Subscribe
During my frequent debates on one of my favorite blogs, ReligiousFreaks.com, I entered into a metaphysical debate with Neando (and others) over the topic of Monism vs. Dualism. The original post was about the morality of the story of Abraham attempting to sacrifice his son on God’s command and it’s implications to modern insanity defense. Since the debate slowly drifted too far off-topic, we agreed to move our debate to my blog.
Our debate is about metaphysics. In particular, our debate is over monism versus dualism. I have tentatively taken up the position of a monist. I say tentatively because I am unsure of my own metaphysical assumptions. This is a shortcoming that I hope this debate will help shore up. Neando has taken up the position of a dualist.
To read excerpts from our original debate, please visit this dedicated page. The debate will continue in the comments and anyone is welcome to contribute.
Hello Neando,
Please forgive the meta-quoting, but I think it’s the best way to transition between the blogs.
You are correct, I do presume that all that exists is made up of ‘stuff’. I’m not sure what is meant by something that exists that is made up of nothing. Would you please explain to me what an ‘immaterial substance’ is? Also, if these immaterial things exist but “cannot be presented to human experience”, how is even possible to be aware of their existence, as you seem to be? If they cannot be sensed, either directly or indirectly, of what consequence are they to humans? Since they cannot be detected by us, if follows that they do not (can not?) intervene in the material universe.
Co-contingency would be a better way to describe it. As I have said before, if anything exists at all, then logic must apply to those things. On the other hand, if nothing exists at all, neither does logic. Logic exists because of matter, but matter must obey logic. God has a similar relationship to all that exists. Also, as I pointed out in my refutation of the Ontological Argument, emergent phenomena can be greater than the sum of its components though still dependent on its components.
You also asked which version of the Cosmological Argument I find persuasive. I like the modal version based on Leibniz’s statement of the argument. I would love to discuss the Cosmological Argument as it is one of my favorite philosophical topics, but I think we should limit our debate to monism and dualism.
Hello Sid,
Thanks for the invite. With my schedule and time zone, I do have problems with ongoing discussions, but we’ll give it a try.
First, you said: “I’m not sure what is meant by something that exists that is made up of nothing. Would you please explain to me what an ‘immaterial substance’ is?”
Of course, if something is made up of nothing it is nothing–not a part of what is real. The term “immaterial substance” implies, among other things, that there is more to what is real than “stuff” or that which is empirically testable by science. We have talked about numbers and the rules of logic being real. You say that they exist only when their material objects exist. But even if this were true, how can they be real when their existence, whatever that is, cannot be verified or tested as objects of empirical (scientific?) investigation. Science presumes the prior existence of numbers and logic (and many other immaterial things) and cannot even proceed without them. And yet, they cannot per se be the objects of scientific investigation; it appears that their reality is not possible without minds that think and perceive them.
You continue: “Also, if these immaterial things exist but “cannot be presented to human experienceâ€, how is even possible to be aware of their existence, as you seem to be?”
This was poorly stated. Instead of “experience” I ought to have said something like “senses.” This is because experience is broader than what is presented to the five senses. The mind subjects everything to its a priori categories: the sensations it receives as well as its own thoughts, emotions, etc. The mind can do maths without any reference to external objects and can have greater certainty of its truth than of the reality of material objects. I may be very uncertain as to the number of my count of particular material objects, but never uncertain that the proposition “five plus seven equals twelve” is true or that all particulars, material or otherwise, can be counted.
Next, You previously said: “If God is real, It definitely needs to be made of something. My guess is that God is a necessary emergent phenomenon of all matter. Thus It is ultimately material in nature.” And then by way of further explanation: “Co-contingency would be a better way to describe it. . . . emergent phenomena can be greater than the sum of its components though still dependent on its components.”
The idea of mutual dependency of material objects is fine unless it is postulated that this dependency is total. There cannot be an infinite circle of causation just as there cannot be an actual infinite series of dependent entities.
Also, if such an entity that is “ultimately material in nature” and is “greater than the sum of its components though still dependent on its components” how can we verify its existence? Is it empirically testable? Or must we infer its existence from other data? I am immediately aware of the existence of numbers and logic, of propsitions and colours, etc., and that I exist (would you beleive), but I have no awareness of this entity that you call God or of my dependency upon it.
Hey, I like the picture. He looks a bit like me when I wake up ;o}
Hey Neando,
Don’t worry about timing. Whenever you have the time and interest, the debate will be here. That’s the great part about blogs.
It appears as though you are being careful to define “immaterial substance” so that its existence cannot be empirically verified. Why assume this a priori? Why not conclude that the existence of an immaterial substance cannot be tested via today’s science? Anyway, there are material things that cannot be empirically tested by science (such as the simultaneous absolute position and momentum of an electron). Thus “not empirically testable by science” is an insufficient definition of ‘immaterial substance’.
I’m more interested in a definition that explains what an ‘immaterial substance’ is instead of what it is not. “Not matter” is an inadequate definition for several reasons. Primarily, it relies on the definition of matter and thus, cannot be defined without the existence of matter. It reminds me of a hole in, say, a shirt. The hole has no existence without the existence of the material shirt that surrounds it. Certainly we think of the hole as a thing that exists, but it is defined by the relationship of surrounding matter to itself and has no existence without matter.
If fact, the other examples of ‘immaterial substances’ that you mention; logic, numbers, programs, etc. are similarly defined. Like a hole that emerges from gaps in surrounding material, numbers emerge as a result of multiple, similar chunks of matter. Without the matter, there are no numbers.
Numbers and logic can be verified by the scientific method. Fundamentally, the scientific method is applied inductive reasoning. If it works again and again, then we concluded it will continue to work in the future. Counting the number of material objects always results in the same result. From such consistency, we assume that the result will always be the same and give this universal quality a name, a number. Also, your “five plus seven equals twelve” can be verified empirically. Take five objects and seven objects of the same type and place them together, you find there are twelve total objects. Repeat with different kinds of objects. Since it has worked every time we have check, we conclude that five plus seven always equals twelve.
If it’s alright with you, I’d like to keep this discussion focused on the existence of immaterial substances for now. We’ll leave questions about the nature of God alone until we can come to some sort of consensus (if possible) on the first issue.
I’m glad you like the image I picked. The picture is actually a sketch by Rene’ Descartes aimed at illustrating the mind-body duality of humans.
Here’s a thought which may be of interest enough to be worth throwing into this discussion.
We know, (or perceive) through micro-cosmic science, that all physical matter is actually made up of mostly nothing, ie., empty space, with some tiny particles rotating, spinning and bouncing around in it. And in light of atomic behaviour, we have no definitive explanation for experiencing solid things as being solid to us.
It maybe that what religion calls spiritual matter is just made up of a vaster nothingness, or, say, more of, and a different type of mostly nothing, thus completely imperceptible to our physical senses and undetectable by scientific method, but yet somehow comprehensible through certain, obscurer regions of the brain. As has already been suggested by myself and others, spiritual matter may be the substance of a fourth, and higher-level dimentions, potentially reaching even to infinity.
Hello Sid,
Thanks for your thoughts. You’ll have to do something about those holey shirts.
Your point that my definition of “immaterial substance†may be lacking in substance is well taken. However, my task is to distinguish the existence of substance that is a part of the furniture of the world that is other than what we call material substances. To say that such may not be tested by science per se is that, in principle, science can only test sensory data of material substances, unless your definition somehow reaches beyond that. The belief that only that which can be tested thus limits the boundaries of knowledge is seriously flawed. Some call it scientism.
The hole in shirt illustration is interesting:
“The hole has no existence without the existence of the material shirt that surrounds it. Certainly we think of the hole as a thing that exists, but it is defined by the relationship of surrounding matter to itself and has no existence without matter.”
I would say that a hole is about what does not exist. It is the absence of matter, and the boundaries of matter define its location. It is like darkness being the absence of light rather than existing as a distinct substance or entity.
Your concept of logic, numbers, programmes (information), etc., existing only as emergent from matter seems problematic. This would seem to make their location in matter and person-independent. Yet logic, numbers and information are properties of mental experience. It is the mind that organises and categorizes data and recognises the relationships of its objects. Apart from persons, logic, numbers and information do not exist.
“Numbers and logic can be verified by the scientific method. Fundamentally, the scientific method is applied inductive reasoning.”
This statement appears circular. Numbers and logic are aspects of inductive reasoning. They are applied by the subject to the data and are not themselves the object of science. The scientific method assumes them a priori. It is like saying the scientific method can be verified by the scientific method.
The remainder of the paragraph just quoted is an a posteriori argument. That our knowledge of logic and numbers and information comes from experience. We do learn how to do maths and experience does teach us greater depths of learning, but this would not be possible if the mind did not apply these categories to the data in the first place. We possess a priori the capacity to synthesis sensory data.
Further, the paragraph itself demonstrates the agency of the mind. The use of the verbs and the personal pronouns demonstrate a semi-transcendence. In experimental science it is not the world, the object of investigation, that creates the information about itself, rather it is mind, the human agent that gathers and sorts the data it seeks.
Hello Neando,
Sorry for the delay in responding. I’ve had visitors from out of town staying with me recently.
Allow me to make your task a little bit easier. I concede that things other than material substances could exist. But in order for you to demonstrate that immaterial substances definitely do exist, we should agree on a definition of ‘material substance’. Implied in your comments is a definition similar to “All things that can be sensed either directly or indirectly”. This definition hinges on the word ‘sense’, which also needs to be defined. I would define it as “have a mental experience of”. Also, since one can experience hallucinations, which are not not real, I think we should add “able to be sensed by others in a consistent manner”. So how does the following sound?
material substance: All things that are able to cause consistent mental experiences across multiple entities that have the ability to have said mental experience
Under the above definition, the numbers and information are consistent from observer to observer and are thus are caused by material substances. This is similar to our mental experience of color. Our experience of ‘redness’ is, strictly speaking, a mental experience, like our experience of numbers and information. Yet redness is caused by a material substance (photons traveling at a certain wavelength) just as numbers are. The fact that we can imagine and manipulate numbers, etc. without reference to actual objects is no different from imagining and manipulating redness without reference to actual objects.
Later in the same paragraph, you say, “Apart from persons, logic, numbers and information do not exist.” Neither does ‘redness’ but this does not imply that these mental phenomena are not caused by material substances. Photons traveling at a certain wavelength exist even if no one is around to see the redness, two maps are posted on my cubical wall even if no one is around to count them, etc.
It is a mere linguistic convenience. I have my doubts as to the actual existence of the ‘self’. Despite Descartes’ compelling ‘cogito ergo sum’ argument, agency is proving to be an illusion. For many decisions, scientists have been able to detect the predict the result which decision is made before the person knows what they have decided based on brain scans. What it means is that our brain makes a decision without conscious effort and then informs our consciousness which then rationalizes the decision. I’ll add some references when I have time.
Here is an New York Times article that references the study I was thinking of. I don’t have time to read all of it all now so I can’t speak to its content yet.
Sorry Sid for interupting,
“He is Allah, the One and Only, Allah, the Eternal, Absolute He begetteth not, nor is He begotten And there is none like unto Him
That’s what God said about himself, Sorry for saying that, but our mind is limited to certain limit, you will never find an answer for what you seek, human being will not go this far.
Let me know if you don’t want me here on your site, I will not return back.
Hello Mohamed,
You’re a bit off topic here. If Allah is unknowable, how do YOU know these things you say about him? How also do you know the other things you claim about him? If you know there is nothing we can know about him, how do you know this, and how do you know what the limits of this knowledge is?
Hello Sid,
My computer’s been down for a bit and I’m a bit behind in things. I can afford a partial response for now. I will have a look at that NYT article shortly also.
It seems that physical objects in the world present raw data to our cognitive faculties which are then categorized by our mental processes. To say that material objects “cause consistent mental experiences” does not account for anything more than a consistent presentation or acquisition of this data via our cognitive faculties. Our mental experiences come via our minds’ processing of this data. If the data gathered by our cognitive faculties is that of a certain photon wavelength, it is the mind that has the experience of colour. No amount of physical investigation of the brain will discover the qualia of mental experience. A particular photon wavelength is not the same as redness.
Likewise with numbers. There are no numbers in the world: only particulars. Numbers are abstract objects. The fact that there are “consistent mental experiences across multiple entities that have the ability to have said mental experience” is due to the same data of particulars presented to “entities” with like cognitive capacities. Thus I think it is better to speak of correspondence rather than causation.
Hello Mohamed,
Of course you are welcome here. Feel free to comment on anything you find interesting.
Right now, Neando is trying to convince me of the existence of immaterial substances. We haven’t quite gotten to discussing the existence of Allah yet.
Hey Neando,
Take your time. I still haven’t gotten all the way through the NYT article. I’ll respond to your #9 as time permits.
Thank you,
You are going to discuss this forever guys:)
Hi Mohamed,
Maybe we don’t have forever and will run outta time.
You said “our mind is limited to certain limit, you will never find an answer for what you seek, human being will not go this far.” Sure we are limited. Do you think we should not use our feeble minds to explore such questions? Where do you think our thinking should stop?
Neando,
I was talking about God existence and how God looks like, and that’s why I mentioned that our minds have limits, for example some people like to think how God looks like which there is no way you are going to reach that by your mind.
After I red the topic agains, I think it’s really good thing to talk about immaterial substance existence, and I think I discussed something like that in religious-freak, I discussed the electrecity, we know how to produce and we know how it happens, but we don’t know what is it, we don’t see it but we feel it and we use it.
Hello I see i am entering this conversation a little late as I did’nt know it even existed until now.Maybe everyone has lost interest as the last posting was over a year ago.Here is my take on whether immaterial objects exist.
Remember the old saw about if a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it does it make a noise?
I think the answer is an unqualified no because in order to have sound there must be a brain to create that sound.There are pressure waves of air but no sound without a brain.
Likewise any concept which needs a brain(mind) to exist does not and cannot exist by definition without a brain.
Of course if one can create an idea that by definition can exist without a mind then I suppose it must exist if created consistently and correctly.A type of idea which must exist without mind is one we will never know however.
Perhaps there are classes of phenomenon which need a mind ie sound and others which can exist with or without a mind and yet others which can only exist without mind.For the last some sort of pure existence proof is the closest one can get to understanding them.
Perhaps sound like sight is a sensation which needs a brain and does’nt even fall under the category of ideas