[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 170 KB, 800x1356, david chalmers.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17045723 No.17045723 [Reply] [Original]

>most of the philosophers arguing that philosophical zombies prove dualism are atheists
What does an atheist get out of knowing the mind and body are separate if they don't believe there's a god or afterlife? What happens to the nonphysical under such a belief system?

>> No.17046830

bump

>> No.17046845

>>17045723
Imagine picking beliefs because of what you get out of them, and not just because they're true.

>> No.17046850

>>17045723
Its just a step for them anon. Like the Heisenberg quote, Chalmers and co havent finished drinking yet.

>> No.17046869

>>17046845
literally that's all philosophy because no major philosophical problem has ever or will ever be solved
all philosophy is picking what you believe and looking for reasons for you to believe it

>> No.17046972

>>17046869
Looking for reasons to believe something is true simpliciter is not the same as looking for reasons to believe something merely because of what it does for you though. The latter is shopping for beliefs out of personal convenience, the former is true philosophy.

>> No.17046994

>>17045723
Because they are making logical arguments based on reason rather than statements of fact, the irreducibility of phenomena to material states of the brain has literally nothing to do with souls or God or the afterlife

>> No.17047003

>>17046972
This

>> No.17047017

>>17046972
I was originally more interested in the implications and consequences of dualism and atheism both being true, which is why I worded it "what do you get out of it?"
>>17046994
What is the difference between a soul and a nonphysical mind that outlasts the body?

>> No.17047043

>>17047017
>nonphysical mind that outlasts the body
is that what they are arguing?

>> No.17047055

>>17047017
>I was originally more interested in the implications and consequences of dualism and atheism both being true, which is why I worded it "what do you get out of it?"
The main consequence is just that it makes room for things like an afterlife being possible, but it doesn't establish it, and I'm sure many atheist dualists don't accept it. Many of the atheist dualists, including Chalmers, are panpsychists though. So in their case, dualism leads them in the direction of panpsychism. No need for an afterlife if everything is alive.

>> No.17047066

>>17047017
>What is the difference between a soul and a nonphysical mind that outlasts the body?
nothing Chalmers says suggests your mind will outlast your body

>> No.17047071

>>17045723
>if "souls" are real, god is real!

?????

>> No.17047085

>>17047043
>>17047066
If the mind is tied to the body, wouldn't physicalism be true and the whole thought experiment of p-zombies be moot?

>> No.17047094

>>17047085
Not those anons but no.

>> No.17047255

>>17046972
>Implying the belief in truth is not personal convenience

>> No.17047263

>>17047255
>implying
Yes. Pragmatism is ancient Sophism revived, and philosophy was originally defined in opposition to Protagoras and Gorgias.

>> No.17047310

>>17047085
No. Even Christianity thinks the soul is tied to the body, they just insist it is a divine substance which carries on beyond death. Chalmers is a panpsychist. He may think mind and matter are irreducible to one another, but he doesn't think the mind is supernatural.

>> No.17047326

>>17047310
>supernatural
Not that anon but this is one of those words that never means what its opponents thinks it means. Everything is natural, almost trivially. The 'supernatural' is always defined in comparison to a restricted application of the predicate 'natural,' corresponding to a restricted domain. So it goes without saying that EVERYONE who believes in the so-called supernatural takes it as ultimately natural. Rather, if they accept the term at all, it's to contrast with some limited sense of 'natural' usually determined by the doubters on the other side.

>> No.17047366

>>17047326
>Everything is natural, almost trivially
Not according to Christianity or the general notion of a soul which is what OP was concerned with
>it goes without saying that EVERYONE who believes in the so-called supernatural takes it as ultimately natural
Read the Bible

>> No.17047397

>>17047366
I am a Christian. You're probably thinking I mean 'natural' in a restricted sense (like explaining away miracles or shit like that) when my post was to point out that there's an unrestricted trivial sense where everything is natural because nature is defined as WHAT EXISTS. So if God popped his head out of the clouds and seven billion people saw it at once, that would violate laws of science and whatever else, but it's trivially nature. Because it happened.

>> No.17047431

>>17045723
A more accurate understanding of consciousness? Naturalistic dualiism, which Chalmers defends, doesn't imply any supernatural interventions. Conscious states cannot be untied from the brain and they don't exist independent of it. Rather, something happens in the brain that creates conscious states that are not describable in a physical language. But these states are still caused by brain activity.

>> No.17047445

>>17047397
Nature is not defined as "what exists" from a Christian perspective because nature is simply a creation of God. There are things which exist outside of this creation (such as the Heavenly Kingdom, and God himself). God gave nature to man, but God still exists outside and above it (i.e. God is supernatural)