Is there any good argument against dualism other than parsimony?

[Hedge90]

It seems to me that the only major argument against cartesian dualism is parsimony. And indeed, it is not necessary for mind and matter to be separate categories, you can explain reality with just mind. But is there any other substantive argument against why a non-dualist ontology is more likely than there being a world of matter, and there being consciousness that observes this world of matter?

[ScottRoberts]

It seems to me that the only major argument against cartesian dualism is parsimony. And indeed, it is not necessary for mind and matter to be separate categories, you can explain reality with just mind. But is there any other substantive argument against why a non-dualist ontology is more likely than there being a world of matter, and there being consciousness that observes this world of matter?

The major argument against Cartesian dualism is not parsimony, rather it is the "interaction problem", the lack of an explanation for how the mental can affect the physical, or how the physical can affect the mental.

[findingblanks]

Yeah, the interaction problem seems pretty powerful to me. In fact, for me, that might just be about it. Considering how difficult the interaction problem is, it's so hard for me to think of reasons to abandon a starting point that doesn't have that problem. I think that's what I think

[AshvinP]

It seems to me that the only major argument against cartesian dualism is parsimony. And indeed, it is not necessary for mind and matter to be separate categories, you can explain reality with just mind. But is there any other substantive argument against why a non-dualist ontology is more likely than there being a world of matter, and there being consciousness that observes this world of matter?

The major argument against Cartesian dualism is not parsimony, rather it is the "interaction problem", the lack of an explanation for how the mental can affect the physical, or how the physical can affect the mental.

I would add here the other major problems for dualism, which is related to interaction problem, is the origin of life and consciousness.

[Lou Gold]

It seems to me that the only major argument against cartesian dualism is parsimony. And indeed, it is not necessary for mind and matter to be separate categories, you can explain reality with just mind. But is there any other substantive argument against why a non-dualist ontology is more likely than there being a world of matter, and there being consciousness that observes this world of matter?

In addition to the interaction problem there seems to be the problem of what happens after death (everything born dies) and thus one needs at a bare minimum both a dualist and a non-dualist view. But I'm not a philosopher, so what do I know?

[Hedge90]

It seems to me that the only major argument against cartesian dualism is parsimony. And indeed, it is not necessary for mind and matter to be separate categories, you can explain reality with just mind. But is there any other substantive argument against why a non-dualist ontology is more likely than there being a world of matter, and there being consciousness that observes this world of matter?

The major argument against Cartesian dualism is not parsimony, rather it is the "interaction problem", the lack of an explanation for how the mental can affect the physical, or how the physical can affect the mental.

Sorry for the belayed answer, I'm not around much nowadays. Now that you mention I remember reading about this. Tbh I don't find the first issue (how the mental can affect the physical) to be much of an issue, because the answer could very well be: it cannot. You just feel like it's you running the show, but hard determinism is actually correct, and you are just watching stuff unfold from 1st person perspective. I'll concede that the other way around is more difficult to answer, I'll think about it.

[Lou Gold]

It seems to me that the only major argument against cartesian dualism is parsimony. And indeed, it is not necessary for mind and matter to be separate categories, you can explain reality with just mind. But is there any other substantive argument against why a non-dualist ontology is more likely than there being a world of matter, and there being consciousness that observes this world of matter?

The major argument against Cartesian dualism is not parsimony, rather it is the "interaction problem", the lack of an explanation for how the mental can affect the physical, or how the physical can affect the mental.

Sorry for the belayed answer, I'm not around much nowadays. Now that you mention I remember reading about this. Tbh I don't find the first issue (how the mental can affect the physical) to be much of an issue, because the answer could very well be: it cannot. You just feel like it's you running the show, but hard determinism is actually correct, and you are just watching stuff unfold from 1st person perspective. I'll concede that the other way around is more difficult to answer, I'll think about it.

Once again from my naive point-of-view, my attention is drawn to the word 'argument'. Everything named has a opposite. Hence argument/agreement. Which seems to plunge us back into the duality. Which seems to thrust toward Be Still and Know that I AM GOD. Which seems like non-dualism to me. What am I missing?

[Note: I know that I'm not narrowly addressing Cartesian dualism.]

[Martin_]

*Putting on the dualist hat*

Lou, I don't think you're missing anything, it's just a matter how you see things.
Your reference; The notion of God; can be interpreted as there being dualistic structures present that we normally are not aware of. It doesn't invalidate dualism. (as long as we speak of the essence of dualism, not the mind/matter one).

Continuing on that thought, as you say; dualism is all around us. So, instead of starting talking about how this is not our "true way of being"; there is a "salvation in unity" "over there" (pointing just around the corner - you know - to the point which you can't see), how about this thought:

"This it it." We are already much closer to the true essence of being than we think. The veil which must fall from our eyes is exactly this: The realization that there is nothing else.

Now, before we start freaking out thinking that this is immensely depressing, lonely, and scary, just take a deep breath. It doesn't have to be. I'm not saying that we're not connected in a deeper sense (see God) , or that there is nothing else to explore and learn. I'm just suggesting that the dualism that we experience all the time is fundamental and is not going away.

Let's take an example: "structure". Is it really possible for "structure" to exist without some kind of dualism providing the groundworks for the spatiality necessary to speak of "structure" ?

[AshvinP]

*Putting on the dualist hat*

Lou, I don't think you're missing anything, it's just a matter how you see things.
Your reference; The notion of God; can be interpreted as there being dualistic structures present that we normally are not aware of. It doesn't invalidate dualism. (as long as we speak of the essence of dualism, not the mind/matter one).

Continuing on that thought, as you say; dualism is all around us. So, instead of starting talking about how this is not our "true way of being"; there is a "salvation in unity" "over there" (pointing just around the corner - you know - to the point which you can't see), how about this thought:

"This it it." We are already much closer to the true essence of being that we think. The veil which must fall from our eyes is exactly this: The realization that there is nothing else.

Now, before we start freaking out thinking that this is immensely depressing, lonely, and scary, just take a deep breath. It doesn't have to be. I'm not saying that we're not connected in a deeper sense (see God) , or that there is nothing else to explore and learn. I'm just suggesting that the dualism that we experience all the time is fundamental and is not going away.

Let's take an example: "structure". Is it really possible for "structure" to exist without some kind of dualism providing the groundworks for the spatiality necessary to speak of "structure" ?

Let's be clear that Hedge was asking about metaphysical dualism and you guys are speaking of something entirely different.

But the problem with the mindset expressed above is not that it's lonely and depressing, although it naturally will be over time, but that it's selfish. It deprives the entire world of whatever deep potential is living within you, waiting to be freed and manifested in the world. If we egoistically delude ourselves into thinking we are full and complete beings in that manner, there is never any motivarion to discover that potential within. It would be as a parent telling their 14 year old child the same thing. We are spiritual infants and adolescents at best, with much more growing and maturing to do.

[Martin_]

*Putting on the dualist hat*

Lou, I don't think you're missing anything, it's just a matter how you see things.
Your reference; The notion of God; can be interpreted as there being dualistic structures present that we normally are not aware of. It doesn't invalidate dualism. (as long as we speak of the essence of dualism, not the mind/matter one).

Continuing on that thought, as you say; dualism is all around us. So, instead of starting talking about how this is not our "true way of being"; there is a "salvation in unity" "over there" (pointing just around the corner - you know - to the point which you can't see), how about this thought:

"This it it." We are already much closer to the true essence of being that we think. The veil which must fall from our eyes is exactly this: The realization that there is nothing else.

Now, before we start freaking out thinking that this is immensely depressing, lonely, and scary, just take a deep breath. It doesn't have to be. I'm not saying that we're not connected in a deeper sense (see God) , or that there is nothing else to explore and learn. I'm just suggesting that the dualism that we experience all the time is fundamental and is not going away.

Let's take an example: "structure". Is it really possible for "structure" to exist without some kind of dualism providing the groundworks for the spatiality necessary to speak of "structure" ?

Let's be clear that Hedge was asking about metaphysical dualism and you guys are speaking of something entirely different.

But the problem with the mindset expressed above is not that it's lonely and depressing, although it naturally will be over time, but that it's selfish. It deprives the entire world of whatever deep potential is living within you, waiting to be freed and manifested in the world. If we egoistically delude ourselves into thinking we are full and complete beings in that manner, there is never any motivarion to discover that potential within. It would be as a parent telling their 14 year old child the same thing. We are spiritual infants and adolescents at best, with much more growing and maturing to do.

I am absolutely speaking about metaphysical dualism. Just not mind/matter dualism. The dualism i'm suggesting runs deeper than that, and also, it is apparent right now in your immediate being. I'm talking about the interaction surface between what you are and what you aren't. I am not saying that this surface is immovable, or that there is no possiblity of change or improvement. Therefore I also dont' see how a statement like that is selfish.