Dualism and the Physico-Theological Argument
I’ll ask 2 questions here, just to avoid opening another thread:
1. In the series on free choice, you argued that one must say that physics breaks down in order to believe in free choice (since choice is not caused by anything, but causes human actions through the activation of neurons). My question is, doesn’t dualism require this as well? After all, interactionist dualism says that most (if not all) of our mental states have a causal force that causes physiological effects. Therefore, it seems that mental states such as sadness, joy, pain, cold, and more have causal forces, and thus the mind affects matter, which conflicts with physics. Do you agree with this?
2. An argument could be made that our universe confirms the claim that complex life on Earth arose by chance (as opposed to the physico-theological argument). After all, there are billions of stars where the laws of nature operate, and there they failed to create life (according to what we know), and here, once in a few billions of billions, the laws did succeed in leading to the development of complex life. Given billions of attempts, it is no longer surprising that this happened here.
How do you counter this argument?
thanks
In the future, open a thread for each question. There’s no need to save threads.
1. Absolutely. The motivation for the position of interactionist dualism is libertarianism.
2. Life does not arise by chance, nor with zero chance, unless there is a system of natural laws that allows it. Such a system of laws is very rare, and therefore it is likely that someone created it. I call this the argument from the laws, where the argument you are attacking is the argument within the laws.
1. Excellent. So if I understood correctly, there is a determinism of spirit over matter that breaks the laws of physics when we talk about mental states like pain or sadness, but there is no such determinism in one and only mental state, right, free will? In other words, there are psychophysical laws, perhaps those that psychology discovers, and our choice can break these laws, just as it can break physical laws, for example by vetoing (which stops a physical chain somewhere in the middle).
2. So what you are actually saying is that even if there were countless attempts, as long as the system of laws is not complex enough, life would not be created in all these countless attempts?
And if that is so, then what is the explanation for the fact that in a system of laws that can create life, such as our system of laws, life was created only on Earth and not on other planets?
1. You took it too far. I didn't say that there are deterministic laws in the spirit. Maybe there are, maybe not.
2. Because more conditions are needed and they are almost never met.
This is exactly why I asked to split the questions. So as not to mix discussions of both.
Okay. So what is your opinion about the influence of spirit on matter and vice versa? After all, if it is not deterministic, then it is necessarily random (since we have no choice in how our mental states are affected and affect physical states). In other words, when I am sad, how does it affect matter (my brain)? Do you think psychology has anything to say in these matters, that is, is there even the possibility of finding such laws?
As I wrote, I have no idea and it doesn't seem important to me either.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
