That business of intermediate biological forms is an interesting one too, and I actually have a post or two on that topic in the pipeline.

I do realize that there are various versions of dualism, but this is the typical, “mainstream” version — the “standard model”, if you will — and is the one I had seen presented most often over at Bill V.’s place. But if you wouldn’t mind adding a brief taxonomy of the various alternative dualist positions, and where they’d draw that line, I’m sure it would be helpful in this discussion, and would be welcomed by all.

No, as described it is a defensible position, but with difficulties; these posts are an attempt to outline what they are. Of course, my own intuition is that the view described is indeed wrong, but it is not demonstrably wrong — not yet, at least.

But wouldn’t that make dualism, in the form you describe, just plain wrong?

- M

Thanks — you raise an important point, one that I ought to have made clearer.

In the dualist view, what is considered to be on the nonphysical side of the line is whatever is “mental” in nature. This includes anything and everything that takes place in consciousness: perception, qualia, thinking, decision-making, intitiation of volitional actions, and so forth. So to the dualist the seeing of the flowerpot, the decision to move, and the instructions to the body to do so are all taking place in the immaterial Mind. This is in contrast, for example, to the knee reflex, say, or digestion.

What this means is that the answer to the question “Couldn’t one consider dodging the flower pot an entirely physical process but still subscribe to a dualist view?” would have to be no.

Couldn’t one consider dodging the flower pot an entirely physical process but still subscribe to a dualist view? I would suppose that depends on where the dualist draws the line between physical and “other”, wouldn’t it? I would think that as science knows more and more about the mind, ‘the line’ might be getting redrawn like Qaddafi’s retreating “line of death”. Is there a standardized place where a card carrying dualist is supposed to draw the line? Have you made assumptions about this for the purpose of your posting?

- M

I hoped, when I began this series of posts, that it would stimulate an interesting discussion, and I’m gratified to see that it has.

- M

You’ve got your Kant, your Schopenhauer, your Hegel and your Foucault. But me? I’ll take Chevalier any day.