Parabanger, thank you for your interest and reply. I believe you have partially understood my statement, but more elaboration is needed:
[How does mind/body problem make us fight? You mean it makes us argue, I suspect. ]
No. We would be prone to "argue" even without the MBP. What it causes is an inability to agree. And agreement (to that which is accurate) is absolutely essential for effective cooperation, which is essential for our survival, not to mention a good quality of life. If we were totally unable to agree about anything, we would die and disappear.
The MBP is caused by the attempted integration of incompatible models, as I describe in some detail in my book. Consequently, it will always provide for a defect in any effort at indepth reasoning. Solving the problem, as I believe I have (pending others demonstrating otherwise), eliminates that obstruction to our coming to agreement, and therefore offers us a reason for increased hope that we will not self-destruct and that we may even get to a far, far better life on this planet than we have ever known.
[But arguing is a noble pursuit that should be encouraged. It is one of the most cooperative activities I can imagine.]
I know what you mean, I believe, but the statement needs important clarification. Specifically, it needs clarification of the meaning of the term "arguing." You are referring to what is also labeled "debate." But there are two varieties of debate, that I spell out in Book1:
***********
Above, I made reference to "friendly debate." This concept is an important one in understanding what is being advocated in this book.
Friendly debate, as used in this book, is a procedure whereby two or more individuals, who have different beliefs, each try to convince the other(s) of the validity of his or her beliefs while listening to the response of the other(s) in order to detect flaws in his or her own beliefs or in the presentation of them, the goal being that of increasing one's own wisdom and effectiveness in communication. The criterion of success is whether the beliefs in question are consistent with the rules of logic and the rules of evidence (to be discussed later in this book). Friendly debate is the procedure that is most likely to result in increased wisdom. Friendly debate is a very difficult procedure, seldom occurring among our species so far.
Unfriendly debate is a procedure in which the goal is to win or to achieve the appearance of winning, and the procedure is often characterized by efforts to suppress the other's viewpoints, distract the other from pursuing a logical presentation, or confuse the other and/or listeners by, for instance, misrepresenting the viewpoint of the other. Anger is generally present and is frequently manifested as hostile speech and hostile non-verbal behavior. Shouting down, ridiculing, abandoning and avoiding, injuring, and murdering are examples. Unfriendly debate occurs frequently, and generally leaves anger-containing memories. It is usually referred to as "argument," and sometimes even as "fighting." Some of "anger management" is the effort to convert unfriendly debate into friendly debate.
**********
My hope is that you will explore the https://humanianity.com website. Book1, Book2, and Book3 are in the PHILOSOPHY section, Book3 being the one on the MBP. My hope also is that you will explore the Humanian Belief Manual section, which uses that tool to do precisely what you are advocating for with regard to "arguing," assuming you mean friendly debate as defined above, but enables for the first time a way of actually ascertaining whether agreement has yet been obtained.
If you do explore that website, I will appreciate feedback regarding any flaws that you find or improvements that you believe could be made.
Beyond my dreams would be for you to register in the Belief Manual and construct your own Belief Manual, so that you and I could compare our two Belief Manuals and discuss why we were not agreeing about something.
Bill
