Well... You certainly keep me busy reading about different perspectives. Hard to follow all those alternatives and grasping what it really means.Kurieuo wrote:Some (like Merleau-Ponty) believed it to be a false dichotemy to split the two, but believe there to be really one substance (body-subject) that possesses what we wrongly split into say "material" (body) and "immaterial" (mind) categories.Justhuman wrote:I think the biggest problem with an immaterial 'anything' is its relation to material stuff.Kurieuo wrote:Isn't it obvious? If what we directly experience isn't formed by our brains, then such suggests this "seat of consciousness" which puts the fuller picture together of the world we experience is at least more than merely our brain.Justhuman wrote:@Kurieuo
Will look into the videos later...
Do you suggest that our thoughts (will, soul) reside somewhere outside our brain? In an immaterial, or other specific non-physical, 'space'?
Furthermore, I wouldn't merely suggest but argue strongly that the world, our world, isn't material only. It seems obvious to me it isn't and that an ontology of reality that is exclusively material/physical is rather naive, simplicistic, goes against common intuitions and wrong.
Before you jump the gun to relegate such a position (mine) to Christians, God-believers or the like, various respectible secular philosophers have also come out in agreement with such based upon rational arguments. So then, belief in "Materialism" doesn't necessarily boil to a Believer vs non-Believer issue.
Perhaps such are correct, that there is really one substance possessing both material and immaterial properties. It could be that Materialists just look at the material side of things since they find it hard to see beyond what is directly physically experienced, and then those with more of a "spiritual spark" so-to-speak, have some kind of fascination with such, and so elevate their own subjective experiences. Somewhere inbetween, surely, there is a correct harmonisation of the two?
Yet, what if there is really only one substance? To borrow from Aristotle, a hylomorphism of sorts that is both "matter" and "form" / "material" and "immaterial" / "body" and "soul" which correctly understood is just one and the same substance. Modern Atheist philosophers like Thomas Nagel wish to posit that "Nature" itself is comprised also of some sort of "laws of consciousness" waiting to be discovered, in addition to the physical laws we better understand. Thus, if true, then there is no relationship issue at all -- because we are talking about the one and the same foundational substance.
Now, as for what I believe, I can appreciate the above position/s and am open to them. Yet, it doesn't matter here what I believe. What is significant is that many philosophers have put forward solutions to the material-immaterial issue (better understood as the "mind-body" issue) of how the two can "relate" and influence each other while appearing to be so diametrically different. So then, in a Philosophy 101 class where the "relationship problem" is presented as a surface-level objection against Substance Dualism, this issue might remain with students who do not do their research assignment on such and delve deeply into it. But, let me just say here, it is a surface-level objection and a great many solutions exist and have been proposed which would resolve this apparent dilemma (like the position/s presented above).
The one thing that remains, the issue which has entertained many great thinkers even until this day, is that the mind with its mental states appear to be qualititavely distinct from the brain or physical states. Given both exist, how are we to reconcile them together? Adhering to a simple Materialism seems to me woefully inadequate when explaining more experiential and subjective elements.
However, to state that the material body and immaterial mind might be about the same substance means that it should be detectable. But are you now conjuring up some new substance, just to fill in the gap that presents itself? Shouldn't such a substance be allready (theoretically) known, amongst all fundamentall research?
Furthermore, what about the soul and spirit? If one dies, the spirit and/or soul should detach themself from the body (brain). With one substance, that detachment should be visible, or at least detectable. Billions have died and never has a detachment of the soul/spirit been witnessed, no proof or evidence or anything else that comes close to a even hint. And never has there been found anything that resembles anything close to what could be a (or the) mind, spirit or soul.
Isn't it all the mind?