The Interaction problem and Dualism

Author: Solaris1

Posts

Total: 103
#31
TheMorningsStar
TheMorningsStar's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 398
2
3
7
TheMorningsStar's avatar
TheMorningsStar
2
3
7
-->
@3RU7AL
You claim it is "very basic logic" yet your example to demonstrate it is to point to things of a single kind (physical things) and go "some have stronger interactions and some have weaker interactions!"

Why do you think even physicalist philosophers don't really use that line of argumentation? All you are talking about are how physical things physically interact with other physical things to produce wholly physical outcomes. None of this deals with the question of interactionism, where the question is a non-physical thing interacting in a non-physical manner on a physical thing and vice versa.

It also, again, goes to the other topic that you decided to ignore the basic paper on before commenting (all the while clearly never having done reading on the topic), the ontology of holes. If one takes the naïve realism approach (of which you have given no good reason not to take this approach yet), then the existence of the non-physical already is demonstrably able to impact the physical. This would, of course, only move the question of doubting the possibility (which is not sufficient to say it is impossible) to questioning the mechanism (which literally goes back to the original point I made).
#32
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@TheMorningsStar
shared properties is a logical prerequisite for interaction

if you can think of a "better" "non-physical" example, please feel free to reveal it at your leisure

for example,

if "spirit" or "ghost" or "mind" CAN interact with "body" then they must necessarily share EITHER a direct property OR an indirect property

for example,

if "spirit" cannot interact with "body" BUT can interact with "metaphysical substance" AND "metaphysical substance" can interact with "body"

THEN both "spirit" and "body" share the property of - being able to interact with "metaphysical substance" (which is a shared property)

#33
TheMorningsStar
TheMorningsStar's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 398
2
3
7
TheMorningsStar's avatar
TheMorningsStar
2
3
7
-->
@3RU7AL
Ya, this is just going in circles. I can quote the IEP again, or even the SEP, or any number of philosophical sources at this point, but I doubt it will get us anywhere. 

Just as I predicted earlier, this is a waste of time. Peace.
#34
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@TheMorningsStar
#35
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,920
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@zedvictor4
Time is an infinite possibility and therefore impossible to waste.

False Zed, as well as meaningless. Meta-space time is finite set associated with terminal duration beginnings and endings of occupied space this and that
.

These occur eternally as does occupied space, Meta-space and the macro-infinite non-occupied space.
#36
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,920
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@3RU7AL
They real question is finding the link of Meta-physical Gravity { mass-attraction/graviton }  to physical { fermions and bosons }.

Simliar thing goes for Dark Energy { darkion }.
#37
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,067
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@ebuc
I only said possibility.

In terms of human data appreciation, the terms possibility and time, can be attributed meanings.

Of course, no human no meaning....As far as we know.

And there is certainly more than one way of understanding time.

As I see it, time is simply the possibility that facilitates the duration of an event.

There is always the time to do things, as long as there are things to do.
#38
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,920
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@zedvictor4
I only said possibility.
There exist no infinite possibilities in time Zed. False statement and meaningless as far as I can see.

In terms of human data appreciation, the terms possibility and time, can be attributed meanings.
Yeah, Zex both word exist in dictionary.

Of course, no human no meaning....As far as we know.
Agreed, critters with less access to Meta-space mind/intellect/concepts and ego.

It is the infinite possibilities of time that makes no sense.
And there is certainly more than one way of understanding time.

Yes and Ive laid  out many times: 1} Meta-space time i.e. measurements in minutes, hours days ergo mathematical quantifications etc, 2} observed time i..e quantizaton of occupied space measurents most commonly in electron volts.

As I see it, time is simply the possibility that facilitates the duration of an event.
Glad to see you left out word infinite this time around. People go all glitzy with the word infinite, as if it they themselves have accessed the great beyond when they use that word. They have not. Only two kinds of infnite exist: 1} macro infinite non-occupied space { Meta-occupied space }, 2} Meta-space concepts of infinite this, that or some other.

There is always the time to do things, as long as there are things to do.

Time is eternally existent as occupied space is eternally existent, naught is created nor destroyed, only transformed.

At best, we may say that there may come a time, when physical reality is briefly non-existent, but Meta-physical Gravity-Dark Energy keep on keeping on.

However, with my new thoughts regarding my 2D lattice ---as 3D truncated dipyramid torodial graviton-darkion--- I find that sine-wave associated reality exists within each graviton-darkion.


See 0, 3, 6, 9, 12 sine-wave \/\/ inside the toriodal tube, that, is bound by outer and inner surface set of nodal events 1, 5p, 7p, 11p 13p and 2p, 4, 8, 10 respectively

......1.............................5p...........7p............................11p.............13p...........G{ outer }....................
-
-
0..............................................6.................................................12..................Observable Time inside
 
---Bucky Fullers-------abstract great circle----central spine inside center the 3D torodial tube---------------
 
........................3p............................................9.................................................Observable Time inside
-
-
.................2p............4................................8...........10..........................................DE { inner }..............
 




#39
semperfortis
semperfortis's avatar
Debates: 15
Posts: 6
0
2
6
semperfortis's avatar
semperfortis
0
2
6
-->
@3RU7AL
my claim is that "mind" and "body" very obviously interact
Devil's advocate would render this a less parsimonious ontology relative to a rendition of Solipsism wherein the body is reducible to the mental. In such a case, only the mind exists and therefore does not interact with any unique substance. The Dualist or any subclass must first demonstrate the existence of an external substance via a priori or a posteriori proof for the discussion of interaction to be discussed.

I would say it is not easy, or currently possible, to demonstrate, as @TheMorningStar illustrated.
#40
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@semperfortis
i'm saying, that EITHER WAY

all roads lead to monism
#41
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,920
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@semperfortis
The Dualist or any subclass must first demonstrate the existence of an external substance via a priori or a posteriori proof for the discussion of interaction to be discussed.

Think of it this way geometry is just a pattern of Meta-space mind/intellect/concept known as shape, however, the shape of a cluster of occupied space quanta, atom etc, may effect the dynamic flow { motion } of stuff around it.

So shape/pattern of occupied space affects the dynamic flow of occupied space passing by.  So occupied space has a Meta-space shape.

Occupied space cannot exists without its complementary shape.  Meta-space shape is irrelevant without occupied space.

The two eternally complementary to each other.  This is dualism. There exists no philosophy of truth that does not recognize this dualism.

The mathmatician Jacob Bekenstien { Bekienstiens Bound }, stated in Scientific American, ..' we appear to be 2D creatures having an illusion of 3D '....and this stems from his black hole mathematics and led to his holographic scenarios.

The best way Ive found to grasp this, is to conceptualize a tetrahedron. So bring any of one of the conceptual tetrahedrons four vertexes toward its diametrically opposite triangular opening, and when we get into the same plane, as the triangle, we have a concetual subdivided triangle, because of the vertex along with the three lines of relationship that go with it.

So move the vertex to one side or the other of the conceptual, triangular plane. Now we have a 3D tetrahedron or we have a 2D warped plane.  Do you follow along with this pathway of thought Mr Semperfortis? This is the simplest way I know to envision 2D as 3D and vice versa.

Now we   can have many tetrahedra or other polyhedra interacting and we get into higher degrees of interfering complexity. So the question then becomes, can we winnow out only a warping of 2D planes from the complexity of interference as 3D?

Perhaps we can, if we revert all of the dynamics interactions back to static set of Euclidean geometry. I dunno.

8 days later

#42
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,920
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
The two eternally complementary to each other.  This is dualism. There exists no philosophy of truth that does not recognize this dualism.

Take note tho, there is a third complementary to these two, and that is truly non-occupied space, that, is partially defined, by the finite, dynamic, occupied space Universe/God.

The macro-infinity truly non-occupied space outside of { beyond } Universe, is shaped by the dynamic Universe and both of these two are complemented by Meta-space mind/intellect/concepts/ego. Ergo, why I have proposed and presented clearly the  Cosmic Trinary Outline/List/Set for some 15 or more years now.

All that exists falls into the one or more of these three sets of Meta-space, truly non-occupied space and occupied space.

For me philosophy is primarily about finding truth.

At best we can say, that, there is Space and Meta-space, but then your left with clarifying the two primary kinds of Space, of space, ergo, best to clarify this trinary set from the get go.


#43
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@TheMorningsStar
#44
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,920
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@3RU7AL
There exists no philosophy of truth that does not recognize this complementay dualism ---occupied space and Meta-space ex a shape/pattern of occupied space----

Or the more definitive/descriptive, trinary cosmic set, that expresses the logical complementary to a finite, occupied space Universe/God, and that is the macro-infinite, and truly non-occupied space outside of ergo beyond/Meta, the finite occupied space Universe/God.

1, 2, 3, thats how easy ' U 'niverse can be...sung to M jackson and Jackson-5 song..... ABC, 123, thats how easy love can be.

All that exists falls into one or more of these three cosmic catagories.


#45
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@ebuc
All that exists falls into one or more of these three cosmic catagories.
all things that are detectable and can interact in any way are aspects of the ONE THING
#46
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,920
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@3RU7AL
all things that are detectable and can interact in any way are aspects of the ONE THING
3Ru, when you can relate you comment specifically to my last comment regarding how all that exists, falls into one or more of the Cosmic Trinary Set/list/outline Please share.

There exist the three Cosmic Catagories. Simple.

The only universal monism exists only a  Meta-space concept ex the word Universe, or God, or the specific terminoloyg that places the Cosmic Trinary Set under one terminology ' U 'niverse/ ' G 'od.

No absolute truth philosphy can exist without this Cosmic Trinary Set at the top of the cosmic hierarchy.  Ive been clear on this for several years, and none have given any rationale or common sense that is other than those three.


#47
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@ebuc
your categories are aspects of the ONE THING

all things that are detectable and can interact in any way are aspects of the ONE THING
#48
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,920
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@3RU7AL
your categories are aspects of the ONE THING
What thing do you keep refering to 3Ru? I have a set existence in three ways, not one.

Your playing ring around the rosy { three specifics/defiitives } and never placing your butt { one thing } in a specific descriptive/definitive chair { one thing }

To keep saying the " one thing " makes no sense 3Ru, so why do you keep repeating it? I think it is because you know, your philosophy has hit a dead end and sees no way around this Cosmic Trinary Set.  I believe is absolute truth and still waiting for years, for any to show any way it cannot be a Cosmic Truth.

Multiverses is the most common approach to attempt to get beyond these three, and it goes no where, when we inspect it more closely.

1} Meta-space, ---has no spacial location---

2} truly non-occupied space, ---an actual space ergo has a location relative to finite occupied spsace---

3} finite occupied space. ---an actual space has a location in regards to any of its actual space parts---

So the only descriptive word these three have in common, is Space. So the best you could have offer is use of a common { one thing } word, Space.

However, without the three types, the reader would never grasp these primary cosmic distinctions aka differentiation from each other. Only 2 and 3 share some commonality of an actual space, not a virtual Meta-space.
#49
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@ebuc
What thing do you keep refering to
NOUMENON
#50
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,920
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@3RU7AL
NOUMENON
Yeah that is pretty much wortlhless definition/descriptioin 3Ru.

Cosmic Trinary Set is a three things/aspects/consideratons/characterations/indentifiers etc, and each is distinct for each other, and  all that exists, falls into one or more catagories i.e. none of three alone cover the other two catagories, that is why it is a primary set.

In past youve also tried to invoke a monism  for it all, the one thing, the NOUMENON and that also does not work.

Mono-poles is what some thing Gravity has since the photon has the electric-magnistism duality. I say to you and all others, that, the graviton-darkion is the dualism of the Gravity ergo the diametric ---because of outer and inner curvature of torus--- opposite ergo polar opposite of Dark Energy.

If any follow the four levels/lines Ive laid out, the numericallly spiral and invaginated torus is the most rational, common sense conclusion we can come to.

Some may ask what is so special about four lines/levels and not three or five or six.  There is two primary consideratons for the significance of the four lines/levels:

...1} Arthur Young, inventor of the Bell helicopter, also used four lines/levels in his Reflexive Universe cosmic scenarios, altho, he started with number 1, whereas I started with non-counting number zero, and that makes all the differrence in where the prime numbers fall.

...2 } Bucky Fuller felt that that Vector Equilbrium ---four bisecting nucleated  ---and not--  hexagons are the Euclidean,  Operating { transformational } System  of Universe  { OS } and the closet we will  ever come to knowing God, because of the equanimity of vector values for 24 chords equal to its 24 radii, when the VE is constructed from four individual hexagons,  see LINK b graphic and the VE is asymmetrical ergo the squares allow for its transformational abilities,

...3} my initial numerical, spiral, and an invaginated torus, just happens to have,  four over lapping hexagons, in curve-linear set,  that total to 14 nodal events, that,  define an truncated { ergo a tube is defined } di-pyramid { two tetrahedra bonded at triangular face/opening }, and the 5 nucleated nodal events, that define a sine-wave patter, inside the tube, away from the outer and inner suface nodal events that total 9 nodal events.  9 + 5 = 14 nodal events,

4} h,mm cant think of the other four, oh yeah, the VEs four bisecting hexagonal planes, are on the same orientation { 60 degrees } as the tetrahedron. See LINK, where we can see that when the tetra goes to zero volume, its four faces define a Vector Equilibrum, with 12 extended triangles  ---I see those as radiation from black hole that is evaporating---.


#51
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@ebuc
do your "three parts" interact with each other ?
#52
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,920
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@3RU7AL
1} Ive addressed this recently --in this thread I think, maybe not---  Meta-space shape/pattern of occupied space quanta, affect dynamics of flow around and occupied space set of quanta, atoms, molecules etc for example air flow around the shape of vehicle or plane etc.

So yes, in a way there is effect but not interaction, cause inter-action require both aspects to have a property and by property I mean tangible things like charge { plus negative }, spin,  taste { tactile }, auditory etc and Meta-space shape has no properties, because not an occupied space,

2} macro-infinite space, embraces finite occupied space, but again, truly nothingness space, has no properties, and its existence is 99.99999% irrelevant to our finite occupied space Universe/God,

3} occupied space parts inter-act with each other ---to varying degrees--- because they all have properties.

So 3Ru, does that address and answer your questions?  You have not yet offerred a proper descripion of you on thing, monism etc. How do my above three relate or not to your one thing monism?

Occupied space Uni { one } verse { thing } is a monism.

Meta-space is a one thing monism.

Truly non-occupied space is a one thing monoism and each is distinct in their existence ergo that is why they exist as a Cosmic Trinary Set. This is simple 3Ru.

#53
DebateAllDaTings
DebateAllDaTings's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 78
0
1
2
DebateAllDaTings's avatar
DebateAllDaTings
0
1
2
-->
@Solaris1
Your argument begs the question by assuming there is a physical body that actually interact with the mental substance.

Your argument actually shows there cannot be.

This argument against Dualism supports Idealism, that there cannot be an objectively physical body. The "body" would just be a mental projection (not a physical object), like the body you have when you dream. It would all be mental.


#54
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,920
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@DebateAllDaTings
Let them bang there thumb with a hammer and see if that is just a Meta-space mind/intellect/concept, or an issue of consciousness known as pain.


Consciousness is typically associated with nervous system animals.

Access the Meta-space mind/intellect/concepts/ego is typically mostly associated with the human animal.

Inbreeding is quickest evolutionary pathway to loss of access to Meta-space mind/intellect/concepts/ego

Out breeding leads to more complex generalizations of Meta-space mind/intellect/concepts/ego ergo the ability to create technologies that adapt to most kinds of environments.

Bio-diversity is also a resultant of out-breeding evolution ergo a greater complexity.


#55
DebateAllDaTings
DebateAllDaTings's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 78
0
1
2
DebateAllDaTings's avatar
DebateAllDaTings
0
1
2
-->
@ebuc
The term "mind" and "consciousness" are interchangeable to me.

Also, in a dream, if I were to bash my dream hand with a dream hammer and feel pain that would obviously not prove that the hammer objectively exists physically.

Physical objects could just be mental projections just like dreams, which is what the interaction problem suggests. Because if there were physical objects that existed they could not interact with the mind.




#56
DebateAllDaTings
DebateAllDaTings's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 78
0
1
2
DebateAllDaTings's avatar
DebateAllDaTings
0
1
2
-->
@ebuc
The term "mind" and "consciousness" are interchangeable to me.

Also, in a dream, if I were to bash my dream hand with a dream hammer and feel pain that would obviously not prove that the hammer objectively exists physically.

Physical objects could just be mental projections just like dreams, which is what the interaction problem suggests. Because if there were physical objects that existed they could not interact with the mind.




#57
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@DebateAllDaTings
Also, in a dream, if I were to bash my dream hand with a dream hammer and feel pain that would obviously not prove that the hammer objectively exists physically.
bingo
#58
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,920
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@DebateAllDaTings
The term "mind" and "consciousness" are interchangeable to me.
Ive bee very on how the differrentiation between the two, irrespective of whether grasp or accept my givens, as presented.

All animals have a consciousness, and only humans greater access to Meta-space, mind/intellect/concepts/ego. This is simple way to grasp.

Complex consciousness involves a nervous system ergo five senses ergo occupied space reality ergo mass, charge, color taste or whatever

Meta-space mind/intellect/concepts/ego has no mass, charge, color, spin, taste etc.

All else is philosophical mind games loops your stuck in.

Also, in a dream, if I were to bash my dream hand with a dream hammer and feel pain that would obviously not prove that the hammer objectively exists physically.
Mind games do not change, what I presented.  Go get a hammer ore whatever you feel comfortable doing the experiement with.

Bash your hand, stick your toe, crunch your head etc, and the get  back me to tell me if occupied space reality { observed time quanta } PING! BANG! etc exist for you.  Mind games is all you have to offer.

Physical objects could just be mental projections just like dreams, which is what the interaction problem suggests. Because if there were physical objects that existed they could not interact with the mind.
Do the experiments as presented and get back to me. No? You dont want to do the scientific experiments. Yeah, why am I not surprised.

Maybe you can get 3Ru to do them for you, he seems to be a philosophical loopy dream state also.  ;--O
#59
DebateAllDaTings
DebateAllDaTings's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 78
0
1
2
DebateAllDaTings's avatar
DebateAllDaTings
0
1
2
-->
@ebuc
I just did *what seemed to be* subbing my toe on a wall, it hurt. 

Does that prove physical toes and physical walls exist objectively outside of mentality? Of course not, that's silly.

I can stub my toe on a wall in a dream too, that doesn't mean my dream toes and dream wall actually exist. 

Hallucinations and Dreams prove that the mind can trick you into thinking their are physical objects when there are none. No amount of apparent hammers  could ever prove objectively physical objects exist as they could be mental projections just like a dream hammer is.
#60
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@DebateAllDaTings