Christianity is heading for a full allegorization

[The Grand Nudger]

Sorry for the delay in replying... 

No worries. 

In that case I still don't think I'm fully understanding what you're saying here. In that whether we're talking about substance (and like poly later, I was also curious what exactly what was meant by that in a world of multiple types of particles, but just assumed it meant any material; the physical world... we can get onto that later maybe) or properties, the reason I think there's only two... as in dual... on the table, as opposed to many, is that there is, or at least seems to be, something fundamentally different in an overarching sense, between having/experiencing a perspective at all, whatever form it takes (ie 1st, 2nd, 3rd person or whatever else), and the mind-independent reality beyond it (ie the physical world) that we and science, examine from the outside. Ie any other properties that we could possibly examine in the universe, be they burger properties, wind properties etc, as per your example, we examine from the outside... from a perpective, but actually having/experiencing a perspective seems something completely different.

Substance is the difference between the material and the immaterial.  Properties are some x that both the material and immaterial have.  A material being could be impermeable - that would be substance and property - but an immaterial being could also be impermeable.  Different substance, same property.  A material being may be impermeable while an immaterial being is thoroughly permeable.  Different substance, different properties.  A material being could be permeable or impermeable.  Same substance, different properties.  

Sure, even in a world of just one substance, the property of consciousness is different than other properties and different than it's lack.  We take it to be recognizable and existent.  Tell me how that doesn't also apply to wind?  

Ie for instance, the fact that the brain and computers (in the case of video games etc) can and do computationally model environments and perpectives, has never been in dispute for me. Indeed, I think dreams are a prime example of how there must be an internal model of the world represented in our brains. But having that model and experiencing it are two different things, or seem so to me. In a similar way to the question I posed earlier of what sort of existence the different levels of processing/description in a running computer have... not quite the same, in the sense that those processes are not - necessarily - deemed to have an internal perpsective, but maybe still the same ballpark.

If all of the processing the brain (or a computer) does is in the material properties set - but experience (and experience alone) is in the mental set...then all of the physics is in the material set - and the wind (and wind alone) actually blowing is in the windal set. 

 

Anyway, as to your real life experiences of the 2nd person perspective, I assume you mean an out-of-body experience/dissociation... maybe on the battlefield, or somewhere else? Is that something you're happy/comfortable talking about? 

Yeah, got bounced around a bit.  Fucked up my ears, blew out a knee, cracked my skull.  Otherwise minor damage.  Lucky lucky lucky.

As to acute visual stuff, mostly at the beginning.  I'd see myself the moment before - but from the pov of a crowd up ahead - and then nothing.  Just pants-shitting nothing.  It was abrupt, it was compelling, it could happen when I was awake, or I could dream about it.  The difference between being awake and dreaming wasn't at all clear to me at the time.  I actually don't have any recollection of the event - and I was out for a week after - no memories from that either.  Just lost time.  

OTOH.....I had the distinct impression for quite awhile after that I was a passenger in my own body.  That my thoughts and my actions were some other person.  A you, not me.  Not a part of me.  I didn't know his thoughts, I didn't control his actions, I don't think I remember all of it.   We didn't talk to each other or anything like that.  There was no personality to it, really- it was as if I wasn't there all the time, or he wasn't aware I was ever there, whoever the fuck he was.  

That lasted a lot longer than my physical recovery.  I knew something was still wrong... but I wasn't exactly forthcoming with that info.  I felt like I was slipping back into myself..no other way to describe it - I just hadn't filled every inch of boot yet.  I feel like shit about that - I didn't want to think about what could happen...I was still in love with the idea of a career in the service. It only dawned on me how fucked up things could have been when a buddy told me that the day-of I'd initially popped back up..everyone thought I was okay - I stumbled around for a bit, let off a few rounds, then collapsed like a rag doll.   I could've done the same on base or back home for no reason at any time.

As to mental events effecting other mental events in epiphenomenalism, I guess I just look at that through having to trace it through the physical side. Ultimately I don't think there's much difference between epiphenomenalism and physicalism on that score; if the physical side is determined by physics and the mental side in one way or another mirrors that/is identical with that, then the mental side should have an at least apparent correlatable causal flow... so whether you see mental events as actually causing other mental events, as per physicalism because of identity, or apparently/indirectly through the underlying physical causality, doesn't make any practical difference that I can see. 

If a mental event like experiencing happiness can cause material events to occur - all of the other "just processing" the brain is doing..which is, allegedly..... everything and anything else the brain is doing - then epiphenomenalism is flatly and plainly wrong on it's face, and by it's own merits.  

Do you actually think it's the case that one of the differences between material events or brain events..and mental events....is that mental events have no or can have no effect on material events?  That would definitely make the case that the division of properties all ultimately arising from a single substance is cogent with respect to mental events..but not windal events.  Wind absolutely does effect material events.

[Neo-Scholastic]

The problem with multiple substances is that you quickly run into questions of how the particles manage to interact with each other if they aren't all the same substance.

I don't see a problem. Why would things have to be the same 'substance' in order to interact?

Yeah, I don't see the problem either. Seems like an arguement from ignorance. We do not know how it could be therefore it cannot be.

[Ferrocyanide]

The worst that could be said about property dualism, I think, is that it's an arbitrary designation with no explanatory value.  Sure, there are material properties and mental properties.  Also material properties and wind properties.  Material properties and burger properties.  Material properties and tuesday properties.   Material properties and cultural properties.  etc.

Ultimately, it allows us to posit that it's not a difference of substance, but a difference of effect or subject - but we already knew that, didn't we, we want to know how the substance produces the effects, no matter how many categories of genuinely distinguishable effects there are.  The idea that one substance can produce many disparate effects is true, but trivially so.

I don’t even know what property dualism is so I took a look at

Source:
https://press.rebus.community/intro-to-p...y-dualism/

property dualism:
I extracted a couple of lines:

According to property dualism, on the other hand, there is one fundamental kind of thing in the world—material substance—but it has two essentially different kinds of property: physical properties and mental properties.

it does not posit an immaterial mental substance

Hmmm. It looks like 16 th and 17 th century people trying to figure out how consciousness can exist in a material world.
So, they are calling one thing physical properties and the other thing mental properties.
In other words, an example of a physical property would be the mass, the hardness, the density of an object.
The mental property would be that a cube of iron has some “mental property” (thought)?

There doesn’t seem to be any discussions of circuits.
The word “circuit” is very important in this case.
I’m not surprised. Electricity was not discovered yet (probably some people were aware of static electricity), making a power source was not discovered yet, electronics components were not invented yet. So obviously, the concept of electrical circuits did not exist.

Yes, I can see why you say burger properties, tuesday properties.
It sounds funny when they say mental properties.

It would be like saying that a calculator has calculator properties. Someone who says “calculator properties” obviously doesn’t have a clue how the device works and he is comparing it with properties of matter such as mass, density, temperature, hardness, index of refraction, reflectivity, transmissivity.

[Jehanne]

It would be like saying that a calculator has calculator properties. Someone who says “calculator properties” obviously doesn’t have a clue how the device works and he is comparing it with properties of matter such as mass, density, temperature, hardness, index of refraction, reflectivity, transmissivity.

Calculator properties -- Infix, Postfix & Prefix; statistical, graphical, vector capable, programmable, radians versus degrees, etc.

[Ferrocyanide]

It would be like saying that a calculator has calculator properties. Someone who says “calculator properties” obviously doesn’t have a clue how the device works and he is comparing it with properties of matter such as mass, density, temperature, hardness, index of refraction, reflectivity, transmissivity.

Calculator properties -- Infix, Postfix & Prefix; statistical, graphical, vector capable, programmable, radians versus degrees, etc.

That would be calculator functions.

If the calculator is made of a semiconductor, such as silicon N and P type, then someone is using the intrinsic properties of that semi-conductor to build, transistors, resistors, diodes (electronic components).
By connecting various electronic components together, you get certain circuits for doing certain mathematical functions.

A function takes the form of
take input 1, take input 2, ....take input N.
Output output 1, output 2, ....output N

Function could also mean purpose.
What is the function of a hammer? To drive nails into wood.

[Jehanne]

Calculator properties -- Infix, Postfix & Prefix; statistical, graphical, vector capable, programmable, radians versus degrees, etc.

That would be calculator functions.

If the calculator is made of a semiconductor, such as silicon N and P type, then someone is using the intrinsic properties of that semi-conductor to build, transistors, resistors, diodes (electronic components).
By connecting various electronic components together, you get certain circuits for doing certain mathematical functions.

A function takes the form of
take input 1, take input 2, ....take input N.
Output output 1, output 2, ....output N

Function could also mean purpose.
What is the function of a hammer? To drive nails into wood.

Calculators are computers (at least these days), and with computers, one has hierarchy and encapsulation. And, so, a NAND gate may require 2 physical transitors, a XOR gate 8 transitors, etc. While some work at the physical level (the design and manufacture of transitors), others work at the logical level (the arrangement of logic gates on a PCB). Others "higher up" would work with HDLs, hardware description languages, which enters the realm of firmware. Still higher would be the operating system, the suite of software that manages a computer; higher still would be the application developers, who would code for the UI, the user interface, and implement the various calculator functionality.

Out of this hierarchy of functionality is the emergent object that we call a "calculator".

[Ferrocyanide]

That would be calculator functions.

If the calculator is made of a semiconductor, such as silicon N and P type, then someone is using the intrinsic properties of that semi-conductor to build, transistors, resistors, diodes (electronic components).
By connecting various electronic components together, you get certain circuits for doing certain mathematical functions.

A function takes the form of
take input 1, take input 2, ....take input N.
Output output 1, output 2, ....output N

Function could also mean purpose.
What is the function of a hammer? To drive nails into wood.

Calculators are computers (at least these days), and with computers, one has hierarchy and encapsulation.  And, so, a NAND gate may require 2 physical transitors, a XOR gate 8 transitors, etc.  While some work at the physical level (the design and manufacture of transitors),  others work at the logical level (the arrangement of logic gates on a PCB).  Others "higher up" would work with HDLs, hardware description languages, which enters the realm of firmware.  Still higher would be the operating system, the suite of software that manages a computer; higher still would be the application developers, who would code for the UI, the user interface, and implement the various calculator functionality.

Out of this hierarchy of functionality is the emergent object that we call a "calculator".

It’s is a beautiful system.
It looks like you are describing a general purpose PC.

However, the property dualism concept comes from the old days and I think they didn’t know what to make of consciousness.
To them, the brain was just a blob. Did 16 th and 17 th century people even know that it is the brain that generated the consciousness or were they on the idea of the soul or the heart being the center of “life”?
I know that at some point, they started to call it vitalism. We can see the concept of vitalism present in John-Baptiste’s Lamarckism (early 18 th century).

A certain experiment discredited the idea of vitalism.

Urea was first discovered in urine in 1727 by the Dutch scientist Herman Boerhaave,[3] though this discovery is often attributed to the French chemist Hilaire Rouelle.[4]

In 1828, the German chemist Friedrich Wöhler obtained urea artificially by treating silver cyanate with ammonium chloride.[5][6][7]

    AgNCO + NH4Cl → (NH2)2CO + AgCl

This was the first time an organic compound was artificially synthesized from inorganic starting materials, without the involvement of living organisms. The results of this experiment implicitly discredited vitalism — the theory that the chemicals of living organisms are fundamentally different from those of inanimate matter. This insight was important for the development of organic chemistry. His discovery prompted Wöhler to write triumphantly to Berzelius: "I must tell you that I can make urea without the use of kidneys, either man or dog. Ammonium cyanate is urea." For this discovery, Wöhler is considered by many[who?] the father of organic chemistry.

Anyway, the people of the 16 th and 17 th century, they listed 2 things that the world contains:
1. Material properties
2. Mental properties


You can mine for materials and perhaps do some chemistry to find the materials with certain material properties.
However, you can’t mine for mental properties.

The brain, just like the calculator’s CPU, is a circuit, it is a structure.
The same goes for a house. A house is just a structure. I wouldn’t call it an object with house properties.

[The Grand Nudger]

Well, they didn't know what was up with consciousness (and you could say that we still don't)....however, they didn't understand how any inanimate object could do the sorts of things we ascribed to conscious beings. It wasn't until the 1700's that we figured out nerves were responsible for muscle contraction..rather than some as yet unobserved hydraulic system. An idea that strongly influenced descartes study of the brain, positing both dualism, and the idea that the mind interacted with the brain and body through the pineal gland because it was involved in circulating cerebrospinal fluid. The idea of a machine computer, or simulation, or modeling, or control...nada. In that sense, mental properties or events probably did seem like the lone representative of a separate set. Not so much anymore, which is why contemporary property dualism is whittled down to accepting that everything the brain is doing are material events, except for conscious experience itself, which is not a material event and has no effect on material events.

Effectively, a ghost in the machine. Like I mentioned before, it's an intuitive notion. Consciousness, however it's derived, misrepresents itself severely.

[emjay]

Well, they didn't know what was up with consciousness (and you could say that we still don't)....however, they didn't understand how any inanimate object could do the sorts of things we ascribed to conscious beings.  It wasn't until the 1700's that we figured out nerves were responsible for muscle contraction..rather than some as yet unobserved hydraulic system.  An idea that strongly influenced descartes study of the brain, positing both dualism, and the idea that the mind interacted with the brain and body through the pineal gland because it was involved in circulating cerebrospinal fluid.  The idea of a machine computer, or simulation, or modeling, or control...nada.  In that sense, mental properties or events probably did seem like the lone representative of a separate set.  Not so much anymore, which is why contemporary property dualism is whittled down to accepting that everything the brain is doing are material events, except for conscious experience itself, which is not a material event and has no effect on material events.

Effectively, a ghost in the machine.  Like I mentioned before, it's an intuitive notion.  Consciousness, however it's derived, misrepresents itself severely.

I guess I'll take this as license to leave the conversation with my tail between my legs, if that's okay with you? FWIW I've spent several hours now, and got myself even further out of sync, pondering all this (as per your post earlier) and just been tying myself in knots... what seemed clear, isn't/wasn't. So I think you're right, my epiphenomenalist view is probably untenable. Also, FWIW again, I do appreciate the logical teardown, however brutal it has felt, as it's all food for thought and I've got a lot of rethinking to do, but at this point I'd rather go to sleep than have another such teardown ;-), so yeah, time to call it a day I think.

[vulcanlogician]

The problem with multiple substances is that you quickly run into questions of how the particles manage to interact with each other if they aren't all the same substance.

I don't see a problem. Why would things have to be the same 'substance' in order to interact?

Well it does kinda depend on your definition of substance. But, as far as definitions of "substance" go, I like drawing the line at "must interact with physical reality."

You are pretty empirically-minded, Poly, so think about it. If there IS some kind of thing out there that doesn't interact with physical matter or energy at all, it may as well not exist. We'll never sense it. We'll never know it. And if we do somehow sense it or detect it- Boom. That's interaction.

It makes sense to define substance as something that MUST interact with physical matter or energy.