Dualism

  • Thread starter Thread starter Caesar517
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Caesar517 said:
Your English is fine, but I don’t follow the logic of your post. There is only one reality, which is the world around us. God is not a separate reality. What are you trying to show?
Click to expand...
Well, I think I was clear but …then let’s go other side.

God is transcendant, which mean that anything you say about God is right but is wrong. You say that God is good, ok, but the “Good” of God is so different from the “good” of men that is has nothing in common. He is completely separate from the world. He created the world. Before the world was created, if we can say so, there was no no world but there was God.

When you say “one reality”, say, if you talk about men, “reality” means one think, if you talk about God, “reality” is something so different that it has nothing to do with man’s reality. To begin with, God is Infinite, man is finite, God is the creator, men is the creation.

I took one approach to the answer but re-reading your friend’s opinion, I have read many articles about experiences of scientist trying to find God in its experiments and it has been widely publicized in the media, with measures of waves alfa and beta in Catholic nuns and in Tibetan Monks and another which I found amazing, but did not keep the link, that prayer switches off the point of the brain where you are aware of the limits of the environment.

Attention: your friend must realize that God is beyond Science and cannot be put into the laboratory (only if he wishes). Time and Space were created together in the Bid Bang.

Moreover, there are the Christian Miracles, events that defy the logic of Science. like the Turin Shroud, the miracles of Lourdes and Fatima, attested by atheist doctors, the Eucharist Miracles and so on.

I do not know if I went to the point, but, at least, I tried…
 
Caesar517 said:
One of my close personal friends is an atheist, but has never had any real exposure to Christianity. She has a degree in cognitive science, and knows a lot about how the brain works and how chemicals and neurons in our brain affects the way we think and perceive things. Because of this, she tends to reduce certain experiences and feelings to chemical interaction and nothing more. Her chief problem with the existence of God is dualism.

I’ve been discussing this with her over the past few weeks. She feels like if there is something that exists outside of perceivable 3D space (God/souls) and still has an effect on 3D space, then we should be able to perceive it either through our senses or through scientific instrumentation. She rejects the idea that we can perceive anything outside of our standard 5 senses because she knows exactly where they are wired into the brain and sees no other sensory (name removed by moderator)ut.

We agree that because truth is not relative, one of us must be wrong. We both consider the other person to be logical and reasonable and so we have resolved to study dualism until we can agree on what is true and what isn’t. She has reference material to many secular scientists and philosophers; I need to find solid material on dualism from a Catholic perspective. Does anyone have a good place for me to start?

Fides et studium,
Caesar517
Click to expand...
This may help:

edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/01/against-neurobabble.html

edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2009/12/churchland-on-dualism-part-i.html

edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2009/12/churchland-on-dualism-part-ii.html

edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2009/12/churchland-on-dualism-part-iii.html

edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2010/06/churchland-on-dualism-part-iv.html

The author is a Catholic, but argues from a clasical philosophical perspective, rather than a specifically Catholic one – which is the way it should be done, in my view.
 
Trevor_Stamm said:
Hello Caesar!

Have your friend read Philosophy of Mind: A Beginner’s Guide by Dr. Edward Feser. Hardcore Catholic-Thomist and one of the biggest proponents of Catholic dualism, hylemorphic dualism.

David S. Oderberg did a great work on this dualism too, found here [David S. Oderberg Dualism.pdf](David S. Oderberg Dualism.pdf). It’s free to read, and from his book Personal Idenity, another good read.

Enjoy.
Click to expand...
Aah, I just saw you recommend Feser as well, excellent. I haven’t read Oderberg yet, but Feser likes his writings.
 
Al_Moritz said:
Aah, I just saw you recommend Feser as well, excellent. I haven’t read Oderberg yet, but Feser likes his writings.
Click to expand...
😃

Dr. Feser did a blog about it, only reason I knew of that work by David. Recommended reading, he hit the nail right on the head.
 
Caesar517: She feels like if there is something that exists outside of perceivable 3D space (God/souls) and still has an effect on 3D space, then we should be able to perceive it either through our senses or through scientific instrumentation
Click to expand...
If “supernatural” effects emanating from outside our space-time continuum cannot be perceived through scientific instrumentation, it would seem proper to say that the experience denotes nothing more than the insufficiency of current technological resources, as William F. Buckley said.
 
Caesar517 said:
One of my close personal friends is an atheist, but has never had any real exposure to Christianity. She has a degree in cognitive science, and knows a lot about how the brain works and how chemicals and neurons in our brain affects the way we think and perceive things. Because of this, she tends to reduce certain experiences and feelings to chemical interaction and nothing more. Her chief problem with the existence of God is dualism.

I’ve been discussing this with her over the past few weeks. She feels like if there is something that exists outside of perceivable 3D space (God/souls) and still has an effect on 3D space, then we should be able to perceive it either through our senses or through scientific instrumentation. She rejects the idea that we can perceive anything outside of our standard 5 senses because she knows exactly where they are wired into the brain and sees no other sensory (name removed by moderator)ut.

We agree that because truth is not relative, one of us must be wrong. We both consider the other person to be logical and reasonable and so we have resolved to study dualism until we can agree on what is true and what isn’t. She has reference material to many secular scientists and philosophers; I need to find solid material on dualism from a Catholic perspective. Does anyone have a good place for me to start?

Fides et studium,
Caesar517
Click to expand...
Go to Leibniz. He was a Lutheran, but he has the best refutation of dualism that I have ever seen. I recommend Discourse on Metaphysics and Monadology, which can be found for free online.
 
Arizona_Mike said:
If “supernatural” effects emanating from outside our space-time continuum cannot be perceived through scientific instrumentation, it would seem proper to say that the experience denotes nothing more than the insufficiency of current technological resources, as William F. Buckley said.
Click to expand...
One could also note that the after effects of the Big Bang are perceivable through scientific instrumentation, such as the amount of background radiation in the universe, the red shift of galaxies, etc.
 
Thank you very much guys. Feser and Oderberg are exactly what I need. I’m on the right trail now.

Fides et studium,
Caesar
 
Caesar517 said:
One of my close personal friends is an atheist, but has never had any real exposure to Christianity. She has a degree in cognitive science, and knows a lot about how the brain works and how chemicals and neurons in our brain affects the way we think and perceive things. Because of this, she tends to reduce certain experiences and feelings to chemical interaction and nothing more.
Click to expand...
  1. If all our experiences are reducible to chemical interaction our interpretation of those
    experiences is reducible to chemical interaction.
  2. If our interpretation of those experiences is reducible to chemical interaction our thoughts are reducible to chemical interaction.
  3. Chemical interaction lacks insight and understanding.
  4. Any hypothesis that we lack insight and understanding is self-destructive!
  5. If some of our experiences are not reducible to chemical interaction materialism is false!
 
Caesar517 said:
One of my close personal friends is an atheist, but has never had any real exposure to Christianity. She has a degree in cognitive science, and knows a lot about how the brain works and how chemicals and neurons in our brain affects the way we think and perceive things. Because of this, she tends to reduce certain experiences and feelings to chemical interaction and nothing more. Her chief problem with the existence of God is dualism.

I’ve been discussing this with her over the past few weeks. She feels like if there is something that exists outside of perceivable 3D space (God/souls) and still has an effect on 3D space, then we should be able to perceive it either through our senses or through scientific instrumentation. She rejects the idea that we can perceive anything outside of our standard 5 senses because she knows exactly where they are wired into the brain and sees no other sensory (name removed by moderator)ut.

We agree that because truth is not relative, one of us must be wrong. We both consider the other person to be logical and reasonable and so we have resolved to study dualism until we can agree on what is true and what isn’t. She has reference material to many secular scientists and philosophers; I need to find solid material on dualism from a Catholic perspective. Does anyone have a good place for me to start?

Fides et studium,
Caesar517
Click to expand...
If she is as attached to her scientific doctrines as you claim, she needs a scientific approach to this question, something to help her see the shortcomings of “cognitive science.” With due respect to the Church’s teachings, they are not consistent with physics. Her thoughts about God and soul relative to physical reality are correct. Unless there has been a recent papal edit I’ve not heard about, the Church still regards these things as “spirits,” and outside the laws of physics. I’ve read several attempts to wrap words around the notion of spiritual/physical interactions, but they were intellectually shoddy, and none would be satisfying to a scientist trained in critical thinking.

She seems well qualified to investigate the question via non-religious inquiries.

She might begin her scientific studies with a review of Wilder Penfield’s work on internal vs. external brain stimuli, just to loosen up. She should explain his results in terms of her science. If her studies were worth much, she’ll have had at least a superficial exposure to his work.

Next she might read The Conscious Universe by Dean Radin, just to bone up on the state of paranormal research at the Ph.D level. There is excellent evidence that the mind is sensitive to information beyond the range of the customary senses.

With that information in hand, plus her science degree, here are a couple of exercises:
  1. Explain hypnosis.
  2. Explain the Sperry-Gazzoniga split-brain experimental results.
With this information in mind she will be ready to consider alternative perspectives on the nature of soul. A good start would be an old novel, The Soul of Anna Klane, which should be available on Amazon. Get the ugly Ballantine paperback version if possible, with the cover that belongs on a horror story. Limited content from this appears in Douglas Hofstadter’s The Mind’s I and has been used in several courses about the nature of consciousness.

All this reading will prepare her to read my book, which will answer all of her questions in detail and place the “soul” concept firmly in the realm of exotic physics, while answering questions 1 and 2 above. The time she spends on the preliminary reading selections will also give me time to finish my last chapter and pack everything off to the printer.
 
greylorn said:
All this reading will prepare her to read my book, which will answer all of her questions in detail and place the “soul” concept firmly in the realm of exotic physics, while answering questions 1 and 2 above.
Click to expand...
Do let us know when it’s published! You’ve got me curious.
 
greylorn said:
If she is as attached to her scientific doctrines as you claim, she needs a scientific approach to this question, something to help her see the shortcomings of “cognitive science.” With due respect to the Church’s teachings, they are not consistent with physics. Her thoughts about God and soul relative to physical reality are correct. Unless there has been a recent papal edit I’ve not heard about, the Church still regards these things as “spirits,” and outside the laws of physics. I’ve read several attempts to wrap words around the notion of spiritual/physical interactions, but they were intellectually shoddy, and none would be satisfying to a scientist trained in critical thinking.

She seems well qualified to investigate the question via non-religious inquiries.

She might begin her scientific studies with a review of Wilder Penfield’s work on internal vs. external brain stimuli, just to loosen up. She should explain his results in terms of her science. If her studies were worth much, she’ll have had at least a superficial exposure to his work.

Next she might read The Conscious Universe by Dean Radin, just to bone up on the state of paranormal research at the Ph.D level. There is excellent evidence that the mind is sensitive to information beyond the range of the customary senses.

With that information in hand, plus her science degree, here are a couple of exercises:
  1. Explain hypnosis.
  2. Explain the Sperry-Gazzoniga split-brain experimental results.
With this information in mind she will be ready to consider alternative perspectives on the nature of soul. A good start would be an old novel, The Soul of Anna Klane, which should be available on Amazon. Get the ugly Ballantine paperback version if possible, with the cover that belongs on a horror story. Limited content from this appears in Douglas Hofstadter’s The Mind’s I and has been used in several courses about the nature of consciousness.

All this reading will prepare her to read my book, which will answer all of her questions in detail and place the “soul” concept firmly in the realm of exotic physics, while answering questions 1 and 2 above. The time she spends on the preliminary reading selections will also give me time to finish my last chapter and pack everything off to the printer.
Click to expand...
Hi GL,
I am suffering from an acute case of beneficence, so I can’t resist this demoralizing urge to commend you on your response to the OP. Your recommendations appear to be straightforward and helpful — I suppose? I can’t really ascertain whether or not they are helpful because I am not familiar with Penfield or Radin, but I trust your better judgment in this regard. However, I am familiar with “The Soul of Anna Klane” and happen to know something about the author. He is a cranky sort of chap that can be superbly annoying (he would consider that assessment as a complement) but forgivable by virtue of his sharply honed sense of humor. Like yourself, he is a great allusionist (note: I made up this word to mean one that is skilled in the art of allusion). For example, the author once had a young admirer convinced (without specifically claiming to be, i.e., alluded to) that he was a physicist and had set his own broken arm. From what I can tell his only connection with physics was one or two courses in sophomore physics. That aside, he is a published author and that I can respect; and the book has become something of a cult. There was even a movie made from it. As far as I know the author never wrote another book. Probably turned to chopping wood, line dancing, and writing nasty letters to editors or some such thing.

I am looking forward to reading your book and have to chuckle at the ingenious scheme you have devised for getting it published. I am all for tax avoidance.

Still struggling with my own book - YPPOP
 
yppop said:
Hi GL,
I am suffering from an acute case of beneficence, so I can’t resist this demoralizing urge to commend you on your response to the OP. Your recommendations appear to be straightforward and helpful — I suppose? I can’t really ascertain whether or not they are helpful because I am not familiar with Penfield or Radin, but I trust your better judgment in this regard. However, I am familiar with “The Soul of Anna Klane” and happen to know something about the author. He is a cranky sort of chap that can be superbly annoying (he would consider that assessment as a complement) but forgivable by virtue of his sharply honed sense of humor. Like yourself, he is a great allusionist (note: I made up this word to mean one that is skilled in the art of allusion). For example, the author once had a young admirer convinced (without specifically claiming to be, i.e., alluded to) that he was a physicist and had set his own broken arm. From what I can tell his only connection with physics was one or two courses in sophomore physics. That aside, he is a published author and that I can respect; and the book has become something of a cult. There was even a movie made from it. As far as I know the author never wrote another book. Probably turned to chopping wood, line dancing, and writing nasty letters to editors or some such thing.

I am looking forward to reading your book and have to chuckle at the ingenious scheme you have devised for getting it published. I am all for tax avoidance.

Still struggling with my own book - YPPOP
Click to expand...
YP,
I trust that by now you’ve gotten over your benificence attack. They can ruin a man’s entire day. I hate it when such fits occur, but fortunately that is not often.

You might find those references interesting. I discovered Penfield’s work in a neuroanatomy book some decades back but would be surprised if the internet does not have references to it. Radin’s book is available via Amazon, and a wide-ranging mind is likely to find it interesting.

I too have known a few authors, but all were women and their books not especially interesting, nor were their ideas when expressed informally. The Anna Klane author sounds like someone I would dislike intensely— given the themes in his book, no surprise. Of those whose books I’ve appreciated, the only one I’d have wanted to meet was Mortimer Adler.

Some thoughts about “allusionist,” which is a brilliantly conceived word— I’ll try making the point by an analogy which will be especially confusing if you don’t follow professional football.

In Aaron Roger’s first year with the Green Bay Packers, as backup for the quintessential NFL iron man, Brett Favre, he played very little. In his first chance as quarterback when Favre went out with an injury, someone stepped on Roger’s left foot and broke it. He told no one and finished the game, playing an entire half with a broken foot. Of course his teammates learned about this shortly after the game, and by that knowing, without a word being spoken, he had established himself as team Iron Man #2.

Then, in a TV interview awhile later, the reporter made some comment about Favre’s durability and physical courage, whereupon Rogers piped up, “Hey, I played that entire left half with a broken foot!”

I just know that you’re going to love my book, and if you stop being nice I might arrange for an autographed copy. Finished my final chapter last night but my editor won’t be able to get to it for at least a week. Then, printing.

The “ingenious scheme” I devised is called, “self-publication.” No agent or regular publisher would take it on because the material and theme are ever-so-slightly unusual, and my weak publication track record, a few minor scientific and technical papers, does not impress. I should have gotten a mail-order philosophy Ph.D years ago, before they became common.

Keep plugging on your book. These things are not easy, but getting discouraged is. If you’ve resolved any of the questions I posed a few years back, do let me know, please.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top