Are you a dualist, physicalist or idealist?

[Roflcopter]

It feels like there is a discontinuity between mind and body. Even though we're getting better at understanding how brain changes affect mental aspects, it feels to me like the mind is somehow transcendental to our brains.

There are several key positions when trying to determine the relation between mind and body. Which main group do you fall under?

Dualists consider the mind and body as radically different things neither of which explaining the other fully.
Physicalists hold that there are only physical things and elements of the mind derive just from these.
Idealists hold that the world is constructed by the mind.

[ExodusS]

World constructed the mind, mind is modifying the world?

[MykeGregory]

I have no idea. Existentialist maybe?

The reason why I refuse to take existentialism as just another French fashion or historical curiosity, is that I think it has something very important to offer us for the new century. I'm afraid we're losing the real virtues of living life passionately in the sense of taking responsibility for who you are, the ability to make something of yourself and feel good about life. Existentialism is often discussed as if it's, a philosophy of despair, but I think the truth is just the opposite. Sartre, once interviewed, said he never really felt a day of despair in his life. One thing that comes out from reading these guys is not a sense of anguish about life so much as, a real kind of exuberance, of feeling on top of it, it's like your life is yours to create. I've read the post modernists with some interest, even admiration, but when I read them I always have this awful nagging feeling that something absolutely essential is getting left out. The more you talk about a person as a social construction or as a confluence of forces or as fragmented of marginalised, what you do is you open up a whole new world of excuses. And when Sartre talks about responsibility, he's not talking about something abstract. He's not talking about the kind of self or soul that theologians would argue about. It's something very concrete, it's you and me talking, making decisions, doing things, and taking the consequences. It might be true that there are six billion people in this world, and counting, but nevertheless -what you do makes a difference. It makes a difference, first of all, in material terms, it makes a difference to other people, and it sets an example. In short, I think the message here is that we should never simply write ourselves off or see each other as a victim of various forces. It's always our decision who we are.

[#M|A#Wolf]

Like Myke, I've taken many quizzes online and read about the philosophy of Existentialism since a long time ago and I see myself as a follower.

[Edward]

im dumb, i vote other !!

[YourSister]

when u take shrooms, you realize that mind and body are radically different, and that the world is not created by the mind, because food interfere with the vision of the world. So i'd say Dualist, because Physicalism don't explain fully our mind processes

[Marti]

when u take shrooms

ooooh shrooms





i have no clue, probably a dualist

[ExodusS]

Shrooms are obviously idealists.

[Alien]

who said the world under influence isn't reality ? ;)

[Waffles]

it is reality. the brain just processes stimuli differently. I recommend reading "The Doors of Perception" by Aldous Huxley if you're interested in that kind of conjecture.

[YesWeCamp]

Rationally im a physicalist. There is very few evidence for dualism even if some philosophers keep trying to defend it. It IS hard to imagine what a mind could be other than a mental thing, eventually a mental substance even. Even though the discussion about after images is an interesting one when talking about mental states or substances. A purely physicalist approach, in this light isnt as logical as it seems as it doesnt necessarilly satisfie our common sense.

Talking about common sense, i strongly feel that everything is only mental and not physical. Flow for instance feels really unphysical to me. Also death is something that feels different than just the loss of physical entities. My death, I imagine more as the loss of my view, my sound, my thinking (mind?). As if perception would die other than my brain would die. but as said before it probably IS my brain. It is just very hard to understand it as such in our normal state of mind of every day. We mostly seem not completely 'entzaubert' while were perceptioning.

---

@ myke and wolf
when i first met existentialism , I instantly fell in love. the freedom it proclaims , the beuty of a makeable self ( and world). just great. Even though we all know that love makes blind. For existentalism the blind spot clearly is the lack of recognition for institutions that form us until we are who we are. Foucault is a very interesting read on that subject.

[Luc@s]

"man is not an empire within an empire", and everything results from chemistry and physics.

[Roflcopter]

To all the fellow physicalists, then how does feeling develop from simple chemical reactions?

[Waffles]

it's a chemical response generated in various parts of the brain. for pain, joy, happiness, etc. etc. it's certain chemicals binding with certain receptors to send a signal through the neurons where it is processed.

[YesWeCamp]

it's a chemical response generated in various parts of the brain. for pain, joy, happiness, etc. etc. it's certain chemicals binding with certain receptors to send a signal through the neurons where it is processed.

And how does perception exist? And is perception of feeling merely physical? And what organ is perception exactly?

[Waffles]

it's a combination of all your organs. Perception can either be evolution or creation, whatever you choose to believe most in. Feeling is purely physical, it's all response to stimulus. I'm no neurologist mind you, but I am very clearly a physicalist. What i'm talking about is purely measurable, identifiable science. Larry has posed some of his issues with this belief and I admit there may be some holes. The only holes presented IMO are a result of lack of data, not necessarily an actual problem with the theory. Similar to evolution v. creation (obviously my opinion again, no ill will toward believers).

[Alien]

Each of your words are defined in books, the definitions were created by us. What was before books ? ;) Where were the definitions stored ? I am only 100% sure they aren't time-stable and differ inside each human-mind.The mobile phones start to exist with us. Why not other stuff ?

[YesWeCamp]

it's a combination of all your organs. Perception can either be evolution or creation, whatever you choose to believe most in. Feeling is purely physical, it's all response to stimulus.

So, do you believe that a mental state is identical to a neuronal state in the brain? Meaning: are they the exact same thing to you? This would give a real problem when facing intentionality. Also this wouldnt explain how mental states can exist in a world with only physical states! Or do you feel more for the idea that a mental state is something not physically identical?

[Waffles]

Im a firm believer in natural law. There has been talk, most prominently by thomas aquinas and various other philosophers that there is a higher call, but to me it seems it is just necessary for survival to be social creatures (or was). When you get into intentionality, I can't help but say that humans are not necessarily changing anything in a cosmic way. That may change with time, but I think other views lend themselves to arrogance for the human species. We are dominant sure, but that is a survival mechanism, not a conscious completely conscious choice. Obviously you can choose to ignore this (suicide cases, etc.) but that may just be some chemicals going wrong. To answer alien, our knowledge as you point out is cumulative knowledge. What we had before was a "primal state" where it became necessary (advantageous) to work with tools and stick together. These traits gradually evolved through natural selection to be favored. Our perception of the world, in large, is shaped as a natural human experience with mutation, and shaped also by our world (nature and nurture). Some humans perceive color differently, but due to our taxonomic leanings, we classify blue as blue, whatever that color may actually be to the person is irrelevant in this example. I'm a physicalist in the large-scale, or geographic, sense of the word, and I think most variations can be explained. If you all are curious about the nature of perception. There is a great book that deals with modern perceptions called "Digital Mantras" and for examples of taxonomy "Origin of Species" and for language anything by Chomsky. There is also a great book that is a fun read called "maps of time: an introduction to big history."

Obviously most of my knowledgederives from things i choose to read, and in no way am i saying i am right. But the way i see it, this view makes the most sense, but I could be persuaded otherwise. It would take fairly strong evidence to sway me though.

[Undead]

"man is not an empire within an empire", and everything results from chemistry and physics.

agreeing with you for once.
mind is a part of the body, albeit extremely more complex than the other parts. to think that the world is a construct of the mind is incorrect.

nobody can break the laws of physics. ghosts cant, jesus cant and your mind certainly cant.