I'm not sure the distinction is required. If something has the property of dualism, how do you propose to determine that the dualism does or does not arise from the substance?
It may not be required, but it might help others frame your response, and might avoid confusion in future.
As said, some people immediately see "dualism" as referring to substance dualism and from there, rightly or wrongly, to a religious agenda.
I just felt that clarifying one's position might avoid such.
If you don't think so, or simply don't want to clarify, that is your prerogative.
If for all intents and purposes, the phenomena cannot be worked with in the field reduced by physics, what would be the purpose in saying it is ultimately beyond or within physics? Or do you think the ecclesiastical monopoly of militant physicists works by the addage of "If you are not for us, you are against us."?
I'm sure you think this has relevance.
A world of phenomena that is not reducible to an understanding of the machinations of matter.
Do you think that this irreducibility is temporary or a permanent fixture?
If the latter, do you have proof of the impossibility, per chance?
IOW having an understanding of the world with vast epistemological holes (especially at the point of introducing "life" to the equation) is exactly what you would expect in a world built on a dualistic foundation ..... and, lo and behold, that is what we have.
Equally it is what we might expect if the universe is actually monistic but we simply lack understanding of the complexity of systems such as those being discussed, and where in the interim we find dualistic approaches to be of benefit.
I.e. there seems a significant whiff of affirming the consequent about your position here.
Given that property dualism includes a host of opposing views in the (vain?) effort to constrain the duality to property, one has to ask what you are hoping to achieve by alluding to a term that provides anything less than disagreement and controversy.
As said, my aim in asking you to which you refer was simply to help understand your overall viewpoint, and possibly to avoid confusion later on.
Seeking initial clarification between propert and substance dualism seemed a good starting point.
If you wish to clarify beyond that, please feel free.
If you don't wish to clarify at all, again that is your call.
I posted a vid earlier from a lecture presentation about advancements in the field of fatigue management in athletes. He talks about how adherance to a reductionist view of fatigue was producing inferior results, and how moving into a dualistic model secured not only better results but results that were deemed impossible by reductionist understandings (such as long distance swimming in arctic waters in speedos). Now you can don your hockey mask as you philophically duke it out and argue whether its emergent, ephiphenomenal, or panphyscist, or even substance dualism, but that is beside the point. There is a whole realm of science that is quite comfortable to make progress without drafting a necessary political allegiance to material monism every step of the way.
I don't disagree with any of that.
You seem to have misunderstood my purpose for asking for clarity, so I will drop it.
