Dualism is likely true.

I will be taking the view that two different substances exist: physical and non-physical. physicalist: A person holding that any physical event that has a cause at time t has a physical cause at t Naturalism: entities that exist are those discoverable, in theory, by the sciences I will offer two primary arguments for Dualism:1. The Knowledge Argument/Zombie Argument[1]2. Argument from ReasonThe Knowledge Argument[2](1) Mary knows all the physical facts concerning human color vision before her release. (2) But there are some facts about human color vision that Mary does not know before her release. Therefore(3) There are non-physical facts concerning human color vision. "The sensation of colour cannot be accounted for by the physicist's objective picture of light-waves. Could the physiologist account for it, if he had fuller knowledge than he has of the processes in the retina and the nervous processes set up by them in the optical nerve bundles and in the brain? I do not think so. " Erwin Schrödinger[4]This argument is logically valid if the premises hold true the conclusion naturally follows. I have attempted to refine the thought experiment to prepare for possible rebuttals but note I will not be attacking any straw men. Imagine a brilliant neurosurgeon named Mary. Now Mary being brilliant knows everything there is to know about human color vision and she sits all day and night studying human color vision. Their is simply one problem, Mary is monochromatic. She can only see grey. So one day undergoes a surgery in order to gain the ability to see colors. So when she awakes she can see all colors of rainbow, and she has gained new knowledge but how can this be? Presupposing physicalism is true she gains no new knowledge when she sees the color red since all that exists are physical facts. However because she does gain new knowledge(namely what is it like to see the color red) we know this knowledge is ultimately immaterial. Now this type of information is what philosophers of the mind call Qualia. Qualia, if it exists, is the ultimate defeater for physicalism because if Qualia exists than ultimately some knowledge is beyond physical facts. Another argument that supports the nature of Qualia is the philosophical zombie argument which basically states that if zombies are possible after all would therefore show that conscious experience are not redescriptions of the physical facts. I will quote a argument from David Chalmers:1. According to physicalism, all that exists in our world (including consciousness) is physical.2. Thus, if physicalism is true, a logically-possible world in which all physical facts are the same as those of the actual world must contain everything that exists in our actual world. In particular, conscious experience must exist in such a possible world.3. In fact we can conceive of a world physically indistinguishable from our world but in which there is no consciousness (a zombie world). From this (so Chalmers argues) it follows that such a world is logically possible.4. Therefore, physicalism is false. (The conclusion follows from 2. and 3. by modus tollens. Conceivability entails possibility, at metaphysically. As long as something is possible metaphysically a thought experiment is possible to be run with it. If it is a metaphysical impossibility than it cannot.2. Argument from Reason[5][6]If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true . .. and hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms. —J. B. S. Haldane, Possible Worlds, page 2091) Naturalism is true 2) Naturalism entails that there is not an original purpose, or aboutness (intentionality) of the universe. 3) But there is aboutness (intentionality) now. 4) Either aboutness “emerged” or it did not. 5) Aboutness did not emerge. Therefore, Naturalism is not trueThis is a reformulation done by the blog Rational Perspectives. This argument is also deductively sound, if the premises are true the conclusions naturally follow. Now premise one is assumed for argument, I am not making the biggest concession ever :). Now naturalism will fundamentally entail that there is no purpose or teleological explanation about the universe, no intentionality, no Qualia, etc. Now this apart of the definition of Naturalism along with what it entails because such things could not be discovered by sciences at least in principle. It would be a strange form of physicalism/naturalism, in deed not one worth the name, that conceded that there exists purpose in the universe while similarly affirming that their aboutness existed along with intentionality without affirming dualism. You see intentionality is the ability for something to about something else, for example I might have beliefs about the cake(its a lie) I have a representation of reality that is either true or false. However physical states aren't really about anything. For example, a rock lying in the sun isn't really about anything. So aboutness exists now, we know simply by having true beliefs or meaningfully asserting something. The denial of which is self-defeating, if your beliefs are not about anything then they do not have determinate content and therefore we cannot know whether they are true or not. To illustrate that point I will give a example. 1 + 1= 2 this belief is about mathematics. If one is to deny intentionality it really isn't about mathematics. Its not about anything specifically. Therefore, how do we know the concept always applies? Concepts such as formal logic and mathematics fall apart if intentionality is false. Now if that's true, aboutness exists now and it cannot have been here since the beginning of universe as Naturalism entails no initial purpose or aboutness exists for the universe. But Aboutness couldn't have emerged, because it would be unreasonable to affirm it emerged, there is no coherent possibilities on how this could happen and non-rational sources do not produce intentional causes. Non-reason cannot produce reason. Humans are the result of billions of years of random and mindless processes working through natural selection. Why should we think that these mindless processes have been able to yield a being who is able to think rationally? How can we meaningfully say that intentionality simply emerged on Naturalism. Unless my opponent can justify Aboutness emerged, then this argument stands and Naturalism is false. ConclusionI thank my opponent for this debate, I hope we have a good discussion. I have introduced two primary arguments to support dualism I hope you will consider voting in the Affirmative today. If either one of my arguments hold then it follows that the mind is immaterial. Now off to Negative :)Sources:. http://tinyurl.com...