For instance, currently neither polyism nor monism can be proven. Thus they are both possibilities. However, logically and experientially, I believe that monism represents a better model of reality. While I grant that polyism could be the case, I believe monism is the case.
Okay, and you won't hear a nay from me. I am not out to convince you of anything. To be clear. (As it happens I don't think logic nor experience lead one to one or the other - they are just ideas).
As I've said/asked repeatedly, please show me - either logically or experientially - why monism is flawed or why dualism/polyism is a superior model. It's that simple.
You certainly delivered a post filled with questions for me - and I'm not sure why - since I am not, nor have I ever been, conversant on this thread in that way. I pursue my own way and I am definitely not interested in debates about superior models, nor the 'logic' that leads one to any one 'belief'. I don't think it's that simple. As with most this-or-that propositions - the answer is: both. Depends on where you start from, depends on where your mind is working from - depends.
In the ancient Sanskrit texts - wayyyyyyy back - the ancient philosophers would agree with you: all one, same stuff - until, differentiation occurred. Do I care one way or another? Not really, because my everyday experience requires me to deal with a highly differentiated universe.
Do I believe that any of us can do that conclusively? No. This is simply an interesting intellectual exercise. Well leave the heavy lifting to the philosophers and physicists, but we can certainly cite them as we reason through this stuff ourselves.
Is this a good thing or a bad thing? Can't tell if you're being sardonic.
Here is the post with all your questions for me particularly. From this I see that you assume a lot about what I 'believe' and all that. As I have stated a few times - not that you would know - I find some systems of thought more complete. They work in ways that light up the world with intriguing stories. That's all. I proceed with them as 'heuristic devices' - that work to an extent 'logically and experientially'. Logic is always a slippery son-of-a-gun, workable only within whatever defined universe of language and thinking one is applying the logic to. Experience is another matter - and in this context, I am not sure what constitutes 'experience' for you.
If by this question, you mean to capture the Hard Problem,
No. I'm not tracking on all that. I am much less savvy in that way than Constance and Steve. I've never been part of any 'hard problem' discussion on this or any other thread that I know of.
I've said that I agree that qualia are non-physical. Qualia thus cannot be explained in objective language. This isn't a limit of language, but a constraint of subjectivity. Qualia appear to be subjective. However, we do have language to capture these subjective objects.
Thus, we all know what you mean by "annoyance."
'Annoyance' is communicated but when identified via language it is after the fact - not before. It also can be communicated because it is a shared experience and hence 'objective'. We can easily trip over our own words. My head spins when things are over-thought.
I would say annoyance is a function of something, just like a burp is a function of a physical body. A burp would not 'be' without the physical, mineral body. So, too, annoyance cannot exist without the activity of a 'body' - though that 'body' is not mineral (physical). Is that hypothesized 'body' made up of some 'thing' that is quantifiable and measurable by physical mineral-based instruments - hard to say. On first blush I would say not, but never say never they say for good reason.
However, that does not mean that the subjective experience/feeling of annoyance doesn't exist. Nor does it mean that it isn't constituted of something.
If by something you mean as a 'thing' as in substance,
a la minerality, I think we can agree that 'annoyance' is not mineral. It is not a 'thing'.
@Tyger, could you please explain how dual substances might interact with one another, thus refuting Monism?
Nope. Why should I?
Or, could you at least explain why the spiritual realm you describe must be constituted of a dual substance?
I don't know - must it?
You're going to have to quote-me-to-me for me to understand what you are asking.
Sorry.
Could you explain how you know it is a dual substance?
What is a dual substance?
Could you explain how differentiated, complex objects such as gods, demons, and angels might exist but not be constituted of something such as a substance?
I hope you understand that I am not an apologist. I don't have a belief system I am trying to persuade you of. I just look at all the pretty ideas - all the pretty colors and subtle nuances. I am far from believing that 'logic' - as you seem to be using it - is ever helpful to arrive at 'truth'.
However, that said, as best as I understand what you are asking, I will say this: I believe you are looking at the physical universe and extrapolating it into the spiritual (Steve made a good point when he mentioned the 'ineffable'). You are in effect saying: what you see 'here' must be 'there' - not a bad thing, but this gets gnarly when you posit 'substance' as being mineral based when clearly such 'substance' would not be
substance, but ethereal - not quantifiable and measurable by instruments out of the mineral, substantial universe.
I frankly don't see a problem with any of it being a 'substance' right up until we reach deconstruct. Why not? Generally what one reads in the texts are phrases like 'subtle substance' and 'stuff '. Whether such 'stuff ' can be measured with a physical, mineral-based scale - that I don't know. People have tried and made various claims.
And if you insist this is the case - though our language can't capture this case - can you explain why this must the case? Or is it a fact that can only be known through experience?
I've never insisted anything, nor have I insisted here, least of all have I insisted anything to do with substance.
This whole thing is a tricky business because chances are we are discussing at cross purposes. You 'read' one way, I 'write' another. There is not a shared view - a base-line that is accepted. With an accepted base-line we can engage in all sorts of logical loop-de-loops. Without it, we flounder. It is why oft-times - most times actually - such questions as you are asking of me portend no good outcome - just more grinding away at the supposed physical/spiritual rift. In the way of the materialist who is keen to deny anything beyond the material universe - though the spiritual stares them in the face every day of their lives.
For me the spiritual universe as a reality is obvious. I know it exists because I experience it on a daily basis. It is as real to me as is this table I am touching. It's details are open to exploration. There have been some explorers - philosophers/seers - who have written about it with great passion and clarity. Does it have weight and measure - substance - it appears not in physical terms. Does that mean it does not exist? I would say no. Does it have ethereal substance - the ancients say so, say it has 'substance' but not of the mineral kind.
Just ideas - for me - not beliefs. Ideas to play with.
