Dualism Expectations of a spiritual mind

With dualism we would expect the spiritual mind to have similar attributes to that of its source. If the
source is the God of the Bible, the concept of dualism is consistent with the Bible. Genesis 1:26(NKJV)
states, Then God said, let Us make man in Our image, according to our likeness... Genesis 2:7 (NKJV)
states, And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the
breath of life; and man became a living being. Luke 23:46 (NKJV) states, And when Jesus had cried out
with a loud voice, He said, Father, into your hands I commend my spirit.
Dualism Rational and scientific support
A British study published by the journal Resuscitation provided evidence that consciousness continues
after a persons brain has stopped functioning and he or she has been declared dead supports the truth
of dualism. In their journal article, physician Sam Parnia and Peter Fenwick, a neuropsychiatrist, describe
their study of sixty-three heart attack victims who were declared clinically dead but were later revived
and interviewed. About ten percent reported having well-structured, lucid thought processes, with
memory formation and reasoning during the time that their brains were not functioning. The effects of
starvation of oxygen or drugs were ruled out as factors. Researchers also found that numerous cases
were similar.

J. P. Moreland, PhD, author and theologian states during an interview with Lee Strobel, People are
clinically dead, but sometimes they have a vantage point from above, where they look down at the
operating table that their body is on. Sometimes they gain information that they couldnt have known if
this were just an illusion happening in their brain. One woman died and she saw a tennis shoe that was
on top of the hospital. This is strong scientific evidence for the validity of her experience and the
existence of a conscience mind that separates from the body at death.

There is no place in the brain where electric stimulation can cause a person to believe or decide.

When Roger Sperry and his team studied the differences between the brains right and left
hemispheres, they discovered the mind has a causal power independent of the brains activities. This led
Sperry to conclude that materialism was false.

Our thoughts can be true or false. However, brain states cannot be true or false.

Nobody can tell what we are thinking by measuring brain waves. We must be asked what we are
thinking.

When empirical information is used to as a basis for validating dualism, we can come to a consensus
that it is true. However, dualism vs. materialism is tied to the creation vs. evolution debate.
Consequently, evolutionists need to take unrealistic positions against dualism to defend evolution. If
dualism is true, we are created by God and macroevolution is false.

In a similar way, if only the objective scientific empirical facts are considered, evolution has no support
and creation is true by default.
Mindbody dualism, or mindbody duality, is a view in the philosophy of mind that mental phenomena
are, in some respects, non-physical,[1]or that the mind and body are distinct and separable.[2] Thus, it
encompasses a set of views about the relationship between mind and matter, and
between subject and object, and is contrasted with other positions, such
as physicalism and enactivism, in the mindbody problem.[1][2]
Aristotle shared Plato's view of multiple souls and further elaborated a hierarchical arrangement,
corresponding to the distinctive functions of plants, animals, and people: a nutritive soul of growth and
metabolism that all three share; a perceptive soul of pain, pleasure, and desire that only people and
other animals share; and the faculty of reason that is unique to people only. In this view, a soul is
the hylomorphic form of a viable organism, wherein each level of the hierarchy
formally supervenes upon the substance of the preceding level. Thus, for Aristotle, all three souls
perish when the living organism dies.[3][4] For Plato however, the soul was not dependent on the physical
body; he believed in metempsychosis, the migration of the soul to a new physical body.[5]
Dualism is closely associated with the thought of Ren Descartes (1641), which holds that the mind is a
nonphysicaland therefore, non-spatialsubstance. Descartes clearly identified the mind
with consciousness and self-awareness and distinguished this from the brain as the seat
of intelligence.[6] Hence, he was the first to formulate the mindbody problem in the form in which it
exists today.[7] Dualism is contrasted with various kinds of monism. Substance dualism is contrasted
with all forms of materialism, but property dualism may be considered a form of emergent
materialism or non-reductive physicalism in some sense.
ctuality and potentiality
Posted 02/15/2012 by Brady in Causality, Classical philosophy, Cosmology, Epistemology. 15 Comments
Aristotles concept of actuality and potentiality is striking for two reasons; its disarming simplicity, and
following that its place as a fundamental to understanding many of his other theories. Act and potency
follows logically from Aristotles thoughts on causation.
Act and potency are dichotomous and parasitic in nature. That is to say, if something possess the potential
to be X, its potentiality to be X is reduced as it actually becomes X. In this way pure potentiality is really
nothing at all (i.e. the closest thing to nothing) until it is actualised.
In terms of Aristotles causality, matter (or material cause) is potentiality while form (or formal cause) is
actuality. When a change occurs to produce X, Xs matter undergoes the change into X and is constant
throughout the process. For example, consider bronze: the matter of bronze has the potential to be many
things such as a cube or statue. When a bronze cube is changed in a statue, the matter of the bronze
remains the same throughout the change.
If a bronze cubes matter is bronze, then the cubeness is its form. In other words, bronze is always
potentially a cube (among other things) and only becomes a cube when it receives the form of cubeness.
Act and potency are related to Aristotles empirical epistemology, whereby knowledge is formed through
sensation of the forms present in the external world. These forms do not need to be only shapes, they can
also be sweetness, blueness, etc. During sensation, the intellect takes on the form of the sensed object
without becoming the thing of the sort of form it is sensing.
The God of Aristotle is pure form, or pure actuality. It is perfection in the sense that it has no potentiality,
and thus cannot be greater in any way. Logically, there are attributes that follow from being pure
actuality: immateriality (as materiality is potentiality), immutability (as change requires potentiality),
eternal (as becoming would require change) and etc.
Aristotles ideas of act and potency are related to his discussion of goodness, which I will elaborate upon
in my next post.
Holism (from Greek holos "all, whole, entire") is the idea that systems (physical, biological,
chemical, social, economic, mental, linguistic, etc.) and their properties should be viewed as wholes, not
just as a collection of parts.[1][2]
The term Holism was coined by J C Smuts in Holism and Evolution.[3][4] It was Smuts' opinion that Holism
is a concept that represents all of the wholes in the universe, and these wholes are the real factors in
the universe. Further, that Holism also denoted a theory of the universe in the same vein as Materialism
and Spiritualism.[3]:120121
The derived adjective holistic has been applied to a wide range of fields where they incorporate the
concept of holism.
actuality
play
noun actuality \ak-ch-wa-l-t, ak-sh-\
Popularity: Bottom 40% of words
Examples: ACTUALITY in a Sentence

Definition of ACTUALITY
plural
actualities
1: the quality or state of being actual
2: something that is actual : FACT , REALITY possible risks which have
been seized upon as actualities T. S. Eliot
in actuality
Holism refers to any approach that emphasizes the whole rather than their constituent parts. In other
words 'the whole is greater than the sum of its parts'. Qualitative methods of the humanistic approach

UNIVERSAL
reflect a holistic position. Socialpsychology also takes a holistic view.

VALUES - PEACE, FREEDOM,

SOCIAL PROGRESS, EQUAL
RIGHTS, HUMAN DIGNITY
Hedonism is a school of thought that argues that pleasure and happiness are the primary or most
important intrinsic goods and the proper aim of human life.[1] A hedonist strives to maximize net
pleasure (pleasure minus pain), but when having finally gained that pleasure, either through intrinsic or
extrinsic goods, happiness remains stationary.
Ethical hedonism is the idea that all people have the right to do everything in their power to achieve the
greatest amount of pleasure possible to them. It is also the idea that every person's pleasure should far
surpass their amount of pain. Ethical hedonism is said to have been started by Aristippus of Cyrene, a
student of Socrates. He held the idea that pleasure is the highest good.[2]
Hedonism is a sub-philosophy of utilitarianism, which says to act in a way that maximizes utility.
Hedonists equate pleasure with utility and believe that pleasure is the master of all humankind, and acts
as the ultimate life goal. Hedonists believe that there are only two motivators of human action, pleasure
and pain, and that decisions should only be made that further our pleasurable experiences and minimize
or completely eliminate our painful ones.[3]
Shalom H. Schwartz (Hebrew: ) is a social psychologist, cross-cultural researcher and creator
of the Theory of Basic Human Values(universal values as latent motivations and needs). He also
contributed to the formulation of the values scale in the context of social learning theoryand social
cognitive theory. The Theory of Basic Human values, developed by Shalom H. Schwartz, is a theory in
the field of intercultural research. The author considers the theory as an essential extension of previous
approaches to comparative intercultural research theories,[1] such as the Hofstede's cultural dimensions
theory, and has been extensively applied in cross-cultural studies of individual values.[2] The Theory of
Basic Human Values tries to measure Universal Values that are recognised throughout all major
cultures. Schwartzs theory identifies ten such motivationally distinct values and further describes the
dynamic relations amongst them. To better graphically portray these relationships, the theory arranges
the ten values in a circular structure.
Contents
[hide]
1Motivational types of values
1.1Openness to change
1.2Self-enhancement
1.3Conservation
1.4Self-transcendence
1.5Other
2The structure of value relations
3Measurement methods
3.1Schwartz Value Survey
4Limitations
5Practical applications
6References
Motivational types of values[edit]
The Theory of Basic Human Values recognises ten universal values, which can be organised in four
higher-order groups. Each of the ten universal values has a central goal that is the underlying
motivator.[1]
Openness to change[edit]
Self-Direction Independent thought and actionchoosing, creating, exploring.
Stimulation Excitement, novelty, and challenge in life.
Self-enhancement[edit]
Hedonism Pleasure or sensuous gratification for oneself.
Achievement Personal success through demonstrating competence according to social standards.
Power Social status and prestige, control or dominance over people and resources.
Conservation[edit]
Security Safety, harmony, and stability of society, of relationships, and of self.
Conformity Restraint of actions, inclinations, and impulses likely to upset or harm others and violate
social expectations or norms.
Tradition Respect, commitment, and acceptance of the customs and ideas that one's culture or religion
provides.
Self-transcendence[edit]
Benevolence Preserving and enhancing the welfare of those with whom one is in frequent personal
contact (the in-group).
Universalism Understanding, appreciation, tolerance, and protection for the welfare of all people and
for nature.
Other[edit]
Spirituality was considered as an additional eleventh value, however, it was found that it did not exist in
all cultures.[3]
The structure of value relations[edit]
In addition to identifying the ten basic values, the theory also explains how these ten values are
interconnected and influence each other, since the pursuit of any of the values results in either an
accordance with one another (conformity and security) or a conflict with at least one other value
(benevolence and power). Tradition and conformity share particularly similar motivational goals and
consequently are consolidated in the same wedge.[3] Values can lightly or more strongly oppose each
other, which has led to the organisation of the values in a circular structure along two bipolar
dimensions. The first dimension is openness to change versus conservation, which contrasts
independence and obedience. The second bipolar dimension is self-enhancement versus self-
transcendence and is concerned on the one side with the interests of one-self and on the other side of
the welfare of others. Although the theory distinguishes ten values, the borders between the motivators
are artificial and one value flows into the next, which can be seen by the following shared motivational
emphases:[3]
Power and Achievementsocial superiority and esteem;
Achievement and Hedonismself-centred satisfaction;
Hedonism and Stimulationa desire for affectively pleasant arousal;
Stimulation and Self-directionintrinsic interest in novelty and mastery;
Self-direction and Universalismreliance upon one's own judgement and comfort with the diversity of
existence;
Universalism and Benevolenceenhancement of others and transcendence of selfish interests;
Benevolence and Traditiondevotion to one's in-group;
Benevolence and Conformitynormative behaviour that promotes close relationships;
Conformity and Traditionsubordination of self in favour of socially imposed expectations;
Tradition and Securitypreserving existing social arrangements that give certainty to life;
Conformity and Securityprotection of order and harmony in relations;
Security and Poweravoiding or overcoming threats by controlling relationships and resources.
Furthermore, people are still able to follow opposing values through acting differently in different
settings or at different times.
The Big Crunch is one possible scenario for the ultimate fate of the universe, in which the metric
expansion of space eventually reverses and the universe recollapses, ultimately causing the
cosmic scale factor to reach zero or causing a reformation of the universe starting with another Big
Bang. Sudden singularities and crunch or rip singularities at late times occur only for hypothetical
matter with implausible physical properties.[1]