from Wiktionary, Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License
- adj. Of or supporting dualism
- n. Any person who supports dualism, the belief in absolute good and absolute evil
- n. Any person who believes in or argues for the duality of something
from the GNU version of the Collaborative International Dictionary of English
- n. One who believes in dualism; a ditheist.
- n. One who administers two offices.
from The Century Dictionary and Cyclopedia
- n. One who holds the doctrine of dualism in any of its forms; an opponent of monism; especially, one who admits the existence both of spirit and of matter.
from WordNet 3.0 Copyright 2006 by Princeton University. All rights reserved.
- n. an adherent of dualism
Kagan spends the first about 10 sessions presenting an apologia (sort of) for the physicalist  view that the soul is "[something the body can do]"  rather than an immaterial entity intimately associated with the body (what is called the dualist view).
The UK legal system is dualist, that is to say, there is a clear separation between domestic legislation and international treaties or obligations.
At the end of the day, the only considerable difference between strong 'emergent property' claims and 'dualist' claims of substance or most any other stripe is that the former is supposed to no longer be around once the matter is gone, while the latter's activity is not supposed to be discernible while still existent in the same case.
But that is under a British style dualist system, right?
If this is the outcome you favour, why not amend the Constitution to adopt the dualist system of international law the way the Brits have it?
If this is the outcome you favour, why not amend the Constitution to adopt the dualist system of international law the way the Brits haveit?
According to the view that the Ninth Circuit took in this case (roughly corresponding to the “dualist” view of international law (see here)), treaties and other international law norms can be binding on some level as between states, but do not form part of domestic law.
Yeah 'freakin' scary that an imaginary representation of the dualist Zoroastrianian personification of evil the Jews learned in Babylon then applied to their own religion should now be posited by utter morons and applied to other cultures and religions without the slightest hint of shame of their own.
I suppose what I'm saying is, there are a variety of views that can mesh with the science – dualist, monist, and otherwise.
The dualist model, Mind as a separate entity, controlling matter, is a simplification that makes it easier (I think) to build up a consistent hierarcy of reality, where matter almost necessarily must play a dominant role.