Re: State/Process duality and the ancient problem
>Therefore, the list shows the opposite of what you wanted to show.
Science did not work to support fundamental dualism in any of the
first three cases.
>You assume too much. What I wanted to show is if you intend to
*prove* some type of monism you *must* have the ability to entertain
a dualist perspective. Nothing more, nothing less did I intend to
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Eray Ozkural" <erayo@c...>
> --- In email@example.com, "John J. Gagne"
> <fitness4eb@c...> wrote:
> > Why would you say that?
> > Modern computers would not be possible without the application
> > Communication with distant space probes would also not be
> > without accounting for relativistic reference frames of time.can
> > two theories are the best match to date of objective physical
> > reality. Together they are the most verified theories ever
> > discovered/invented (depending on your perspective). While I
> > respect your opinion, I believe it's very unfair (bordering onit
> > to say they are not successful.
> > Maybe you can explain your position Maybe I misunderstand?
> The misunderstanding is in the scope of the intended reference.
> I meant that the *list* is unsuccessful, not that the individual
> subjects relating to the members of the list are unsuccessful. I
> thought it was clear from the context that I criticized the dual
> In fact, that's a very *good* list to discuss. Because, I think,
> supports my monist point of view.fundamental
> Four dualisms to think about. I will group them according to their
> relevance to our discussion.
> 1.a matter/energy
> 1.b space/time
> 2.a particle/wave
> 2.b matter/mind
> Einstein and particle physics showed that 1.a was not a
> distinction of existence, only conceptual, with general relativityentities,
> he showed that 1.b was a dubious distinction, it's better to think
> of a space-time geometry rather than two separate kinds of
> e.g. they are similar in nature.view
> At school, they tell us a nice thing about physics, that we should
> sometimes view the photon as a particle and sometimes as a wave.
> Works nice in practice, but you may have heard that the modern
> is "wavicle". So, again we are going from dualism to monism.be
> Therefore, the list shows the opposite of what you wanted to show.
> Science did not work to support fundamental dualism in any of the
> first three cases. And indeed, with advanced neuroscience, we may
> witnessing exactly such a collapse of concepts for the mind andthe
> Slowly, as we come to learn more about the brain, we will see that
> the brain operation (and not brain itself!) is identical to what
> usually call minds. But we will also see that this explanationinclude.
> leaves aside many interesting questions that will require analysis
> at different terms than neuroscience. It will be very boring, very
> tedious, and we might not find something too fascinating either.
> You might want to talk about other dualisms which I didn't
> In fact, these dualisms could be easily explained in the context
> multism. Maybe, multism does not fail too badly. Hmm.different
> Space/Time is an interesting example. Time obviously has a
> quality than spatial extension of things, to everything in thethrough
> universe, not just to us. That is because, we literally fall
> time, but move more freely in spatial dimensions, etc. and thisof
> physical difference shows up in conceptual differences, but we can
> still conceive of space and time in a unified fashion. Philosophy
> time/space can be quite difficult. There may be entire books onthe
> Space/Time duality might actually have an ontological basis to it,
> cannot tell, but but mind/matter duality cannot be defendedbecause
> it sounds like space/time.is
> First mind/matter duality would be a substance dualism. If matter
> not substance, then what do you mean? Do you mean mind isn'tlook
> material? What is it then?
> It is useless to seek substance dualisms. What we can do is to
> for, however, property dualisms. Everything is a physicalproperty,
> so we cannot find a dualism of the formsense
> That would be theology.
> But we can find for instance the following dualism:
> Maybe that serves better to show what kind of difference there is
> between brain state and brain operation, that is the ancient
> mind/body problem, which is a trivial problem under this view. No,
> it is not a problem for the scientist. The problem is explaining
> what kind of a process the mind is, and what kind of a state the
> brain state is.
> This of course sidesteps the problem of explaining what a brain
> state is, but I'm just trying to show how many alternative
> explanations there are. Matter/Mind duality, especially in the
> of substance dualism is not tenable at all. Very very few
> philosophers regard it likely nowadays. Even those who implicitly
> favor it will deny that they do.
> Sorry if this was a boring post. It couldn't be entertaining.
> Eray Ozkural
- My bad: boson/fermion duality. Sorry. See the post in which I
explain it originally.
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, Paul Bramscher <brams006@u...>
> Eray Ozkural wrote:(http://www.site.uottawa.ca:4321/astronomy/index.html#chargemultiplet)
> > I don't think you said anything about hadron/baryon duality.
> I'm unfamiliar with the physics, but when I found this site
> I'm led to believe that a baryon is a kind of hadron, and so theproblem
> is similar to ice/water. The "is a kind of..." relationshipdoesn't
> suggest hard dualism, since one is a superset of the other.Decartes,
> We can't say that TRUE is a superset of FALSE, or vice-versa.
> also, wouldn't say that mind is a kind of body -- or that body isa kind
> of mind. And so, the "is a kind of..." sub/superset relationshipisn't
> so problematic as hard dualism.