1:36 Why in the world would mental causation obliterate Property Dualism and Strong Emergence? That's just nonsense. And funny enough, you dishonestly conflate Property Dualism with Non-reductive physicalism, but in this video it's shown to be separate positions.🤦♂
Because both are in conflict with mental causation, check out the exclusion problem. What _you_ describe as properly dualism is indistinguishable from non-reductive physicalism. One could try to argue for a sort of non-reductive idealism which does hold to a duality of properties, but I would object to such a view for the same reasons I do non-reductive physicalism (e.g. the interaction problem). So no matter what version of property dualism one holds to they'll fail for the same reasons.
@@MonisticIdealism I already refuted you on two of the three. Nonreductive physicalism is a contradiction in terms. Physicalism means all is physical, but the non-reductive admits that some phenomena cannot be reduced to the physical, thereby contradicting the notion that all is physical. And I already refuted the notion of an Interaction problem on Property Dualism here: watch?v=421Mdgp5B8E
The Spongebob epiphenomenalist one was the funniest
"on your view: God exists of necessity, but WHATS THE CAUSE"
This synthwave music is always a vibe! 🎶
Wow! That's awesome! LOL ..... This deserves 1M views !
Thanks! I'm glad you enjoyed it. There's even more memes to come in the future.
bro we need more of this
Fine work!
Conscious volition can fail, but Viagra always makes the damn thing goes up!
All I can say is...Yes
This was gold.
lmao
No Sponge Bob !!!!!!!!!!!!
Pinky!!!
LMAO!!!
Can you send again your discord server link? The one in the description don't work anymore
Yeah, thanks for the heads up: discord.gg/2EZ45yGB
So, murder is legal now?
1:36
Why in the world would mental causation obliterate Property Dualism and Strong Emergence? That's just nonsense. And funny enough, you dishonestly conflate Property Dualism with Non-reductive physicalism, but in this video it's shown to be separate positions.🤦♂
Because both are in conflict with mental causation, check out the exclusion problem. What _you_ describe as properly dualism is indistinguishable from non-reductive physicalism. One could try to argue for a sort of non-reductive idealism which does hold to a duality of properties, but I would object to such a view for the same reasons I do non-reductive physicalism (e.g. the interaction problem). So no matter what version of property dualism one holds to they'll fail for the same reasons.
@@MonisticIdealism Couldn't someone just hold to a metaphysical theory with less logical tightness and say that there is no interaction problem?
@@danielhager6805 I'm not sure what is meant by a metaphysical theory with less logical tightness. Can you please explain what that means?
@@MonisticIdealism Having mental causation on a completely different physical substance and then saying you don't have to explain how it works.
@@MonisticIdealism
I already refuted you on two of the three. Nonreductive physicalism is a contradiction in terms. Physicalism means all is physical, but the non-reductive admits that some phenomena cannot be reduced to the physical, thereby contradicting the notion that all is physical. And I already refuted the notion of an Interaction problem on Property Dualism here: watch?v=421Mdgp5B8E