What are you? EvC poll

I was curious what the EvC members personally thought about whether or not there is separate substances that make up reality.
For instance if one believes that a spiritual world exist as well as a material world then they are a dualist, or believe in the metaphyical.Then on the other side of the camp is the folks who believe that everything is just one stuff. The monist. So just for fun pick a camp: Dualist or Monist and explain your reasons why you think that. This can go to coffiee house ( or can it. )I will start off: I am a Monist, I believe everything is just one stuff. I believe this because I can not see how things can be separate when everything seems to affect everything else.This message has been edited by 1.61803, 04-24-2006 10:09 PM

I like it and would promote it for the Coffee House. I'm not sure whether Admin allows for polls perse. I'll step aside and wait for input from other admins. I don't know the ropes yet on actually moving your topic from PNT.

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

Hi Buzz. thanks for promoting my topic, but your right a poll is not appropriate on a debate forum. Go ahead and close it. My bad.

All indications point towards mosism for me, but I really have no way of knowing if there is a spiritual realm or not.So, I am for all practiacal applications, a Monist, but am agnostic in belief.This message has been edited by schrafinator, 04-25-2006 11:59 AM

Buzsaw, spare this thread!Count me a Monist for the simple reason there is no evidence for any "other," special, ethereal, metaphysical kind of stuff.But I'd be fascinated to hear Dualist evidence and logic.

I see it's been a spell and no responses, so I'll kick it off with a volitile volley, quite likely to get up some responses in a hurry. I never thought of it in these terms, but I've always debated monistically as to the existence of things in the universe.1. There's one universe, so why not one multifaceted existence of all that exists. We finite humans tend to look at what we call supernatural as something foreign to our existence.2. Dualism by and large seems to be insisted upon by the secularist science community as is the case here at EvC. For that reason, evidence for what we call the spiritual is usually disallowed in the science fora.3. With all our modern tech, pioneered by the discovery of electricity, we are learning that a whole lot of what exists in the universe is undetected by humans without sophisticated scientific means, both visual and non-visual. I have always contended that, given the evidence we already have, by various means such as archeology and fulfilled prophecy, et al, it is very probable that science will soon discover that what we now classify as this alleged faith based mysterious spiritual will become indeed falsifyable.4. Imo, secularist scientists and even some who debate in the message boards, et al reveal a somewhat arrogant attitude in that they seem to assume by their debate messages that whatever exists in the universe has been detected us teeny creatures on this teeny speck called planet earth. Furthermore these folks seem to act as though our teeny minds surely must be the highest intelligence that could possibly exist. Thus their reluctance to allow the study of it's possibilities in the science arena so as to study what may possibly exist. Having said that, I must add that certainly most religious discussion is not suitable in the science arena. Imo, all topics related to evidence of what may exist in the universe are science related, including the study of what we term spiritual, just as are things like black holes and dark matter.5. As per the OP, perhaps for the purpose of the limitation of our human minds, some may choose to be dualists as to how stuff should be catagorized. The problem then arises as to what is actually empirically falsifyable and which is not. I doubt that dark matter is any more empirically falsifyable than some aspects of what is regarded as spiritual, for example, some historically validated prophecies or the evidence of the Exodus in the Gulf of Aqaba with the adjoining corroborating evidence in the area.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 Z Y BUZ SAW

By "monist" do you mean materialist? One could also be a monist and be an idealist (everything is mental).If there is no God and evolution is true, then materialism would seem to follow. I don't see how you are going to get something mental out of something physical.It's difficult however for me to ignore my private experience of incorporeal mentality, so I'm not sure.

Well while I was preparing my rather lengthly message, I see the responses are already beginning.Imo, there's no need to close the thread. I believe it's appropriate to voice your vote and reasons for such without taking a poll, perse. So unless Admin suggests otherwise, carry on.

I think there may indeed be room for a metaphysics a la Kant, if the history of philosophy, found that,..it did not help out in the Galvani-Volta debate, that minerals selected chirality in traits that survived Darwin's dillema and that Wittgenstein was wrong to turn from Mach to a symbol (for a collection) that the evolution of the difference of convergence and paralllelism might rotate in time, but then again , that is just me and not the objective Maxwell's reference to electrical images might pervert in the the model.

Hi Buzz, I guess we have something to chat about in coffeehouse. I read you whole post and was wondering if you are a) dualist or b) monist. You said you have always debated monastic, so is this "your final answer"???

Hi Robinrohan,
By monist I mean that there is only on stuff. By dualist I mean that there is spiritual substances and material substances. That there is 2 types of stuff. Which camp are you in? and why?

But..............Brad, Brad, Brad...have you forgotten about Liebnitz monads?????

That's a misunderstanding. Scientists are saying that what we study is material. Whether or not there is an immaterial substance is a matter of personal decision. However, if there is an immaterial substance, it cannot be studied by the methods of science. Again, I'll suggest that's a misunderstanding. Nothing would thrill a scientist more, than to detect something that had been previously undetected.

monist. i suppose. but. there are at least ten and possibly infinite dimensions. we don't know what those demensions entail nor what may be hiding from us there. there is no reason to assume that what we can see (being so limited in our observational abilities) is all that there is.