Substance Dualism: True or False ?

[Bugmaster]

Substance Dualism is the belief that, in addition to the material things we see every day -- chairs, rocks, molecules, atoms, radio waves, etc. -- there exist wholly immaterial entities. Some people call them "souls", some people call them "spirits", or "minds", but the basic idea is the same; I'll call the immaterial things "souls" from now on. These immaterial things are, by definition, undetectable by any material means -- they cannot be seen, heard, or measured with any scientific instrument.

According to most religions, a human being consists of a material body, as well as an immaterial soul. The soul is what defines your identity, your sense of self. Some religions believe that souls are eternal; some believe that souls are merely parts of the cosmic consciousness, but the bottom line is, humans have souls. Deities, such as the Christian God, or the Hindu Kali, or the various animistic spirits, can be described as disembodied souls.

As I see it, Dualism is the cornerstone of most religious belief (Scientology and Raelianism being possible exceptions). However, Dualism has a major weakness:

How does your immaterial soul cause your material body to move, to act, to type things, etc. ? Since the soul is completely non-physical, how is it able to interact with the physical world ? And, even if we assume that such interaction is possible, how come we still can't detect it with our material instruments ?

I've never seen a thouroughly convincing defence of Dualism, but I'd love to see one. So... any takers ?

[Curious]

We have many senses, if we close our eyes for example we might notice sounds or smells we previously ignored. It is unlikely we would have developed eyes if there was no light, or ears if there was no sound. I find it inconceivable that we should have developed this spiritual sense if there was no spirit.

That's a nice way to put it, but the spiritual sense that you speak of has to be a tangible in this case. If it is a tangible then how come we have no physics to account for it? Where are the spiritual organs? In answering this it's essential to bear in mind that our brains physically alter as we learn and construct specific patterns of thought. The brain is a busy construction site that is continually being physically re-arranged in step with our mental re-arrangements.

I was just thinking -- as a (mediocre) scientist there have been precious few moments when a true insight has been gained, but this sort of epiphany is almost certainly the feeling experienced by people from all walks of life as each goes about contemplating their own 'theories'. Recall that much of the processing goes on in the subconscious which accounts for the often unexpected emergence of those "Eureka" moments. Dare I suggest that the 'rush' that is enjoyed acts as an evolutionary spur for us all? I fully understand that this applies to scientific as well as religious epiphanies.

It appears from studies that the organ is the brain. Many areas of the brain are involved at the same time and it appears that it is the combination of increased blood supply and activity in these areas, along with a reduction in the activities of other areas of the brain that facilitates spiritual cognisance. It appears we are evolution in progress.

[Curious]

How does your immaterial soul cause your material body to move, to act, to type things, etc. ? Since the soul is completely non-physical, how is it able to interact with the physical world ? And, even if we assume that such interaction is possible, how come we still can't detect it with our material instruments ?

I've never seen a thouroughly convincing defence of Dualism, but I'd love to see one. So... any takers ?

I don't see the necessity for the soul having to make me type this message, breath or make my heart beat as I have a perfectly good brain and body to do this. Maybe spirit isn't totally non-physical and that the soul is just our own limitation of spirit. Maybe the interaction of the soul is restricted to the individuals understanding of spirit and so the interaction is restricted to any effect that the individual's understanding of the spiritual aspect of the universe (or God) might have on them. You say we can't detect it with any of our material instruments but we can with our brain. Perhaps once we are able to build such an instrument ourselves we might be able to measure it in the same way. I think you will agree that any instrument we might build is pretty pathetic in comparison.

[Bugmaster]

Your contention appears to be that such a thing would not have the ability to manipulate matter in such a way that it would be able to control the actions of the material host.

No, that's not quite what I meant. My contention was that a wholly immaterial entity that controls material objects cannot exist, because it is a self-contradictory concept. That is because material objects can only be affected by material things; that's pretty much the definition of "material".

This means that either souls are, in fact, material (in which case the soul-believer should explain why there's zero evidence for them), or they do not exist (in which case dualism is false).

My contention is that we can't really say what sort of properties this hypothetical soul would have, so it is not unreasonable for someone who actually believes in them -- an irrational belief -- to make whatever claims they wish about them -- also irrational.

That's true, but should we really take irrational beliefs seriously ?

I agree, but, from where I stand, it seems that the concept is self-contradictory, and therefore cannot be true. It's like a square circle, it just makes no sense.

I don't see where you've proven that.

See my explanation of the logical contradiction, above.

[Bugmaster]

You say we can't detect it with any of our material instruments but we can with our brain. Perhaps once we are able to build such an instrument ourselves we might be able to measure it in the same way.

That's a more reasonable viewpoint than dualism -- if souls are material, and our brain detects them, then we should be able to detect them artificially, one day.

However, this is where Occam's Razor comes into play: since we have no evidence for souls (so far), we are not justified in believing in them. It's possible that souls do exist, it's just extremely unlikely.

[Cathar1950]

I try to be a non-dualist. I don't know why but I have problems with dualism before I knew about all the problems philosophically.
The nice part about it is that I don't have to divide the universe up into matter and spirit. I think they are related. So I can agree with Bugmaster
when he writes;

No, that's not quite what I meant. My contention was that a wholly immaterial entity that controls material objects cannot exist, because it is a self-contradictory concept. That is because material objects can only be affected by material things; that's pretty much the definition of "material".

This means that either souls are, in fact, material (in which case the soul-believer should explain why there's zero evidence for them), or they do not exist (in which case dualism is false).

If your not dualist then they all have to be related. There is no "other".
The un-moved mover is moved and can do nothing other even to move.
There seems to be a sense of dualism. We have to brains. Left and right sides, but they are one. Kind of, maybe. It maybe be just a polarization on a continuum of experience.
The major problem with going beyond to any form of dualism is how they can relate in any way that makes sense. What is called the soul, the mind or the spirit are a reality that is related to the material world or they are metaphors of the same material world.
I am enjoying the forum. I will keep reading. Thanks!