:
|
All this is basically what we've been saying. What I was trying to say is that being a part of something, if the metaphysical is indeed a part of the universe, doesn't suggest that this metaphysical actually holds the universe together, as you put it. Being a part of something is, I think, quite different from having power or even any sort of influence over it.
|
Oh, so you're not an Idealist. My bad, I assumed etc etc. But my point was that at the moment the universe is held together by matter, not any stuff and if there does exist other stuff then matter (apparently) can't act on it whilst the other stuff can act on matter. Like The Force in Star Wars I suppose,
:
As for the first question, I see no problem with Cartesian Dualism except:
1. It separates awareness/consciousness from the physical self (if my understanding is incorrect, I apologise).
2. How can awareness exist without thought or sensation? If you are self-aware, so to speak, that is supposing that you are capable of thought and sensation.
3. Thought is generated by the brain and sensation by the physical self.
4. Both the brain and the physical self are material things.
As for the second question, I really have no idea. :P
|
I am very dissatisfied with psychology's answer to explain away Dualism, it doesn't make the arguments for Dualism any better but it just feels like something is missing.
:
|
Who says the things we attribute to be spirits, angels and demons didn't evolve on some other plane with the natural flow of the universe?
|
Always a possibility,
but...
:
|
I don't like the idea of throwing god into the gaps to explain them, Splat. It doesn't sit well with me.
|
A wizard/dragon/Big Bang/Mephistopheles/GN Particles did it.
I've just read my last post and I apologize, I was very tired and my argument meandered without really going anywhere.
ALSO on the original topic: