is that the brain acts more like a radio. Certain brain states tune in to receive non-physical attributes like sensation. A damaged brain would thus not be able to receive or interact effectively with whatever it is that supports mental properties. Dualism is about much more that the 'soul'. It has to do with all mental properties regardless of whether in the form of a soul or something else. Here is a link to a self-avowed materialist who seems to think dualist claims are not totally out of the running.

Article on Dualism

One interesting problem to me is that so much of the brain is NOT conscious. One thing everyone agrees on is that the brain is extremely chaotic, in that slight changes in one area cascade throughout the entire system. It seems to me that if something non-physical acted upon the brain it would not need a very large footprint. In one theory, Roger Penrose speculates about consciousness coming out of microtubules within neurons. I hate quantum based theories of consciousness, but it seems to be the only game in town, since Newtonian interactions have no insertion point for qualia or intentionality. However, if the 'soul' were able to manipulate chance at the quantum level it's effect could be amplified by the brain's complexity. That could be one means of interaction between the physical and no-physical parts of reality.

To me qualia and intentionality are two aspects of reality that strongly imply some form of dualism. And that is one reason why I favor dualist theories.

---

+1 cato. Almost every principle outlined in the paper in Chad's link is flawed.

My position may be rational, broadly speaking, but not because the arguments favor it... My purpose in this paper is to... admit that I do not proportion my belief to the evidence

...so not rational at all, then. if there's no evidence then he's just making stuff up!

Arguments for materialism are few...

...then someone doesn't know what they're talking about! The number of arguments in favour of a position is not the measure; it's the veracity of the arguments & their evidenciary support which are important.

To anyone uncontaminated by neuroscience or 4 materialist philosophizing, the mental does not seem physical in any way at all, much less neurophysiological

*translation: "To anyone who has little/no knowledge of the facts or is prepared to ignore a valid set of arguments..."


After these fails, I stopped reading as I can have no confidence/interest in the conclusions of a paper which is so fundamentally flawed.

[Neo-Scholastic]

I think one of the biggest flaws that the proponents of a soul have going for them is that they are unable to define exactly what a soul is and what it does.

Agreed. I use the term "soul" in two ways. For me the continuity of personal existence, or soul, is part of my faith and known only by revelation. It, soul' also serves as a convenient place-holder for something whose properties, while suspected, are not fully known. For example,early atomic theory developed without much understanding of what atoms actually were. Only later did scientists flesh out their composition and inner workings. I see nothing wrong with talking about soul and souls without knowing all the details.

I have only seen it used as a filler for the gaps in our understanding of natural mechanisms.

Depends on how you define natural. And it also depends on how you define a gap. Quantum theory and general relativity did not just fill gaps in the Newtonian physical model. They produced a paradigm shift that completely altered our understanding of physical reality.

To my mind, qualia and intentionality are very basic parts of reality that do not fit within our current understanding of physical reality. I predict that filling that gap requires a similar paradigm shift. In retrospect, today's claim that these phenomena can be explained in term of current physics will seem silly.

---

My position may be rational, broadly speaking, but not because the arguments favor it... My purpose in this paper is to... admit that I do not proportion my belief to the evidence

...so not rational at all, then. if there's no evidence then he's just making stuff up!

Which makes him an honest materialist. He has the guts to admit that the materialist position is not as strong you believe it is. It's pretty obvious that you cherry-picked the paper to find out of context quotes to justify your lack of curiosity. Clearly your own materialism is not based on rational considerations if you will not take challenges to your views seriously.

[The Grand Nudger]

I do not know. Nobody really does. One idea is that the brain acts more like a radio.

That should be a pretty simple conjecture to test, eh? Matter of fact, I think people have looked into that one.....lol. While we still don't know, it isn't as though we haven't been narrowing the list of candidate explanations.

Though there are plenty of people who still think that this is plausible, sure....

[Neo-Scholastic]

That bozo. Tin foil doesn't work. You gotta use real lead!