What of all the numerous meditators and religious people who experience this? — Protagoras

What of the majority that don’t?

He finally admitted he couldn't square how life actually started from matter,or how DNA replicates. — Protagoras

Your scientist friend doesn’t know how DNA replicates? I doubt it. I bet he’s just appeasing you.

If you want to know what non material but physical is raise your hand and observe. — Protagoras

Ok. Done. Still don’t know. Now can you actually explain your position?

@Olivier5
The self employed and those who work with integrity don't serve money or deception.

So in effect your saying we must bow to monied interests even though they have an agenda?

@khaled

So majority rules?

No,my scientist friend had just been questioned deeply and was being truthful. Your bias shows through when you say appeased.

I've explained enough in my posts for you to get what I'm saying. If you can't see it, then perhaps try to be less scientismistic and apply your own perception.

True, I suppose it could be argued that the mind and brain are distinct but that both are physical, so it would be neither substance nor property dualism. — Michael

Or that the mind and brain are the same thing but from different views. In this case, we can dispense with the term, "substance", and talk about dualistic views. How is a view different than the thing being viewed? Can a view be viewed? In other words, can the mind view itself? Can a brain view itself? Can an apple?

Yeah, I'm pro-science hence bad.

@Olivier5

Well I'm a lot more nuanced than your above logic.

Bad would be someone who served a monied agenda and said or did nothing but took the money.

If your pro science,I commiserate you on your faith in science. But it doesn't mean your bad.

My faith in science serves me well and helps me a lot, for the very simple reason that it is undistinguishable from my faith in my own reason and senses. Science is but a systematic way of doing basic human thinking that is natural to man. It is our specialty, in the animal kingdom. We are sapiens.

If God created man, He created reason, sapience, and gave it to man. If God created reason, then science is godly. It is the patient exploration of God's eternal laws. Eureka = Hallelujah.

Now, in practice all scientists may not serve God or even Truth (godly or not), conflicts of interest between Truth and Money exist, but they are manageable.

@Olivier5

Well,seeing as science is based in the main on materialism and making money and weaponry then you are conflating thinking with academic science.

They are not the same.

Are you some kind of MAGA-capped intellectual, by any chance?

@Olivier5

I reject all political parties. I'm an anarchist.

I'm an environmentally concerned, pro-science, atheist social-democrat from France. To my defense, I'm also an old white heterosexual male. Nobody's perfect.

Welcome to TPF.

@Olivier5

Thank you.

Well,we can Still get along...Hopefully!

My faith in science serves me well and helps me a lot, for the very simple reason that it is undistinguishable from my faith in my own reason and senses. Science is but a systematic way of doing basic human thinking that is natural to man. It is our specialty, in the animal kingdom. We are sapiens.

If God created man, He created reason, sapience, and gave it to man. If God created reason, then science is godly. It is the patient exploration of God's eternal laws. Eureka = Hallelujah. — Olivier5

:100: :fire: Deus, sive natura.

I'm an environmentally concerned, pro-science, atheist social-democrat from France. To my defense, I'm also an old white heterosexual male. Nobody's perfect. — Olivier5

Aside from me being black and American, we could be twins. Bonjour!

Reminds me the final scene of Some Like It Hot.

@Olivier5

What is the scene?

Haven't seen that film.

A bit before my time!

Deus, sive natura. — 180 Proof

Yes, Spinoza but also the Catholic humanists.

Aside from me being black and American, we could be twins. — 180 Proof

My soulmate! :-)

It's a silly and sexy comedy, mindlessly enjoyable. Google "last scene" and the title.

@Olivier5

That was funny! Well played monsieur!

Glad you liked it. This movie is a classic of the era, graced with one double entente joke per second (almost) and Marilyn's unapologetic sex appeal. Also a bit before my time but not that much.

Is non-physical energy the ability to do non-physical work? I have lots of that. White collar til I die.

Is non-physical energy the ability to do non-physical work? I have lots of that. White collar til I die. — Kenosha Kid

:lol:

No not majority rules. More like: if “what of all the people that experienced X” is an argument that X is genuine then the fact that the majority who tried have not experienced X should be a stronger argument that X is not genuine.

I highly doubt you got your scientist friend to say “I don’t know how DNA replication works”. See, all my scientist friends seem to know at least that much. Even many non scientist friends who took biology in high school seem to know that much. So I’d love to have a conversation with this friend of yours and ask exactly what he means by “I don’t know how DNA replication works” considering you can literally look it up.

I've explained enough in my posts for you to get what I'm saying. — Protagoras

When I asked you to explain what “non material but physical” means you told me to “raise your hand and observe” for Christ sake! You think I’ve never raised my hand before? I do so multiple times a day, and so does everyone who disagrees with you. And none of us get what we’re supposed to be noticing.

If you can't see it, then perhaps try to be less scientismistic and apply your own perception. — Protagoras

Curious. Being scientific is precisely about applying your own perception. Having done so, all I perceive is BS, no offense.

“If you can’t agree with me, maybe you should be less biased and agree with me! No I won’t actually try to convince you of anything nor even explain the position you asked me to clarify, maybe if you weren’t so damn biased you’d get it already!”

No not majority rules. More like: if “what of all the people that experienced X” is an argument that X is not a hallucination, then the fact that the majority who tried have not experienced X should be a stronger argument that X is a hallucination. — khaled

The great example being The Miracle of the Sun. Miracles tend to be their own method of execution.

@khaled

Dog shit post.
Head out of the scientists ass and in the real world.

If you don't get it you don't. I won't waste my time with this level of scientism and and pseudo logic.

First, we should not expect reality to accord with the way we understand things. The way we understand things changes over time. Second, substance dualism is not the basic way we understand things. — Fooloso4

That is not a relevant critique of the argument. First, the basic way we understand things (property dualism) does not change over time. Second, the argument does not claim that substance dualism is the basic way we understand things, but that it is reasonable to infer it from the fact that the basic way we understand things (property dualism) does not change over time.

Dog shit post. — Protagoras

Coming from you? That's just confirmation I'm doing something right.

Head out of the scientists ass and in the real world. — Protagoras

You've determined I'm biased beyond repair based purely on the fact that I disagree with you. No reasoning is possible with such a creature. So have a good one.

@khaled

Childish response.

That's a strawman. Dualism only implies that he who does the empirical observing recognises said observing to be 1) fundamentally different from the observed thing; and 2) important or even critical to one's knowledge of the observed thing. — Olivier5

That's neither substance dualism nor property dualism, which are the things under discussion here. If you want to make up a different thing and call it "dualism", you do you I guess, but that's only going to cause needless confusion with other people using the word in the usual ways.

In any case, it's not clear to me what your point 1 even means. The act of observing is not identical to the object being observed? I think most everyone (besides Berkeleyan subjective idealists) would agree with that; even eliminative materialists would agree with that (the act of observation is a thing the observer's brain is doing, which is not identical to the object being observed).

You couldn't mean that the being doing the observing is constituted of a fundamentally different kind of stuff than the object being observed, because that's substance dualism, which is what you say is a straw man.

Nor could you mean that the mental properties that constitute the state of mind of undergoing an observatory experience are constituted of a fundamentally different kind of stuff than the physical properties of the object being observed (even though those properties are "stuck in" the same underlying kind of substance), because that's property dualism, which has the same problems (against my foregoing argument) as substance dualism, which you say is a straw man.

it's not clear to me what your point 1 even means — Pfhorrest

It means knowledge about X is different from X. The map is not the territory.

I think most everyone (besides Berkeleyan subjective idealists) would agree with that; even eliminative materialists would agree with that (the act of observation is a thing the observer's brain is doing, which is not identical to the object being observed). — Pfhorrest

Indeed, idealist monists such as Berkeley disagree with my point 1, and so do materialist monists in fact (i.e. the eliminative ones), because for them there is no such thing as a symbolic map: everything is just gluons spinning in a flat ontology, without any room for transcendence.

Monists reject the fundamental difference between map and territory because they are monist. I accept it because I am a dualist.

“The underlying, supernatural stuff that makes minds so obviously different than bodies, has sufficient properties with the physical stuff of nature that it can interact with the physical stuff that it does not violate the laws of nature.“

What are the “sufficient properties” shared between a non-physical undetectable “supernatural stuff” and the physical detectable “natural stuff”. Can anyone explain? Because I can’t think how they can begin to share properties as if they did, whatever the non physical substance, it would have physical properties.

A mind with mass is no longer a mind. An intention with momentum is no longer an intention. No?