Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="djHiran" data-source="post: 12347950" data-attributes="member: 6429">If we can reduce all activities into physical process then we are don. But if we are merely going to believe in a non-dualistic theory which we hope will do so one day, that is no better than adhering to a religious belief. I have no special preference about either a dualist or a non-dualist theory, but I'll stay skeptical and contribute my ideas here.To assume mind can interact with body only because it is a physical entity can not be justified. Firstly because if otherwise, it does not have to necessarily violate the conservation of energy, as you insisted. That is because there is an open possibility for a type of process called a physically reversible process and such process do not involve an entropy change during an information exchange, and therefore does not require energy to "enter the mind", in your words. I don't know why you are still trying to establish your argument as a fact taking only reversible processes into account without any justification.Secondly, "only physical entities can interact with physical entities" is only an assumption you made. Why? For example, software products are only arrangements of physical entities, not physical entities themselves. Despite that they readily interact with your computer to show you this text.You might argue that software products cannot live themselves without matter and therefore they are physical too. But software are only bulk arrangements of matter or radiation. That's why in the early times programmers could cut out parts of paper and make softwares out of them.On the other hand if we assume dualism then we are in a great trouble finding that separate laws governing mind. Is mind governed by any laws at all?But beside these all, we are in another trouble defining what is physical and what is not. If we define physical entities as those posses an spacial location we are not going to find any! Because the theory we are most confident about, says otherwise. We cannot define a precise spatial position to an object. On the other hand, if we take those entities only approximately possess this property we are in trouble again. Electromagnetic waves for example, are not localized. Are we going to exclude them from being physical? Actually in quantum field theory, particles are no more distinguishable and are described as fields. So what properties qualify as physical and why we make them distinguished as physical is the real question.</blockquote>

Verification: Nawa warak dahaya keeyada? (Namaya wadi kireema dahaya)

Top Bottom