Dualism (Identity)

by dhw, Monday, May 11, 2020, 13:32 (1656 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: Concepts are immaterial and would come from the dualist’s soul, which processes all the information and instructs the brain to give material expression to its thoughts.

DAVID: You've again left out the soul can only initiate concepts by using the brain's networks to think of them. The soul in life must do that. The soul does not sit outside the brain and tell it what to do. They are intricately bound together.

You simply refuse to pinpoint what the soul (if it exists) uses the brain FOR! Once again, do you or do you not agree that the soul does the thinking, and uses the information provided by the brain to initiate concepts, and uses the brain to implement them (= develop, design, produce and/or express them)? If the soul exists, then OK, it’s housed within the brain, and so it sits INSIDE the brain and tells it what to do! Just as a materialist would no doubt argue that certain parts of the brain tell other parts what to do. And one of the crucial arguments to support dualism is NDEs, which appear to prove that even though the brain is dead, the soul lives on and continues to do its thinking independently of the brain!

DAVID: Erectus at 1,000 cc is basically our immediate predecessor and never could have had our thinking ability. The brain provides much more than just information as you keep trying to imply.
dhw: I imply no such thing, as above. Your comment about erectus implies that a 1000 cc brain cannot have the thinking ability of a 1500 cc brain, and you may well be right. Materialists would certainly agree. But dualists believe in a soul that does the thinking, and so the more thinking it does, the more the brain will change, and that in turn will provide more information for the soul to work on, and the more information the soul has, the more complex its thoughts will become, and then the more complex the brain will become as it responds to those thoughts. This is a perfectly logical, interactive progression.

DAVID: Again, you have quoted a dualist theory that is not mine. Don't impose your dualist theories on me! You've done this before. I don't accept it, as stated many times before.

When you make such complaints, I wish you would be specific. You moan if I pick you up on statements such as “only an advanced brain can have advanced thoughts”, and you claim that is shorthand for the soul using the brain in order to do its thinking, and then you either accept or try to ignore my list of the ways the soul uses the brain. Unless you now reject the proven fact that hard thinking complexifies the brain, or wish to claim that the soul does NOT do the thinking, I can’t see any point of disagreement here.

DAVID: In life the soul must use the living brain networks to not only gain info but to develop new concepts and immaterial thoughts.

dhw: Agreed, as described above. It is the soul that does the immaterial conceptualizing and developing while the brain provides the information and the material development and expression or production of the concept.

DAVID: No, no, no. In the bold it's your dualism theory, not mine. The soul must use the brain's thinking networks to conceptualize. eh brain dos give sensory input.

Back you go to the brain thinking! So now you are saying the soul uses the brain’s thoughts to do its thinking! Or maybe the brain has a thinking network but it doesn’t think? Or the soul can’t think unless the brain thinks first? I’m sorry, I haven’t a clue what role your brain’s thinking networks can play in your concept of dualism.

DAVID: In NDE's and death the soul does this all on its own. This is my dualism.

dhw: Also agreed. And this provides evidence that the soul does the thinking and the developing of new concepts and the production of immaterial thoughts. And (once more) in the material world it acquires information from the brain and it uses the brain to give material expression to its immaterial thoughts and concepts.

DAVID: If you accept my way of stating my theory, we may be in agreement.

Your way of stating your theory makes no sense to me. If you accept the above as it is written, there is no disagreement between us. So please pinpoint what you disagree with.