Mind/Body dualism

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 09, 2013 4:38 PM GMT
    Rene Descartes said that the mind and body are separate. What do you think? I'm inclined to agree.

    We don't have souls. We are souls. We just have bodies.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 09, 2013 4:46 PM GMT
    Nahhh Dats Stoopid.. Dats Stoopid Talk

    tumblr_mh37vtqwFy1s3hileo1_400.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 09, 2013 4:53 PM GMT
    TheRece25 saidNahhh Dats Stoopid.. Dats Stoopid Talk

    tumblr_mh37vtqwFy1s3hileo1_400.gif

    lol wtf
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 09, 2013 5:50 PM GMT
    Separate but connected?

    See below!

    kicked-in-the-junk-o.gif

    His soul must be hurtin'.. icon_eek.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 09, 2013 5:56 PM GMT
    Could you supply a link so I can understand your interest in this philosophy better?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 09, 2013 6:30 PM GMT
    There are too many problems regarding the doctrine of dualism, you're probably better off with materialism. It just doesn't make sense that an immaterial entity - if it should exist - am able to manipulate the corporeal flesh, the relationship between the two is so enigmatic that warrants no more than saying that there is a teapot in mars.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 09, 2013 6:36 PM GMT
    OscarWilde saidThere are too many problems regarding the doctrine of dualism, you're probably better off with materialism. It just doesn't make sense that an immaterial entity - if it should exist - am able to manipulate the corporeal flesh, the relationship between the two is so enigmatic that warrants no more than saying that there is a teapot in mars.


    fuck me...
    Seriously...now!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 09, 2013 8:28 PM GMT
    They are separate in the sense that they are their own entity and have their own functionality, such as your heart and your lungs are separate, but together along with others they make up the whole which is yourself.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 09, 2013 8:39 PM GMT
    There is no soul. Consciousness and thinking develop after birth, due to the millions and billions of nerve-stimuli the brain has to digest. Without the body nothing is left and if no consciousness developed we'd be animals.

    Edited, thanks to antijock below
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 09, 2013 9:18 PM GMT
    bhp91126 saidThere is no soul. Conscience and thinking develop after birth, due to the millions and billions of nerve-stimuli the brain has to digest. Without the body nothing is left and if no conscience developed we'd be animals.


    Do you mean conscience or consciousness?

    Either way, neither seems unique to humans.

    Science now considers non-human animals to exhibit consciousness

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_consciousness
    There have been numerous findings in the past 30 years which display fairly clear evidence of possessors of self-recognition. Self-awareness, by this criterion, has been reported for:
    chimpanzees, orangutans, pygmy chimpanzees, and gorillas.[52][53][54]
    dolphins and elephants.[55][56]
    magpies.[51][57]


    And with regard to conscience:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscience
    One idea is that as people or animals perceive a social relationship as important to preserve, their conscience begins to respect that former "other", and urge actions that protect it.[66][67] Similarly, in complex territorial and cooperative breeding bird communities (such as the Australian magpie) that have a high degree of etiquettes, rules, hierarchies, play, songs and negotiations, rule-breaking seems tolerated on occasions not obviously related to survival of the individual or group; behaviour often appearing to exhibit a touching gentleness and tenderness
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 10, 2013 1:29 AM GMT
    The body is a life-support system for the penis. The mind is just along for the ride.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 10, 2013 1:34 AM GMT
    I like cake icon_smile.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 10, 2013 1:42 AM GMT
    No as a Catholic I believe the soul and body are separate.The body is the temple of soul and then returns to dust from which it was made.The soul lives on and is judged at death and with be reunited with the body on the last day.Ryan
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 10, 2013 1:58 AM GMT
    WickedRyan saidNo as a Catholic I believe the soul and body are separate.The body is the temple of soul and then returns to dust from which it was made.The soul lives on and is judged at death and with be reunited with the body on the last day.Ryan



    "Every human being is called to receive a gift of divine sonship, to become a child of God by grace. However, to receive this gift, we must reject sin, including homosexual behavior—that is, acts intended to arouse or stimulate a sexual response regarding a person of the same sex. The Catholic Church teaches that such acts are always violations of divine and natural law.

    Homosexual desires, however, are not in themselves sinful. People are subject to a wide variety of sinful desires over which they have little direct control, but these do not become sinful until a person acts upon them, either by acting out the desire or by encouraging the desire and deliberately engaging in fantasies about acting it out. People tempted by homosexual desires, like people tempted by improper heterosexual desires, are not sinning until they act upon those desires in some manner."

    http://www.catholic.com/tracts/homosexuality

    Based on your profile pic it seems you, a self-reported Catholic, are acting on those homosexual desires - Bad Catholic boy! icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 10, 2013 2:02 AM GMT
    According to ancient astrological science.

    My Mind is at Cancer - Moon
    My Body is made by Scorpions - Ascendant
    My Soul is from Sagittarius - Sun

    Ugh. Wait! that's not dualism.. that's a 3 way thing.

    oops icon_twisted.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 10, 2013 2:22 AM GMT
    Yup!
    I agreed.
    The soul is pure, it's the body that influences the soul. As long as the soul doesn't make the body to come under its influence one finds it difficult to distinguish between them both in its true sense. And he often confuses and misinterprets desires of body as desires of soul.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 10, 2013 5:50 AM GMT
    shortbutsweet saidThe body is a life-support system for the penis. The mind is just along for the ride.

    Wasn't it the ancient philosopher Testicles who first said that?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 10, 2013 1:42 PM GMT
    MovingRightAlong said
    shortbutsweet saidThe body is a life-support system for the penis. The mind is just along for the ride.

    Wasn't it the ancient philosopher Testicles who first said that?

    It's pronounced TEST-i-cleeze just to clarify.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 10, 2013 2:15 PM GMT
    workhard13 saidIt's pronounced TEST-i-cleeze just to clarify.

    And we have a winner!! icon_biggrin.gificon_biggrin.gificon_wink.gif
  • Sebastian18

    Posts: 255

    Sep 10, 2013 2:20 PM GMT
    Personally, I'm very much inclined to agree with the more neoplatonic interpretations of dualism, especially under the writings of Aquinas, which I find to be a little more descriptive of the synergetic process of the relation between mind and body than strict Cartesian dualism.

    "It seems that the human soul cannot be a form and a particular thing. For if the human soul is a particular thing, it is a subsisting thing having a complete act of existing (esse) in virtue of its own nature. Now whatever accrues to a thing over and above, its complete [substantial] existence, is an accident of that thing as whiteness and clothing are accidents of man. Therefore, when the body is united to the soul, it is united to it accidentally. Consequently, if the soul is a particular thing, it is not the substantial form of the body."

    Really, since anima can also be translated as psyche in certain contexts, even avoiding the issue of whether or not there is a spiritual element to humanity it stands pretty clear ontologically.
  • MikeW

    Posts: 6061

    Sep 10, 2013 6:06 PM GMT
    workhard13 saidRene Descartes said that the mind and body are separate. What do you think? I'm inclined to agree.

    We don't have souls. We are souls. We just have bodies.

    The problem with attempting to have an intelligent conversation about such things is we all 'think' we all 'mean' the 'same thing' by words such as 'mind', 'body' and 'soul'. But do we really? Without clear agreed upon definitions we can't communicate or understand one another.

    For example, Gregory Bateson (the father of cybernetic theory and arguably a genius of the previous century) defined "a unit of mind" as "information traveling in a circuit." More specifically, he defined "information" as "news of a difference." Thus he used the example of a blind man using a cane to navigate down a sidewalk, going tap, tap, tap. Each tap is a unit of mind carrying news of a difference. Elaborating upon this, he concluded that "mind" *is* the *total* environment of information. We speak of "my mind" much the same way we speak of "the sun rise." Both figures of speech are antiquated perceptions having little to do with the cybernetic reality of information flow both inside and outside the organism.

    If one really gets into this we quickly end up in a kind of philosophical Klein bottle:

    Klein_bottle.svg

    Where, topologically, no clear dualistic line can be drawn between what is 'inside' (mind) and what is 'outside' (body). ALL our perceptions of the world and our selves in it, all the information we glean from our scientific experiments (etc.) happen 'inside'--in a field of awareness. We ARE the universe looking at itself.

    I tend to think of it as a matter of convenient coordinates in a multi-dimensional universe. Where are we? Well, look up the longitude and latitude. Just be clear that these coordinates are not actual but merely conceptual, points on a map, a map that is NEVER the territory. All concepts are like this. Useful, perhaps, but not *actual*. Same thing with "when" are we. The date tells us. But that date is just a concept. It may be September 10th, 2013, 11AM at my coordinates as I write this but if we just drop those concepts altogether what happens? Well, I am here now and you are here now and this now is all there is no matter where we are or when we are. Always now.

    Words are like this too. Useful. Helpful. When they don't make us crazy. But they are limited. They are points on the map. But the map is not the territory of actual existence. It just is.

    SO... one person thinks one thing another thinks differently and thus arises all the conflicts in the world. All the lines we draw to separate ourselves from one another.... and all the lines we draw psychologically inside ourselves as well. Words are useful. But they have limits. Does the totality of 'mind' have limits?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 13, 2013 2:05 PM GMT
    dustin_K_tx said
    OscarWilde saidThere are too many problems regarding the doctrine of dualism, you're probably better off with materialism. It just doesn't make sense that an immaterial entity - if it should exist - am able to manipulate the corporeal flesh, the relationship between the two is so enigmatic that warrants no more than saying that there is a teapot in mars.


    fuck me...
    Seriously...now!


    Sure icon_wink.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 13, 2013 4:40 PM GMT
    MikeW saidThe problem with attempting to have an intelligent conversation about such things is we all 'think' we all 'mean' the 'same thing' by words such as 'mind', 'body' and 'soul'. But do we really....

    (lots of good stuff)

    ... Words are useful. But they have limits. Does the totality of 'mind' have limits?


    That was very well articulated.

    I like especially the concept of practical application which is sort of the key that lets us move on even without knowing where we've been or seeing where we're going.

    That bridge might not be tied down at either end, but as I'm still driving along and not falling into the depths below, I'm happy enough. I might have myself a look/see out of curiosity, but if it doesn't feel rickety, I'm not that concerned with what's holding it up.

    I prefer explanations which allow for unknowns more so than I care to contemplate the potential of knowing the mind of God. As wonderfully stimulating as can be the exploration, ultimately I prefer humility over futility. And that doesn't mean that we don't stop looking. It means that we ought not presume too much.

    Because for all we know, and we have the model of evolution to guide us in this, even if we manage to understand everything, we don't know what shift might occur to consciousness whereby everything we think we know we don't. If evolution, then why would further understanding ever end?