Property dualism/natural dualism (what David Chalmers believes) is worst position than substance dualism

[STT]

Both positions suffer from the problem of interaction yet you need to explain how mind comes from matter in property dualism.

 

[IWantGod]

Both positions suffer from the problem of interaction yet you need to explain how mind comes from matter in property dualism.

Property dualism, despite any problem you perceive, certainly makes a lot more sense and is more coherent than any of the materialist explanations that you have presented during the course of this thread. I agree that it still suffers from the problem of how the mind can be an emergent property of blind physical processes. I think in this case the property duelist will either say they just don’t know or they will argue that immaterial realities have always existed in concert with physical things. Physical objects are all conscious to some degree. The substance dualists can go one step further and say that mind is the foundation of reality.

As for the interaction problem, if the mind is separate from the brain, then one can simply argue that the brain interprets the will of the mind and expresses it physically. So its not that the mind “causes” the brain to to process information in a mechanistic sense, but rather the brain receives information and acts on that information in the sense that it is goal directed to the natural end of expressing the mind. The functions of the brain presupposes the minds existence and facilitates its expression in the physical world.

 

[STT]

Property dualism, despite any problem you perceive, certainly makes a lot more sense and is more coherent than any of the materialist explanations that you have presented during the course of this thread.

We are talking about substance and property dualism and not materialism.

I agree that it still suffers from the problem of how the mind can be an emergent property of blind physical processes.

That is the problem, emergence.

I think in this case the property duelist will either say they just don’t know or they will argue that immaterial realities have always existed in concert with physical things.
Physical objects are all conscious to some degree.

So matter is conscious and consciousness is not emergent!?

The substance dualists can go one step further and say that mind is the foundation of reality.

Both matter and mind are foundation of reality in substance dualism.

As for the interaction problem, if the mind is separate from the brain, then one can simply argue that the brain interprets the will of the mind and expresses it physically.

How brain can possibly interpret the will of mind if there is no causal relation between them?

So its not that the mind “causes” the brain to to process information in a mechanistic sense, but rather the brain receives information and acts on that information in the sense that it is goal directed to the natural end of expressing the mind.

How possibly matter can arrange itself to express mind if there is no causal relation between them?

The functions of the brain presupposes the minds existence and facilitates its expression in the physical world.

So brain allows emergence of mind and at the same time allows mind to express itself. How such a thing is possible if they are not causally related?

 

[IWantGod]

How brain can possibly interpret the will of mind if there is no causal relation between them?

When you read the words in a book, is there a mechanistic cause between the words you are reading and your brain? Or is your brain simply interpreting the information?

How possibly matter can arrange itself to express mind if there is no causal relation between them?

There is a relationship, just not a mechanistic relationship in the sense of one ball pushing another ball. Can you explain how its not possible? What is your metaphysical standard for thinking that its not possible?

 

[STT]

It is on you to disprove dualism as dualism is the base assumption. There is a mental and a physical, why would you assume they are one?

We don’t discuss whether monism or dualism is true in this thread. We are discussing tho dual positions.

 

[STT]

When you read the words in a book, is there a mechanistic cause between the words you are reading and your brain? Or is your brain simply interpreting the information?

We are somehow transforming information/forms to knowledge/something which is comprehensible for an intellectual being.

There is a relationship, just not a mechanistic relationship in the sense of one ball pushing another ball. Can you explain how its not possible? What is your metaphysical standard for thinking that its not possible?

My metaphysical position respect causality. Causality allows relation between things.