Wednesday, July 15, 2009

In Defense Of Substance Dualism

Recently i have been debating on infidels forum about the mind body problem. One of the members mentioned how my receiver theory along with other substance dualist theories have far less parismony then the production hypothesis. I disagree, and i will show why. First he is using occams razor to use the simplest explanation, but occams razor doesn't work in all problems. Second, he mentions that Dr. Wilder Penfields conclusion on his work with epileptics is irrational, again i disagree. The same with Dr. Sir John Eccles when he mentions his conclusion is also irrational. Why, because of these scientists admitted evidence for dualism, that goes against the dominant view in mainstream science. The member also says that experiments have shown the casual connection between the brain and the mind. I disagree it assumes that their is very tight dependency so tight that their is a casucal connection.

Here is why the receiver theory has more parismony

- It accounts for the overwhelming evidence for survival of bodily death
- It accounts for the evidence for psi phenomena
- It accounts for the subjective nature of consciousness itself
- It accounts for other strange phenomena that are attested for in biomedical journals such as stigmata, maternal impressions etc.
- It accounts for free will

The major problems with the production theory

- Doesn't account for the evidence for survival of bodily death
- Doesn't account for the subjective nature of consciousness, tries to get around it by saying it's either epiphenomenal or an emergent property of the brain
- Doesn't account for free will
- Doesn't account for for things such as stigmata
- Doesn't account for the evidence for psi phenomena

No comments:

The interaction problem for Substance Dualists and the chemical brain

So how can something non-physical interact with the physical. I think this is a red-herring, especially knowing we don't ask how non-li...