physicalism vs dualism

[Workshop35]

could you give me some fodder to work with? I'm more intersted in reasons for physicalism and how to counter dualist arguments. need to debate this in class btw I'd like more biblical views rather than secular because I go to a christian college and we are arguing more along these lines. just a starter on where to look would be nice so I dont have to bug my roommate (rs major). thanks

 

[Dracil]

Physicalism? Do you mean materialism?

I don't think there are biblical arguments for this, but try this. When I lesion your brain, I can cause personality changes to you. For a dualist, does that mean that I've just affected their soul? If it's a yes, then doesn't that mean, I could conceivably lesion your brain so that your personality changes in such a way that you stop beliving in God, or vice versa? And if so, what does that say about faith and salvation?

 

[Workshop35]

Physicalism? You mean materialism?

I don't think there are biblical arguments for this, but there is a rather simple argument for it. When I lesion your brain, I can cause personality changes to you. For a dualist, does that mean that I've just affected their soul?

physicalism because its a philosophy class. but i think materialism is probably the same thing because physicalism states that Man is only the body aka material

basically its an argument for the existence of a soul. physicalists would say there is no soul whereas dualists would say we all have souls

 

[Dracil]

So see my argument. Do you have a counter to that from the dualist position? Or what arguments do you think the dualist side will be using?

 

[Workshop35]

from a dualist perspective I would assume they would say that the soul is not part of the body and cannot be tampered with by altering the body. they are going to be using arguments like what remains after you die if you're only a body ect, what can be judged, that kind of stuff. I'm meeting with them tomorrow so I'll have a good fix on what they will be proposing.
one biblical argument I do know of for physicalism is that there is no soul mentioned in the Old Testament. other than that I'm not sure where to take the biblical argument right now. good think I still have another week to go

 

[MoonlessNight]

Physicalism? Do you mean materialism?

I don't think there are biblical arguments for this, but try this. When I lesion your brain, I can cause personality changes to you. For a dualist, does that mean that I've just affected their soul? If it's a yes, then doesn't that mean, I could conceivably lesion your brain so that your personality changes in such a way that you stop beliving in God, or vice versa? And if so, what does that say about faith and salvation?

All this says is that the soul is not the whole person.

 

[Dracil]

from a dualist perspective I would assume they would say that the soul is not part of the body and cannot be tampered with by altering the body.

Then they are going to have to give up the idea that the soul = mind. Otherwise, they are going to have a hard time explaining why affecting the brain (the body) affects the mind, which is supposed to be affected by (or even the same as) the soul. The whole salvation stuff is to link it to Christianity a bit.

But I really need a more concrete statement of which type of Dualism they're supporting to be able to argue more effectively against it.

 

[Dracil]

So, any update on their positions?

 

[Apollo Belvedre]

one biblical argument I do know of for physicalism is that there is no soul mentioned in the Old Testament.

I beg to differ. Genesis 2:7 reads, "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." The hebrew word used for breath has another interpretation meaning spirit, although its only used as such once. Even so, what's clearly being illustrated here can undoubtedly be used to support a dualist theory.

 

[MoonlessNight]

I beg to differ. Genesis 2:7 reads, "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." The hebrew word used for breath has another interpretation meaning spirit, although its only used as such once. Even so, what's clearly being illustrated here can undoubtedly be used to support a dualist theory.

Well, not so undoubtably. My Bible uses the term "living being" instead of "living soul", and in any case the same term is used later with the creation of animals, so even if it supports a dualist position, there is no distinction in the souls of humans and animals that can be found from the text.

The real problem comes about when one considers that the notion of soul as we understand it was an invention of the Greeks. As such there is no word in Hebrew that corresponds to the word "soul." So while it is a valid interpretation of the passage that mankind is being granted a soul, it is just of valid of interpretation to say that mankind is being given life, (not necessarily with a soul). The latter interpretation is perhaps the more likely of the two, so the passage becomes difficult to use as support for dualism in the Bible.

 

[Philosoft]

This can be a tricky topic. All dualists are not theists - dualists don't necessarily believe in the soul. And philosophical dualistic arguments are not evidence for a soul as formulated by most theistic systems.

 

[Vegan Charity]

could you give me some fodder to work with? I'm more intersted in reasons for physicalism and how to counter dualist arguments. need to debate this in class btw I'd like more biblical views rather than secular because I go to a christian college and we are arguing more along these lines. just a starter on where to look would be nice so I dont have to bug my roommate (rs major). thanks

First thing to keep in mind, Dualism does not implicity assume the existence of a soul.

I doubt you will find many arguments for physicalism in the Bible. Two of the major tenets of Christianity are in fact Dualism and Supernaturalism.

Arguments for Physicalism (these will be secular in nature):

What is the mind?

The mind is defined as the totality of cognitive process which occur in the brain.


Where does the mind come from?

The "mind" does not exist in a concrete sense (in the same way, "pretty" and "evil" do not exist concretely either). The mind is a word we use to reference a rapid fluctuations of electricity which occur in the brain, more specifically the Corpus Callosum*.

Under this definition, you can reasonably argue the mind exists, but only in terms of physical processes and occurrences. Under the description I provided, you can also reduce down Qualia to merely a set of Materialistic functions.

(* The Corpus Callosum is a region in the brain made up of about 300 million neural fibers. It connects the two hemispheres of the brain together and allows them to communicate.)


How to prove the mind is dependent on matter?

1. All events supervene on the physical
2. Mental events undoubtedly affect physical events (you think of raising your hand, then your hand raises)
3. Mental Events have a causal relationship with physical events
4. Therefore, Physicalism is true

Of course, the standard anti-physicalist response to that is rejecting premise 2, and adopting epiphenomenalism. Of course, Epiphenomenalism is an absurd Philosophy, but its adoption is enough to reject that above proof. To properly answer this rejection of the above proof, you simply state "if pains don't cause pain behavior how can it be that your telling me that you are in pain gives me any reason for supposing you are?"


This is perhaps a stronger more convicing proof:

1. It is rational to believe one's metaphysical views be guided by methods of natural science
2. The metaphysical picture of the world which is led by natural science is in fact physicalism
3. Therefore, it is rational to believe physicalism is true

One might respond by rejecting premise 1, however that is not a position many people are attacted to.

One might respond by rejecting premise 2, however what would be the motivation for doing so? Once you understand what Methodological Physicalism really is (and what is is not), then you conclude that there is a way to rationalize belief in Physicalism. It does not deny that other views might be right, it merely observes that Physicalism is the most likely view at the moment.


Here is some physical evidence for proof of the dependence of the human mind on physical matter: Split-brain Studies

It is a long read, but very informative.

 

[Apollo Belvedre]

Well, not so undoubtably. My Bible uses the term "living being" instead of "living soul"...

Whether it is being interpreted as "living being" or "living soul", the hebrew term in question is the word Nephesh. And it is used 475 times in The Old Testament in reference to the assumption of a soul in the following books: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 Samuel, 2 Samuel, 1 Kings, 2 Kings, 1 Chronicles, 2 Chronicles, Esther, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Solomon, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Ezekiel, Hosea, Amos, Jonah, Micah, Habakkukm, Haggai, Zechariah. Not that this alone is proof of dualism. I only mention it to give a greater understanding of what we're talking about.

...and in any case the same term is used later with the creation of animals, so even if it supports a dualist position, there is no distinction in the souls of humans and animals that can be found from the text.

I apologize for my unfamiliarity with the concept of dualism, that is after all my whole reason for joining this discussion. But if dualism can essentially be defined as "an argument for the existence of a soul", and if it can be granted that souls are present within mankind, regardless of any correlation that other creatures may possess a soul, then what more needs be said without sounding redundant? Any discussion over the distinction between the souls of men and the souls of animals is an entirely different matter.

The real problem comes about when one considers that the notion of soul as we understand it was an invention of the Greeks.

I don't think though that you can neccesarily say that the hebrews were without any concept of a soul. As I remarked earlier in the thread, the hebrew word for breath also denotes spirit. This is where the idea of a spirit (exclusive from the body) appearing as a nebulous mist comes from. It is the connotation of breathe. Whether it is identical to the greek concept or not, the wording of the Bible does indicate a belief in a soul.

So while it is a valid interpretation of the passage that mankind is being granted a soul, it is just of valid of interpretation to say that mankind is being given life, (not necessarily with a soul). The latter interpretation is perhaps the more likely of the two, so the passage becomes difficult to use as support for dualism in the Bible.

The reason why I disagree and am compelled by a dualist view is by what Genesis 2:7 explicitly depicts. God performs two acts before man "becomes a living being/soul." The first is to form man by the dust of the earth. This is inarguably, if not literal, represenative of God creating the body. God then "breathed into his nostrils the breath of life." The significance is that each act pays particular attention to two separate yet equally necessary aspects of life. Summed up best by Gestalt Theory; the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. The reason why I don't accept that it could be saying that mankind is merely being given life is because of the careful wording that uses two separate terms for "living" and "being/soul" at the end of the verse.

 

[Workshop35]

Well, not so undoubtably. My Bible uses the term "living being" instead of "living soul", and in any case the same term is used later with the creation of animals, so even if it supports a dualist position, there is no distinction in the souls of humans and animals that can be found from the text.

The real problem comes about when one considers that the notion of soul as we understand it was an invention of the Greeks. As such there is no word in Hebrew that corresponds to the word "soul." So while it is a valid interpretation of the passage that mankind is being granted a soul, it is just of valid of interpretation to say that mankind is being given life, (not necessarily with a soul). The latter interpretation is perhaps the more likely of the two, so the passage becomes difficult to use as support for dualism in the Bible.

I was going ot respond along these lines but you already did it quite nicely
ok update time. the other groups (I found out have we 2 others now) are going to be speaking from a platonic perspective and a cartesian (descartes) on the subjects of creation, jesus, resurrection and obviously the existence of a soul. the above discussion would be an example of what we might talk about for creation/existence, which will probably be lumped together. an example of a discussion topic about jesus/resurrection would be what is left when we die? do we have a soul that just inhabits a new body or are we resurrected? this calls into question the resurrection of Jesus I would think. why would he be brought back from the dead with presumably the same body? why would you need to be resurrected at all if you have a heavenly body waiting for you? just some things to chew on until I come up with more