The Case for Dualism (The nature of a \'Creator\')

by dhw, Saturday, October 23, 2010, 23:50 (5143 days ago) @ xeno6696

MATT: Though what I reprinted directly is his foundational case, he goes on to state in the chapter that because consciousness implies an inverse--unconscious; the fundamental state of components is therefore dual in nature. There is mind, and there is matter. 
I can already tell you that he hasn't read any Russel & Whitehead. Their Principia Mathematica ultimately solves this "mathematical" dilemma simply via their general proof that 1 + 1 really does equal 2. (I know, the mathematically minded must seem downright silly in seeking such a proof...)-Maybe the nature of my objection wasn't clear. There is no mathematical dilemma here. You can have as many ones and twos as you like, the ONLY question is whether the mind is the product of materials or not. Conscious and unconscious may = a duality, but if the mind is not the product of materials, then BOTH are non-physical. If he does want to call them a duality, he'll have to argue for "triplism": body, conscious, unconscious. But the fact that we have two or even three of something does not prove that one of them is non-physical ("there is mind and there is matter"). It's a complete non sequitur. A materialist will accept the distinction between mind and body, just as he'll accept the distinction between heart and lung, and he'll tell you that they are simply different combinations of matter.-However, I'm not arguing against dualism. That is part of my own problem as an agnostic ... I don't understand the nature of consciousness (and nor does anyone else). If there is a dimension beyond the material, then it opens up the whole question of whether there is a form of life beyond that which we know ... and of course a UI comes into the equation. But merely repeating that we have a body and a conscious mind (and an unconscious mind for good measure), and 1 + 1 = 2 is simply playing games with the word "dualism".