Mind Body Dualism

Why is this even a discussion anymore? Some of BigLundi's statements have been so incoherent I'mt not even sure if he's serious or just trolling.

So in other words: You don't have an opinion on mind body dualism. And, since you don't understand my opinion, you don't feel the conversation should continue.

That about right?

I mean I asked a yes or no question, do you accept dualism or not? And if you do, why? And what is a nonphysical substance?

mean, even if you don't understand me that doesn't mean you can't have an opinion on the matter.

Because almost everybody can "FEEL IT" and that is something I know but cannot give to you in a answer which you desire.......

"meditation" "Praying" "sleeping" these 3 examples are things that will put you in a "state" where you are so calm and your environment is calm that you start "FEELING" other things around you which cannot be explained nor proven...

>Biglundi thread
>Asks stupid subjective question
>Answers said question
>Proceeds to criticize and denounce anyone who doesn't share his view with incoherency.

Point by point. Meditation is the completely secular act of focusing one's thoughts to induce a calming effect. Praying also induces this calming effect. Both are explained in neuroscience as simply being a balancing of oxytocine levels in the brain. Sleeping is also pretty well explained, we can even divide sleeping up into two seperate stages, explain dreams, and explain where the subconscious thoughts that construct our dreams originate. We can study the brain, we can see different parts of the brian that react to certain stimuli, and what parts of the brain are active during certain types of thoughts...these things ARe explainable by physical nature, and scientific observation.



What was the subjective question that I asked and answered? And who am I criticizing or denouncing?

Sorry, but it seems you're simply bias against me for no real reason. :

Yes the first stage of being calm can ALWAYS be scientifically proven...
but what happens after that?
NOT everything can be scientifically proven....


I got a question.. can love be scientifically proven? NO.... because the only explanation they have is how the body reacts to one another based on the pheromone level they are giving out to each other.. but that is body related topics....
spirit related things can almost NEVER be researched.....
because spirit can only be explained as describing as a "VERY HIGH LEVEL" thing...
(Just an example no need to discuss about this topic)


I only mentioned praying, meditating because it's the few things in life that can let you EXPERIENCE these things... scientists in the 21st century explains only on how the body reacts but they can't find the sources to explain BEYOND the 5 senses.. because it is VERY DIFFICULT to reach beyond the 5 senses..
That's basically like a human becoming a super sayjin without being an actual sayjin...

You asked a yes or no question, then answered it yourself, then to all the people who tried to make you aware that you answered it yourself, you made very incoherent replies. THAT is why I think the conversation should continue.

...Do you think people ask questions only because they dn't have an opinion as to the answer already? It's not like my opinion won't be swayed by any reasoning or new evidence on the matter. I am aware I answered the poll, but I didn't answer why I think people might accept Duality, or even what a nonphysical substance is. That's hwere the conversation can continue, and it's something I laid out in my very first post.



...What do you mean what comes after that? The calmness induces chemical reactions in the mind that allow clarity and thoughtfulness...it's actually pretty basic neuroscience. It's not that 'not everything can be scientifically proven' it's that the entirerty of everything hasn't been scientificaly proven YET(keyword).




Wrong. Neuroscientists have a very good idea as to what love actually is. In fact, it can be artificially induced. As I said before, it's just about oxytocine levels. Sam Harris is an atheist neuroscientist/philosopher that explains this in debth, look him up.



As far as we know, body related topics appear to be the only ones.




Ok, you're not quite getting what I'm telling you. See, if all we can observe, and experience...is physical...then there's no such thing as the nonphysical, or at least it's impossible to distiguish the nonphysical from the nonexistent. You're saying you just FEEL spiritual things, well these feeligns you have can be naturally explained. You accept this, but you also say, "But it's spiritual too, so..." And that's the strangest leap of logic I've seen in awhile. If we can explain these feeings naturally, WHY are we presupposing 'spiritualness' in there

I know that I don't have a strong arguments about this topic....
but I do know that some things ( Maybe not now but in the near future if possible) that around this time that non physical substance cannot be researched on nor can it be proven.....
If what you say about love is true then I have definitely learned something from you BigLundi ( even though it was just an example)

Who knows maybe there are physical substances that may appear non-physical in the 5 senses of the human being...

I only mentioned "spiritual" because I cannot find another existing word that explains about beyond the 5 senses the humans possess....

Glad to know Dark Matter is spiritual now.
Kind of irrelevant too, there are plenty more than 5 senses.
[size=10]
Going back on some points you've previously made, "Can science prove love? NO" Well, actually, just for example, since we got MRIs you can see, for your own eyes, the difference in brain activity when you're experiencing different emotions. Meaning that no, you don't physically see love, but you can see that it is in fact a reaction in the brain. Since, [size=10]you shoulda known that.[/h]

Now, where you're going wrong is even trying to apply science to spirituality. That alone is horrifying to see. Your spirituality is something that you believe in, something you believe in that cannot be proven or observed.
It's called faith; you can't prove faith, and you can't show that what you have faith in is actually real. That's why it's faith.

Don't think you're on high ground because science can't prove it wrong. Because, in fact, there's even less to prove faith right.

-Big Lundi asks a philosophical question with only a yes or no answer possible.
-Big Lundi proceeds to try and use science (badly) to answer it for himself.
-Big Lundi proceeds to make fun of anyone that doesn't believe his (bad science).
-Lawl at using purely concrete evidence is a philosophical argument.

Entirely this. There is no concrete evidence in metaphysics.

So whats your point now?
Stop taking out specific sentences from the whole thing... such tactics is considered dirty and this is a whole different matter.... and also stop using other posts and paste it unto this one.....
BigLundi has already made some good points about it so no need to force it down someones throat just to prove YOUR point.

Devil's in the details, son. Can't go to a university and tell them it's dirty when they're peer editing your theses.



Then what is the point of even posting after BigLundi made the topic? Is it not okay to make points which haven't already been made because you don't like them?

And on a side note, I'm not actually picking out sentences and replying to only them; there's a reason I didn't bother quoting a very specific sentence for the bulk of my post. The reason is because it's about your post in general.

Essentially, I'll repeat in a brief manner: Stop saying "science can't prove x,y,z" when it's not even certain if x,y,z actually exists outside of your own beliefs.

My beliefs?
Whoever said science can't prove X, Y and Z? ME?
I said there are things that science at the time cannot prove because it's not there and maybe later if possible that some theories can be proven as a fact, but at this time around they find it IMPOSSIBLE to prove something that has no physical substance in them.....
Your argument involves in picking out minor details from someones statement and using it against them.... in my own assumption that is considered dirty because it's the same judging a book by it's cover and title without reading the story behind it...
read what people have to write and since you consider yourself as a person who knows psychology (based on your picture) then you have no problem in understanding people with what they mean when they state something...

Is that enough?



Actually, if I simply took what you had to say on what it souuunds like, then it would be judging a book by it's cover.



So you want me to listen to what you mean, and not what you say?
How am I suppose to know what you mean... if that's not what you say?

Now, let me explain a little more on the second point. That's what all arguments consist of.
In order to have an argument, first you need to back your statements with reason. You need to explain yourself, your position. Then you have to make logical deductions to come to a conclusion.
Your little details make a bigger picture.

So how do you argue against someone? If someone points out that your little details are incorrect, then your bigger picture doesn't look the same now, does it?

In order to make a counter argument, you must tell them why they are wrong. In order to tell them they are wrong, you can't say "no you're wrong, I feel this way." You have to point out where they are wrong. And that's in the details. Sorry.

Right now on the last one is really immature from you...
I feel like im arguing with a kid when they say something like that....
now you just lost it kid

No, seriously. You say one thing, and then you say you mean something else. How am I suppose to tell?
Just look at the example of:





You say one thing, many times. Then when you're told you're wrong, you say you've never said it. Yet, I'm childlike?

Here's another example.




So, how am I suppose to know what you mean when you keep saying things that conflict with each other? I'm sorry if that makes a good barrier to understanding, but it's very far from immature.

You might want to re-evaluate your statements.

Never said I never said...
I say what I mean and when there is a good argument that counters my points then I kindly agree to it.

You should read ALL of my posts in this thread....
and it's my responsibility to read other peoples posts and rethink about the things I wrote... then things PROGRESS in a discussion and change our minds a little, there is nothing wrong about changing ones mind after thinking about what the other person said or wrote.

You don't see me delete my posts and rewrite them making you guys think im smart by agreeing other peoples opinions and theories.
We write or talk, we discuss, we disagree on some terms but we also agree on it.


That is what a discussion is all about... what you are doing is nitpicking out the small details and using them as an excuse to argue with that person.

There is a difference between a discussion and an argument.
You give me the impression that you like to argue and that you use specific points by any means necessary to win an argument.
Even though specific points are not meant to be used in that manner like how you used it.


and this is Mind Body Dualism my friend and not a debate on which you use your points to counter mine but rather presenting your theories and evidence.

I have not made any assumptions about this matter but pointed out things that cannot be explained and by cannot I mean there are things that is almost note* ALMOST impossible to prove of it's existence.

Since you love arguing alot I suggest you state your points about this topic.

If you like to argue with me then stop.... because I haven't started this immature argument, you did.
And I also stated points out that made sense in this discussion.
it's up to you to understand what I wrote and what others have written....

Anyhow. Lets go over mind and body dualism. It's a very old concept, rather outdated.
First off, what's referred to as the "mind" does not refer to the brain. Rather, it refers to the soul.

The idea is that the body is a vessel for the soul, and the soul looks out into the physical world.

The whole notion is another attempt at Scholasticism, the whole theory relies mainly on the Christian religion, and it has not been improved to include brain functions.