Compatibalism

[Leonhard]

non-natural claim if you prefer.

On the contrary, hylomorphic dualism is based on natural observations.

I see you like to repeat yourself instead of actually arguing your case. If it's coherent in any metaphysics then it's logically coherent. All that is required for logical coherency in a concept is that there are no contradictions within it. That is, you can't do a reductio ad absurdum argument against it.

Metaphysics can only marshal the facts available to it,

You're not saying anything here I disagree with.

Good, then show a contradiction. Anywhere. So far you've assumed that I have no arguments to support hylomorphic dualism, and I have refused to give them since it's not needed to demonstrate that it is not logically incoherent.

How is this not true of the natural universe?

The Fallacy fallacy, remains a fallacy no matter what kind of universe we live in. I don't have to defend the matter of the fallacy at all. If you're starting to question whether a fallacy is fallacious, then there's really no reason for me to try to have a rational conversation with you.

Science assumes philosophical naturalism

On the contrary, it's working principles assumes methodological naturalism. Even so, as hylomorphic dualism is not supernatural, this is no problem.

Hylemorphic Dualism is motivated by prior theological dogma

If you ever feel like actually getting educated instead of reading gnu atheist blogs and feeling clever about yourself, try picking up say On The Soul by Aristotle to get a feeling for the arguments he laid out. At no point in his work, or in subsequent scholastic works, was theological arguments put in place to argue for hylomorphic dualism. Rather such things would only be relevant in such a discussion when the topic came to what would happen to a human soul upon death, and the effects of sin and grace on a soul.

You're really burning strawmen at full blast Tassman. It makes you come off as quite ignorant about the subject.

and only makes sense if you accept discredited Aristotelian ontology.

So far you haven't stated a single argument against it, other than you finding it unfashionable.

So what, such a discussion is not within the ability of science to make. Science is far too simple and limited in its methods, artificially so (in order to do what it does and be useful). It can't answer the question 'What is the mind? Is what the brain does the same thing as the mind?" Such a discussion belongs entirely to the philosophy of mind.

Though like gnu atheists, you're scientistic and a philosophy denier. Compared to you I much prefer the feministic atheists I know. Try reading Skepchick for a bit to get a feel for a group of atheists who pretty much ditched the now entirely useless New Atheists.

And read this article on why atheists should start to take philosophy seriously: http://www.salon.com/2014/09/27/jona...ense_of_humor/

This answer is bordering on unintelligible: Do you, or do you not recognize that there are multiple interpretations of Quantum Mechanics, many of whom are indeterministic?

The fact of the matter is that it's not a scientific fact that the universe is deterministic. That's a metaphysical claim that, while informed by empirii, can't be subjected to scientific testing, nor can it be falsified. Period.

[Tassman]

So what, such a discussion is not within the ability of science to make. Science is far too simple and limited in its methods, artificially so (in order to do what it does and be useful). It can't answer the question 'What is the mind? Is what the brain does the same thing as the mind?" Such a discussion belongs entirely to the philosophy of mind.

These are scientific questions, philosophy is not equipped to provide answers...it has no mechanism to test them. There's no reason to imagine that a physical brain has an interface with a non-physical realm of being.

This answer is bordering on unintelligible: Do you, or do you not recognize that there are multiple interpretations of Quantum Mechanics, many of whom are indeterministic?

The fact of the matter is that it's not a scientific fact that the universe is deterministic. That's a metaphysical claim that, while informed by empirii, can't be subjected to scientific testing, nor can it be falsified. Period.

It is a philosophical proposition that every event, decision and action is causally determined by an unbroken chain of prior occurrences and science has verified this proposition.

It has NOTinternal component

[Leonhard]

These are scientific questions, philosophy is not equipped to provide answers...it has no mechanism to test them.

The question of what the mind is, ought to be informed by the relevant facts, but science itself is incapable of even investigating the question. There is nothing testable about the notion of qualia, intentionality, aboutness. Science can basically only view responses and compare it to how the brain is affected. It can document psychological aspects, such as our biases, or mental anomalies, but science can't answer the question 'What is a good healthy mind?' It can't because it's limited entirely to empirical investigations, so answering abstract questions about our understanding of these questions is beyond it.

You can't test what the notion of beauty means, only whether people report something as being 'beautiful'.

Tell me then, how would science investigate 'What is the mind?' How do you plan to measure and weigh that question?

There's no reason to imagine that a physical brain has an interface with a non-physical realm of being.

Hylomorphic dualism makes no claim about such a thing, you're still comparing it to Cartesian Dualism. This is still an error.

You can't admit that physics can very reasonably be indeterministic, and then claim for a fact that physics is deterministic. It was you who claimed that it was a fact of science that determinism held. All I have to do is point out one single case in which it isn't a fact that the world is deterministic. I've done so, ergo I've defeated your argument.

Your appeal to higher levels of 'average' behavior is special pleading. Though you're also containing the hidden premise the reductionistic materialism is true, and that definitely isn't a scientific fact.

It's kinda ironic that in all these discussions you haven't used a single scientific argument, you've merely appeal to a certain metaphysics that you favor with bad philosophical argument in its support.

It is a philosophical proposition that every event, decision and action is causally determined by an unbroken chain of prior occurrences and science has verified this proposition.

Be my guest and show how science has verified determinism.

It has NOTinternal component

I never talked about a seperate entity distinct from the form of the person. Their soul is their body.

You originally said that libertarian free will was incoherent. That means you think, or you claim (or at least your argument does), that libertarian free will contains contradictions. It is self-defeating. I've called your bluff, asked you to show anything like that and you haven't. You've asked me for scientific evidence for a philosophical argument.

Then, ironically, you use the worst kind of philosophical hamfisting and logical fallacious philosophical reasoning to support your own favored metaphysics, while calling it scientific fact.

Do you have anything better to do?

[MaxVel]

It's kinda ironic that in all these discussions you haven't used a single scientific argument, you've merely appeal to a certain metaphysics that you favor with bad philosophical argument in its support.



Be my guest and show how science has verified determinism.



I never talked about a seperate entity distinct from the form of the person. Their soul is their body.



You originally said that libertarian free will was incoherent. That means you think, or you claim (or at least your argument does), that libertarian free will contains contradictions. It is self-defeating. I've called your bluff, asked you to show anything like that and you haven't. You've asked me for scientific evidence for a philosophical argument.

Then, ironically, you use the worst kind of philosophical hamfisting and logical fallacious philosophical reasoning to support your own favored metaphysics, while calling it scientific fact.

Do you have anything better to do?

This is the end of those who sneer and look down their noses at philosophy and metaphysics: they do bad philosophy and worse metaphysics

[JimL]

Okay, thats a little clearer I think. But so what, what does the form, and the properties associated with that form, have to do with a soul? I mean naming it a soul doesn't seem to change anything of its singular materialistic nature. The matter of a body in the form of a nervous system, a brain, has the property to rationaly compute. You say that therefore the brain acts in ways it otherwise wouldn't unless it had a human soul as if a human soul was something different than, and causative of, the properties of the material form. I guess what I'm trying to understand is in what sense do you understand hylomorphic dualism to actually be dualism.

Leonard, you never got back to me on this, would appreciate an explanation.

[seer]

Leonard, you never got back to me on this, would appreciate an explanation.

Basic theory[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hylomorphism

[Leonhard]

Leonard, you never got back to me on this, would appreciate an explanation.

I definitely will! Sorry about that. Unfortunately tonight I'm busy writing job applications and messing with LXC container stuff.

[The Thinker]

I definitely will! Sorry about that. Unfortunately tonight I'm busy writing job applications and messing with LXC container stuff.

Hylomorphism is nonsense, based on antiquated pre-scientific metaphysics that's been refuted for years. It's all semantics at best.

[shunyadragon]

The question of what the mind is, ought to be informed by the relevant facts, but science itself is incapable of even investigating the question. There is nothing testable about the notion of qualia, intentionality, aboutness. Science can basically only view responses and compare it to how the brain is affected. It can document psychological aspects, such as our biases, or mental anomalies, but science can't answer the question 'What is a good healthy mind?' It can't because it's limited entirely to empirical investigations, so answering abstract questions about our understanding of these questions is beyond it.

You can't test what the notion of beauty means, only whether people report something as being 'beautiful'.

Tell me then, how would science investigate 'What is the mind?' How do you plan to measure and weigh that question?

This problem was brought up by grmorton and failed there too. You are justifying your view with an 'argument from ignorance' proposing that something exists, because science cannot explain the attributes of consciousness and qualia to YOUR satisfaction. Daniel Dennett would disagree with your conclusions. This does not take into consideration of future advancements in their ability to explain consciousness and the nature of Qualia. At present science can describe and attribute consciousness and Qualia to the brain, and no other source is apparent in the objective evidence.

Science an show changes in the brain physically by drugs, injury and age and how they can effect qualia, and trace where the injury and drugs effect the human mind.

[Leonhard]

Hylomorphism is nonsense, based on antiquated pre-scientific metaphysics that's been refuted for years. It's all semantics at best.

Feel free to make a post actually demonstrating this, this was one is all bluster.

[Tassman]

The question of what the mind is, ought to be informed by the relevant facts, but science itself is incapable of even investigating the question. There is nothing testable about the notion of qualia, intentionality, aboutness. Science can basically only view responses and compare it to how the brain is affected. It can document psychological aspects, such as our biases, or mental anomalies, but science can't answer the question 'What is a good healthy mind?' It can't because it's limited entirely to empirical investigations, so answering abstract questions about our understanding of these questions is beyond it.

You can't test what the notion of beauty means, only whether people report something as being 'beautiful'.

Tell me then, how would science investigate 'What is the mind?' How do you plan to measure and weigh that question?

You can't admit that physics can very reasonably be indeterministic, and then claim for a fact that physics is deterministic. It was you who claimed that it was a fact of science that determinism held. All I have to do is point out one single case in which it isn't a fact that the world is deterministic. I've done so, ergo I've defeated your argument.

Your appeal to higher levels of 'average' behavior is special pleading. Though you're also containing the hidden premise the reductionistic materialism is true, and that definitely isn't a scientific fact.

Once again, quantum indeterminism functions at the microscopic level whereas at the macroscopic level quantum physics is guided by probability. We know how things will behave on the average and we know that very accurately...nature is demonstrably not capricious.

It's kinda ironic that in all these discussions you haven't used a single scientific argument, you've merely appeal to a certain metaphysics that you favor with bad philosophical argument in its support

Science functions successfully on the assumption that every event and action is causally determined by an unbroken chain of prior occurrences. If you have evidence this is not the case then you need to present it, otherwise you have no argument.

I never talked about a seperate entity distinct from the form of the person. Their soul is their body.

If their

You originally said that libertarian free will was incoherent. That means you think, or you claim (or at least your argument does), that libertarian free will contains contradictions. It is self-defeating. I've called your bluff, asked you to show anything like that and you haven't. You've asked me for scientific evidence for a philosophical argument.

Then, ironically, you use the worst kind of philosophical hamfisting and logical fallacious philosophical reasoning to support your own favored metaphysics, while calling it scientific fact.

[Tassman]

Leonard, you never got back to me on this, would appreciate an explanation.

Exactly! This is the core of the matter and I await the answer with interest.

[The Thinker]

Feel free to make a post actually demonstrating this, this was one is all bluster.

The burden of proof is really on you to show that it is correct. Here's a challenge to you: Demonstrate that people are more than just their physical body, and that if the mental exists, it has causal power on the physical.

[seer]

The burden of proof is really on you to show that it is correct. Here's a challenge to you: Demonstrate that people are more than just their physical body, and that if the mental exists, it has causal power on the physical.

Thinker, I believe you are moving the goal posts. Leonhard's main point was that his position was not logically incoherent as Tass was claiming.

[Leonhard]

The burden of proof is really on you to show that it is correct.

No, you were the one making a particular claim here, or rather a set of claims mashed into one single sentence.

"Hylomorphism is nonsense, based on antiquated pre-scientific metaphysics that's been refuted for years."

It should be easy enough for you to demonstrate. And in fact, if neither you nor Tassman can do so, then my point stands 'There is nothing incoherent about hylomorphic dualism.'

Here's a challenge to you: Demonstrate that people are more than just their physical body, and that if the mental exists, it has causal power on the physical.

I might in another thread one day. So far I haven't found anyone who would be interesting arguing this with. I might do so with JimL, he seems to actually be asking questions worth putting effort into answering. Still working on the reply, but I'm getting a new refrigerator and I'm going to a meetup featuring Anita Sarkeesian as a speaker tomorrow. Plus there are those applications to fill out, and some hobby coding. Busy, busy, busy.

I'll get to you in time JimL!