[sciborg2]

Haven't gone deeply into the site, but New Dualism does seem interesting:

http://www.newdualism.org/

Among contemporary analytic philosophers of mind, cognitive scientists, and neurophysiologists, physicalism is all the rage.  For the past thirty years, physicalism – the view that everything there is, including human minds, is ultimately and exclusively composed of physical constituents –  has been (and continues to be) the dominant paradigm in discussions of what Schopenhauer purportedly described as a "world-knot" (Weltknoten), the so-called "mind-body problem."  But is physicalism true?

Historically, the mind-body problem represents Descartes' legacy.  How can two fundamentally different substances (i.e., mind and body) causally interact? Or is there another way, apart from Descartes, of conceiving of the dualism of mind and body?

This is a website devoted to the new study of different kinds of ontological dualism, in particular non-Cartesian dualism.

[Callan S.]

The matrix was right, the latter you leave the matrix, the more it sucks!

But I draw conclusion early - is there a prime example of their arguments for this new dualism?

[Royce]

is there a prime example of their arguments for this new dualism?

The old one did not work, try this new and improved sample please?

[sciborg2]

I've no idea. I'm less worried about whether they are correct than whether they have anything interesting to say.

If it all means nothing, why not choose the beliefs that make things interesting?

After all, under materialism what stops the violent child rapist from being more right or wrong compared to the soothing child therapist?

Materialism never feels satisfying enough. Morality will at least keep us asking the question so we might as well indulge alternatives. And who knows, maybe they're the more right than we know?

[Callan S.]

I've no idea. I'm less worried about whether they are correct than whether they have anything interesting to say.

If it all means nothing, why not choose the beliefs that make things interesting?

After all, under materialism what stops the violent child rapist from being more right or wrong compared to the soothing child therapist?

Wow, I just read that as the soothing child rapist...

Doesn't help that therapist has the R word right in it. There, there's my definition for irony. The rapist or therapist?

Anyway, I can't help but go to spiderman. Under materialism, what stops Peter Parker from declining to stop the thug?

Materialism never feels satisfying enough. Morality will at least keep us asking the question so we might as well indulge alternatives. And who knows, maybe they're the more right than we know?

As long as we don't let corporations manipulate the fuck out of us because we think about such things (and thinking leads to believing, yah), sure, maybe theres more than we know.

[sciborg2]

Anyway, I can't help but go to spiderman. Under materialism, what stops Peter Parker from declining to stop the thug?

As long as we don't let corporations manipulate the fuck out of us because we think about such things (and thinking leads to believing, yah), sure, maybe theres more than we know.

Well, materialism can't give us oughts so nothing stops Parker from becoming a serial child eater, webbing up kids in his basement larder.

As for corporations - As Bakker asked: If humans are akin to machines, why can't we treat human beings like machines?

Dualism is the most problematic position among materialism/idealism/dualism/pan-psychism, but I think the mental gymnastics might still be interesting even if they hold no fruit. Since nothing means anything if materialists are right, we might as well indulge the dualists.

[Callan S.]

Anyway, I can't help but go to spiderman. Under materialism, what stops Peter Parker from declining to stop the thug?

As long as we don't let corporations manipulate the fuck out of us because we think about such things (and thinking leads to believing, yah), sure, maybe theres more than we know.

Well, materialism can't give us oughts so nothing stops Parker from becoming a serial child eater, webbing up kids in his basement larder.

I like the image! Like the DC version of spider man, but even more evil!

You're so used to having your walls supplied by an outside source (which isn't even that, but I digress), you think everyone is like mercury on glass. Without an 'ought' stopping the bead, it'll skitter over to child eating just as much.

As for corporations - As Bakker asked: If humans are akin to machines, why can't we treat human beings like machines?

Because it cuts both ways - sorry, who is giving you the blessing to treat humans like machines? You're just granting yourself this, aren't you. Why is that so damn convincing a question (I'm taking you as being convinced, otherwise why would you bother asking me?)? It's just a fancy way of saying 'I say I can do X!'. Why do you or Bakker find this somehow utterly compelling?

It seems as if the nature of morality is to you that if something/someone doesn't stop you from eating the cookies, you will binge on the cookies. As soon as the wall comes down, it's binge city.

Perhaps it's your own addictive nature that you are afraid of (Bakker too, prolly, given his extensive drug history). While something contained you, you didn't have to do anything to contain your addictiviness. Someone else did that for you and you could wollow in addiction as much as addiction determined.

Take away the walls and you picture yourself or others doing all these things, suddenly. Horrorfied.

I can tell the descriptions of Earwa's outside are going to really freak me out, for very similar reasons. All walls, washed away.

And ultimately, for how 'real' morality is, no development of an addiction to forming walls.

The freedom to be whoever you want to be - and someone/something else deals with resculpting that into something moral. No need to be a self chastening soul.

Dualism is the most problematic position among materialism/idealism/dualism/pan-psychism, but I think the mental gymnastics might still be interesting even if they hold no fruit. Since nothing means anything if materialists are right, we might as well indulge the dualists.

And potenitally give up the world to capitalistic corporate warlords, for indulging it too much? Give up children to them?

Partial indulgence, while keeping an idea that it's all materials and some person born at the controls of a giant machine is inclined to narcisism more than Nietzsche, might be attempting to manipulate materials, sure.

[sciborg2]

I think Bakker and I look at corporations and wonder what the supposed realization that humans are the equivalent meat toys would have on their exploitative strategies.

So are regular people going to try and rape/kill if they don't think they have free will? Perhaps not, but humans do less well when it comes to the suffering of people far away from them and out of their line of sight.

As for Dualism itself - it's just interesting to see how people come up with explanations. I think the same way about mythology, alchemy, folklore. There might be some danger in the bigotry that seems to ride the backs of religion, seeing as the philosophers I've come across who still accept dualism as a possibility are all social reactionaries.

Though the idea that corporations are utilizing dualism, as opposed to materialism - at best that seems like a snap shot of current political climates. I guess I find the idea that materialism -regardless of its truth or falsity- will lead to a more moral future for humanity rather bizarre.

[Callan S.]

I think Bakker and I look at corporations and wonder what the supposed realization that humans are the equivalent meat toys would have on their exploitative strategies.

I'm not sure why you'd think they don't think that of you now?

The science is a different thing from their attitude. Their attitude simply presses the big red buttons of exploitation that science may provide.

I guess I find the idea that materialism -regardless of its truth or falsity- will lead to a more moral future for humanity rather bizarre.

Yah. it's a bit like the idea that saying 'I am an alchoholic' will lead you to being less of an alchoholic (well actually they idea is that you never cease being one, but instead one that does not drink - thus mimicing a non alchoholic)