http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dualism_%%28philosophy_of_mind%%29

Arguments against dualism

Argument from causal interaction
Varieties of dualism in which mind can causally affect matter have come
under strenuous attack from different quarters, especially starting in
the 20th century. How can something totally immaterial affect something
totally material? That's the basic problem of causal interaction. We
can analyze the problem here in three parts.

First, it is not clear where the interaction would take place. For
example, burning my fingers causes pain. Apparently there is some chain
of events, leading from the burning of skin, to the stimulation...

turtoni wrote:

Very good list of dualism which could be expanded greatly.

What about substance dualism, Chalmers style.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=substance+dualism

How about my favorite dualism I am still discovering or working on;

Action dualism

Where the combined actions can influence the actions differently than
they would of acted if seperated? What shall we call this?

Immortalist wrote:

Sorry about that, I meant (property) dualism;

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=property+dualism

Dualism manages to stay alive as long as people keep mistaking the
quantatative measuring of phenomena (and the explanatory theories
stemming from that) as being a complete description of nature's
ontological circumstances. Science is a very useful way of representing
reality, but it is not a complete account, and it is in that area of
what is yet *unknown about nature* where lies the elemental conditions
that human mental states could emerge from.

turtoni wrote:

Without dualism the Universe would appear to us as a uniform blob. If
you can see even two objects in your field of view, dualism exists.

Go, go, go, said the bird wrote:

But you have not shown why no dualism is valid, if that is what you are
claiming here. The intensional properties of atoms interact in
extension and that is two propertiy fields and hence a dualism. We call
a chemical process and wettness both properties.

Immortalist wrote:

Rather than try to refute dualisms, and/or the various monisms that try
to take one or the other side of various dualisms, it would be
worthwhile to consider the source of such variety to try to develop a
better reflection of Reality.

Clearly the source of such variety is thinkers that have different
views, and in fact, a single thinker could consider many views of
Reality.

Given that thinking is the source of an individual's view, then,
thinking about thinking as a process can be considered as a monism of
process. Since that process, thinking, is intrinsic in all philosophic
views, then, the monism of process is comprehensive; i.e., all
inclusive.

But: Is that an adequate view of Reality?
After all, a thinking process requires a thinker!

Anthony G. Rubino wrote:

Define reality as you have used it in that sentence without
contradicting yourself!

mikegordge@xtra.co.nz wrote:

Reality = "what's real".

No contradiction; however, it is admittedly a contentless tautology.

But your task has been fulfilled.