There are no material objects

[Ichneumonwasp]

By substance dualism are you referring to the thoughts of Descartes?

Amongst many others. Wave particle duality has nothing to do with it; that refers more to a conceptual problem on our part.

 

[punshhh]

Amongst many others. Wave particle duality has nothing to do with it; that refers more to a conceptual problem on our part.

I see that, either you have miss-understood my analogy, I have been misleading, or I have miss understood your reference to substance dualism.

I am merely suggesting that what is ordinarily referred to as idealism can be viewed as a material phenomena. A kind of material not as yet recognised by science. Indeed I see no other way that it can be regarded as existing.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

I see that, either you have miss-understood my analogy, I have been misleading, or I have miss understood your reference to substance dualism.

I am merely suggesting that what is ordinarily referred to as idealism can be viewed as a material phenomena. A kind of material not as yet recognised by science. Indeed I see no other way that it can be regarded as existing.

That is also not substance dualism. Yes, what we see around us, including us, could be thoughts in the mind of God (idealism). There is no way to tell if idealism, materialism, or whatever -ism we might want to propose is the correct ontology.

Substance dualism proposes that there are two entirely different types of substance. For Descartes this was matter, which has extension in space, and thought, which has no extension. He couldn't arrive at a way for the two to interact, however. Spinoza argued that it was not possible for them to interact.

 

[punshhh]

That is also not substance dualism. Yes, what we see around us, including us, could be thoughts in the mind of God (idealism). There is no way to tell if idealism, materialism, or whatever -ism we might want to propose is the correct ontology.

Substance dualism proposes that there are two entirely different types of substance. For Descartes this was matter, which has extension in space, and thought, which has no extension. He couldn't arrive at a way for the two to interact, however. Spinoza argued that it was not possible for them to interact.

Thank you for your explanation.

I come to these ideas from an alternative tradition to western philosophy and am sometimes unfamiliar with the language and literature. It continually appears to be remarkably familiar and analogous to my own understanding.

My position is perhaps more akin to Spinoza's, however both positions dovetail into my understanding. I would suggest that the difference is one of perspective. As implied in my analogy a single substance may well appear to be two unrelated substances depending on the observer.

I would therefore be inclined towards the position that substance duality is illusory including any supernatural implications.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Thank you for your explanation.

I come to these ideas from an alternative tradition to western philosophy and am sometimes unfamiliar with the language and literature. It continually appears to be remarkably familiar and analogous to my own understanding.

My position is perhaps more akin to Spinoza's, however both positions dovetail into my understanding. I would suggest that the difference is one of perspective. As implied in my analogy a single substance may well appear to be two unrelated substances depending on the observer.

I would therefore be inclined towards the position that substance duality is illusory including any supernatural implications.

I agree. Many people fully ascribe to substance dualism, though, because that is how the world appears to us.