Talk:Type-E Dualism
 | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
This article needs some major work edit
Its tone and structure (or lack of it) seem inappropriate and out of place among the rest of Wikipedia, and it also appears to contain logical errors. For example, it is meaningless to say "Even though this view is often seen to be false, there is no evidence to show it to be so." in regards to "phenomenal properties" which are explicitly stated to have no effect on anything--there may be no evidence to show it to be false, but there's also no evidence to show it to be true! Moreover, there cannot possibly be any evidence showing it to be either true or false. It seems rather absurd to toss such a proposition out there while essentially saying "well, you can't prove me wrong!" --Zantolak (talk) 08:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
The claim that "‘Physical states cause phenomenal states, but not vice versa’. So the psychophysical laws run only from phenomenal to physical, not vice versa. So the causal chain can only move in one direction- form the physical to the ‘mental’. Our mind cannot have a direct effect on the physical world." fails to take into account there there are no unique logical inferences between the caused and the effect. To claim that a mind has no causal effect on the physical world requires that one show that for any mental state to occur as a responce to a physical event that is unique and this relationship would exist for the notion of information itself. A physical pattern that evokes a state of mind does not do so in a unique way, there are pottentially many physical patterns that could evoke one and the same mental state. Similarly, a given physical object has more than one possible description, for it can be shown that there is no a priori reason why one uses one language and grammar over another. Chinese descriptions can be just as complete as Spanish ones. The assymetry that is claimed is only so because considerations of the nature of mind and information and logical inference are not considered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.139.75.85 (talk) 09:00, 29 June 2010 (UTC)