An excellent concise and accurate statement of the interactive dualism theory of mind

217 Replies, 6187 Views

(2025-01-31, 01:47 AM)Laird Wrote: @Valmar, I can't make sense of your argument, whatever it is. Your use of terms is too loose. For example, your conclusion in part reads...

My terms are not what I'd consider "loose" ~ I am using what I think to be the generally accepted definitions from philosophy and spiritual nomenclature?

If you think they are, ask me what each of the "loose" terms mean, then, as I am not certain which ones you think are "loose".

(2025-01-31, 01:47 AM)Laird Wrote: ...but it is unclear what you mean by "what is within Experience". Do you mean the contents of the experience itself, or do you mean the objects of the experience?

I mean the totality of experience and everything within it. The superset. I don't understand such distinctions ~ contents, objects... it's all qualia, aspects, within experience, no matter how we slice and dice it.

(2025-01-31, 01:47 AM)Laird Wrote: This is confused: qualia are an aspect of the person (consciousness) undergoing them, but not even that person "directly senses" them. That would imply that they are objects to be sensed, but they are not; they are simply another way of talking about the person's phenomenal experience. They are not "out in the world".

Now you're confusing me...

if I touch a wooden table I can see, and feel the sensation of woodenness, how is that not a direct sensing? My senses are giving me the qualia of sight and touch of wood, and that is as direct as my senses can show me. So they are objects to be sensed ~ I am sensing them through sight and touch. They are out in the world, insofar as we sense an apparently defined external world.

(2025-01-31, 01:47 AM)Laird Wrote: The simple answer to your general questions epitomised by.....is, "Because we are in relationship with the world". I don't know the details of how this relationship works. That's potentially a matter for scientific investigation.

The central question is what is the nature of this relationship? It's painfully obvious that there is a relationship, but that elucidates absolutely nothing, because every metaphysic and ontology asks this question.

Science cannot tell us anything about metaphysical or ontological questions ~ it never has been able to.

Science can tell us about how physical and chemical things interact with other physical or chemical things, or build abstract statistical relationships between things, but that's about it, from what I can see.

(2025-01-31, 01:47 AM)Laird Wrote: I just want to flag though that I don't want to get into a back-and-forth with you over this. I have found that my discussions with you simply go in circles and are fruitless.

Because you seemingly refuse to acknowledge that your definitions may be too rigid.

Words and definitions should never be rigid ~ lest we be unable to understand the definitions of others.

I understand your definitions, I think, but I find them unable to cope with things outside the rigid boundaries they set.

They deny the experienced reality of one-to-many shared experiences I have had with my spirit guides, for example. We can collective feel and experience the exact same things if we are in resonance and we overlap our awarenesses.
“Everything that irritates us about others can lead us to an understanding of ourselves.”
~ Carl Jung



Messages In This Thread
RE: An excellent concise and accurate statement of the interactive dualism theory of mind - by Valmar - 2025-01-31, 03:40 AM

  • View a Printable Version
Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)