An excellent concise and accurate statement of the interactive dualism theory of mind

It depends on the definition of "God". Taoism and Brahman are both Panentheism, and do not anywhere define God as person. If God is All, then does it not become truly redundant for God to be an individual within God? It's what I do not understand about the whole idea of "son of God" or what-have-you ~ we're all already aspects of God, quite directly. It just doesn't appear like it because we're like fish in water. When everything is God, we can point to nothing in particular.


In an essentially eternal infinity, creation itself is redundant... there is no beginning, and no end. That is merely an artifact of our physically-incarnate conception of linear time, where things begin and end. At the very top, all has been created, and yet never were, because they always were... when there's no concept of time, all happens at once, and yet has progression... like a fractal ever-growing.

Ah, I'm rambling... but after... reaching the spiritual ceiling of... *something* earlier, the words just come. So, take with a grain of salt, heh.

The Many are distinct from each other, because at the perspective of the Many, they are of different forms and kinds. But they also are One, in the sense that Oneness is the both their origin and yet innate and full existence, the infinite potential having taken on limitation so as to differentiate.

Taiji has no meaningful existence without Yin, Earth, upon which Yang, Heaven, simultaneously comes into being, Yin and Yang thus springing from the same root, creating each other, yet having always existed.

My intuition is slipping, but at least I can transcribe what I am... receiving at this moment. The understanding and comprehension also rapidly slips away. It is what it is...

Yeah I can see all of this as live possibilities...save for the idea that Time is illusory. To me this is a claim made due to interpertations of physics and/or momentary "timeless" experiences...which of course occurred at a particular moment in time.

These seem like erroneous interpretations of either the maths or one's own experience. Admittedly it can seem unfair for someone who hasn't had the experience to critique it, but I think the vast amount of experience that occurs within a sense of Time weighs against these claims?

Yeah I can see all of this as live possibilities...save for the idea that Time is illusory. To me this is a claim made due to interpertations of physics and/or momentary "timeless" experiences...which of course occurred at a particular moment in time.

These seem like erroneous interpretations of either the maths or one's own experience. Admittedly it can seem unfair for someone who hasn't had the experience to critique it, but I think the vast amount of experience that occurs within a sense of Time weighs against these claims?

It occurs in time for the incarnate self, who must necessarily experience as part of a flow of time, so we have no other basis. Even the mystic who experiences the godhead, the meditator who experiences timelessness, the psychedelic user who experiences a seeming eternity in a minute... their body and mind must still experience a flow of time, even if their transcendent state does not.

During Rick Strassman's set of experiments involving DMT, one man experienced 1,000 years in that 15 minute timespan. It shows just how subjective the flow of time is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5Dz8UzFNwQ

The takeaway? That time is subjective in flow and experience ~ never illusory.

We all have a flow of time, whether linear or non-linear, slow or fast, or whatever else it can be ~ but that does not make it illusory. Just subjective. Mental. Spiritual?

This is a good question. In philosophy, in this context, "substance" has a particular meaning: "a thing whose existence is independent of that of all other things, or a thing from which or out of which other things are made or in which other things inhere".

On monistic idealism, the singular substance (on this meaning) is the universal mind which is all of reality.

The more conventional meaning of a "substance" - which perhaps is a potential aspect of the philosophical meaning - is "that of which a thing consists; physical matter or material: form and substance" (see sense #1; sense #10 is again the philosophical sense referenced from a different source above). We might say in this thread's context that an appropriate synonym for this conventional sense of "substance" is "stuff".

On monistic idealism, the existence of any substance in this conventional sense is adamantly denied: mind is not comprised of stuff; rather, it is a subject undergoing experience, and experience itself is certainly not any type of stuff, neither "mind stuff" nor any other type of stuff.

The problem here is that despite this explicit denial, monistic idealism implicitly trades on the idea of stuff to explain how a plurality of minds "decombines" out of the singular mind: this decombination would not be possible unless mind was comprised of some sort of stuff, for experience itself - not being a type of stuff - cannot decombine (consider, for example, the absurdity of "the redness of red" splitting into a separate mind in virtue of its redness).

The implicit trading on substantial "stuff" can be seen again in monistic idealism's explanation of an intersubjectively consistent external world, at least on the account given in Analytic Idealism: the matter referenced by physics, conventionally assumed to be mind independent, is on monistic idealism (at least in the form of Analytic Idealism) simply encased within a giant mind and reframed as mental (experiential) rather than physical; for all intents and purposes, it is otherwise identical. Again, the existence of stuff is implicit, even while, again, it is - quite rightly, given that experience truly is not a type of stuff - explicitly denied.

There are other fatal problems with monistic idealism, but that's the most suitable one to draw out in the context of Sci's question.

We might then consider a truly pluralistic idealism: the existence of multiple minds not decombined out of a singular mind, but independently existent. I see two main problems here though. The first is the context in which those minds exist. It is hard - though perhaps not impossible - to conceive of multiple minds merely existing, and not existing in some sort of dimensional space, but once a mind-independent dimensional space is conceded, then it's unclear why a mind-independent physical reality - merely a type of dimensional space - would be denied, and thus what makes pluralistic idealism theoretically superior to dualism.

The second is again how to explain the intersubjectively consistent external world even if, hard as it is, we allow that minds do not exist in any sort of dimensional space. Advocates of idealism typically invoke the idea of parsimony to defend that idealism, but it seems to me that a more straightforward dualism - in which a mind-independent reality more or less (perhaps tending towards "less" given quantum weirdness) exists as perceived - is far more parsimonious than a pluralistic idealism, in which a set of minds, either via a singular "server" mind servicing "client" minds, or via a "peer-to-peer" network of minds, somehow maintains a coherent conceptual model of an external reality, which somehow is translated into an appropriate tangible perceptual experience for each mind.

This - and the peer-to-peer variant in particular - is also problematic in the sense that we are not personally (at least I am not) aware of any of this peer-to-peer or client-server networking-and-translating going on in our own minds, yet on idealism, experience is all that exists, so if we do not experience it, then how could it be said to exist in the first place? Too, even if it does exist, it's not clear how it came about: how these minds organised (decided to organise?) themselves and their perception in this way.

Pluralistic idealism also has other problems in common with monistic idealism, such as how to explain causally-efficacious brains and bodies in purely experiential terms, but I won't address them here.

Dualism, then, seems by far the most plausible candidate here. (I won't address physicalism, because we are all well aware already of the fatal problems that rule it out).

That leaves the other option canvassed in this thread: neutral monism.

It's not 100% clear to me what is intended by that term in this thread, but I get the sense that what is intended is that a fundamental ("neutral") substance in the conventional sense - some sort of stuff - somehow transmutes itself into one or the other substances of mind or matter. Given, though, that, as elaborated above, mind (at least as experiencing subject and especially its undergone experiences) is not stuff, it's not clear how this transmutation could work in that case.

Even granting that it somehow could work, then it's not clear how the claim that the existence of this basic substance solves the supposed problem of mind-matter causal interaction (a pseudo-problem in my view) is substantiated: once this neutral substance transmutes itself into either mind or matter, then the (supposed) problem reasserts itself, because, whatever they might have been transmuted from, once transmuted into their final forms, mind and matter have the radically different natures that we know them for.

If that's not what's intended, then maybe it could be spelled out in more detail, but other conceptions of neutral monism anyway seem also problematic to me.

All of that is to say that I see no threat here to dualism as the most plausible ontology or position on the so-called mind-body problem, as advanced in the opening post of this thread by @nbtruthman.

I feel that you fundamentally misunderstand both Idealism and Neutral Monism.

For Objective Idealism, God is the ultimate substance. For Neutral Monism, I consider Spirit to be the neutral, ultimate substance. God and Spirit are not "things" ~ they are infinities that exist prior to form, which is inherent limitation. An infinity is as it seems ~ it is infinite potential, with all possibilities, known and unknown, undetermined. Form imposes limits on infinity, granting it qualities, perhaps quantities, granting it existence.

For Objective Idealism, God is the Universal Mind, albeit composed of pure infinities, thus having none of the qualities of any mind we can conceive of. Thus "mind" is just a label, albeit perhaps with connotations that invite confusion. For Neutral Monism, there is no issue, despite having many similarities with Objective Idealism ~ the ultimate substance is not "Mind". It is something beyond the usual definitions. Spirit can compose all things ~ it is infinite, without definition, thus to define it is to limit it, to grant it quality, form, purpose.

If this physical reality is simply a manifestation within the Mind of God, of Spirit, then it simply a form of existence. The higher spiritual realities are also a form of existence, albeit just much less dense and of a different character. Mind, as a form, a limitation, has no issue interacting with matter, another sort of form, limitation.

How does incarnate mind interact with matter? Through resonance, through attraction, through emotion, perhaps. The mind, the aura, the slice of soul that it is, organizes the material elements in such a way that resonates with that form. Perhaps the inspiration here is Sheldrake's Morphic Resonance...

Consider also that how we know of the physical world is purely through the mental senses. So we never bear witness to the true underlying, perhaps quantum nature of the physical, which itself must have an origin in Spirit.

Consider how matter exists as being form, limitation. with particular qualities that define it. Infinity defined by boundaries. Like mind is.

The problem of interaction is thus purely a lack of understanding between what the actual nature of the different substances are.

To put it in Daoist terms... Yang, Heaven, limitlessness, only comes into being when Yin, Earth, limitation, is defined. Thus, two distinct substances arise from the same origin, Taiji, which are also the other's origin ~ Heaven comes from Earth, and Earth from Heaven, because before Earth existed, Heaven was simply Taiji, infinity without distinction, thus without defined existence.

I feel that you fundamentally misunderstand both Idealism and Neutral Monism.

For Objective Idealism, God is the ultimate substance. For Neutral Monism, I consider Spirit to be the neutral, ultimate substance. God and Spirit are not "things" ~ they are infinities that exist prior to form, which is inherent limitation. An infinity is as it seems ~ it is infinite potential, with all possibilities, known and unknown, undetermined. Form imposes limits on infinity, granting it qualities, perhaps quantities, granting it existence.

For Objective Idealism, God is the Universal Mind, albeit composed of pure infinities, thus having none of the qualities of any mind we can conceive of. Thus "mind" is just a label, albeit perhaps with connotations that invite confusion. For Neutral Monism, there is no issue, despite having many similarities with Objective Idealism ~ the ultimate substance is not "Mind". It is something beyond the usual definitions. Spirit can compose all things ~ it is infinite, without definition, thus to define it is to limit it, to grant it quality, form, purpose.

If this physical reality is simply a manifestation within the Mind of God, of Spirit, then it simply a form of existence. The higher spiritual realities are also a form of existence, albeit just much less dense and of a different character. Mind, as a form, a limitation, has no issue interacting with matter, another sort of form, limitation.

How does incarnate mind interact with matter? Through resonance, through attraction, through emotion, perhaps. The mind, the aura, the slice of soul that it is, organizes the material elements in such a way that resonates with that form. Perhaps the inspiration here is Sheldrake's Morphic Resonance...

Consider also that how we know of the physical world is purely through the mental senses. So we never bear witness to the true underlying, perhaps quantum nature of the physical, which itself must have an origin in Spirit.

Consider how matter exists as being form, limitation. with particular qualities that define it. Infinity defined by boundaries. Like mind is.

The problem of interaction is thus purely a lack of understanding between what the actual nature of the different substances are.

To put it in Daoist terms... Yang, Heaven, limitlessness, only comes into being when Yin, Earth, limitation, is defined. Thus, two distinct substances arise from the same origin, Taiji, which are also the other's origin ~ Heaven comes from Earth, and Earth from Heaven, because before Earth existed, Heaven was simply Taiji, infinity without distinction, thus without defined existence.

Lets reason through this step by step starting with going back to the basic definitions of the terms Idealism and Monism.

Idealism in philosophy is a metaphysical perspective that asserts that reality is fundamentally equivalent to mind or spirit. It emphasizes the role of the ideal or spiritual in interpreting experience. Idealism is opposed to materialism, which holds that the world is made of matter and is known through material forms and processes.

Monism is a philosophical belief that all things are part of a single, unified whole, or oneness. Monists believe that all things, despite their different forms, originated from the same source.
Monism is often contrasted with dualism, which is the belief that there are two distinct kinds of things, like mind and matter. Monism is also opposed to pluralism, which is the belief that there are many things.

I still say that interactional dualism, once the interaction problem is addressed, is unbiasedly examined it becomes the most likely true theory of mind in our reality.  This is primarily due to the principle and argument of Occam's Razor, which is admittedly only a guide to the most likely explanation for a given set of facts or phenomena, but is not an absolute rule. It however has proved to be a very good guide in the formation of scientific theories.

The interaction problem is the problem of how can immaterial spirit interact with physical matter (primarily of the brain) in order to allow human embodiment and manifestation in the physical world. Leaving alone the issue of what really is matter, since in  our reality (which is the physical world) matter is very obstinately existent, and stubbornly pushes back when we give it a push - it automatically interacts with our bodies and mind in our de facto physical reality.

The solution to this interaction problem is in my opinion the existence of Designers or a Designer of our reality (the "powers that be"), an existence that is evident from the discovery of ultra-intelligent and creative design in our reality - things like the fine-tuning for life of the laws of physics, and the problem that biological evolution must mostly involve Intelligent Designers since undirected semi-random walk Darwinism is a bankrupt theorey. The existence of innumerable massively complicated biological irreducibly complex systems within systems had to have an origin  in Intelligence, the "powers that be". Above all, massive amounts of complex specified information must absolutely have an origin in intelligent creative acts. Something does not come from nothing.

This gets back to the interaction problem of interactional Dualism. I think the solution is that the the obvious interaction that exists in order to allow our embodiment is a simple brute force fiat creation by the creators of our physical reality, the way our reality has to work so as to acheive their purposes. The fact of spirit-matter interaction in the brain is obviously necessary for embodiment and experience of spirits in the physical world, and the experience of embodied spirits negotiating and solving problems and spiritually growing mainly due to the hardships of the physical world is evidently the purpose of the creation of this physical system by the "powers that be".

Then, finally, the issue becomes how do Idealism and Monism compare with interactional Dualism in terms of the number and complexity of the auxiliary complicating hypotheses necessary for these philosophy of mind theories to explain certain paranormal phenomena which on the face of it seem to take place exactly according to interactive Dualism.

Let's look at some actual case data in a little detail. A good rule is that actual evidence trumps theory every time. The following is the beginning of Pam Reynolds' NDE OBE in her own words. It is unequevocal that her direct experience was of literally separating from and leaving her physical body (which she was evidently previously "inhabiting") to then temporarily remain in the physical world, float above her body and observe it and the physicians working on it, followed sometimes by travel through some sort of tunnel into a spiritual realm, only to return. There are many other cases of veridical NDE OBEs like it, although Reynolds' is especially detailed and complete. The experiences speak for themselves of the immaterial human spirit and consciousness manifesting in the physical world via inhabiting and somehow interacting with the physical body especially the brain, and then under extraordinary circumstances usually of trauma, leaving the body as some sort of mobile center of consciousness.  Such experiences with confirmatory veridical features are a direct demonstration of the interactional Dualist theory of mind. 

From Rivas, Titus; Dirven, Anny; Smit, Rudolf. The Self Does Not Die: Verified Paranormal Phenomena from Near-Death Experiences (p. 152). International Association for Near-Death Studies Kindle edition:

"I literally feel myself rip out of my body, and I’m standing next to the EKG unit. Next to me, on the other side, is Grace Lim, the only doctor who flagged my file. Actually, . . . I wasn’t standing. I was floating a few inches above the floor. Then, amazingly, I floated out of the OR and down the back hallways to see Adina with Tessie, the nanny, in the Labor and Delivery Room.

I was hoping that the brutality about to happen to my body was over, but I came back too soon. My listless body, with eyes open, was still on the table just waiting for them to start the operation. I could see that my spirit wasn’t planted on the ground. And I could feel it. It felt as if I was as light as a feather. My spirit was actually floating, and I knew my spirit wasn’t in my body. I felt the opposite when I looked at my body on the table. I could feel the heaviness of my body on the operating table as life was getting sucked out of me. My body was just dying."

Another prominent paranormal phenomenon indicative of interactive dualism is the well-researched and verified reincarnation evidence.

The best statement of Occam's Razor is that it is the principle of parsimony, that the simplest explanation of a given phenomenon is most likely to be correct, or in other words that the fewer complicating additional unsupported assumptions you have to add to the philosophy or theory to  make it work, the closer is the explanatory theory likely to be to the truth. And it turns out, if you make enough unsupported assumptions, you can prove basically anything. Auxiliary hypotheses is another name for unsupported assumptions. Do you deny that Monism and Idealism (as defined above) have to have a number of auxiliary hypotheses or unsuppported assumptions added to them in  order to explain the data of the above sort of paranormal cases, and that interactional Dualism has to have nearly none, except questionably the proposed likely solution that such interaction was a brute force act of creation by fiat of the Designers or Designer?

Lets reason through this step by step starting with going back to the basic definitions of the terms Idealism and Monism.

Idealism in philosophy is a metaphysical perspective that asserts that reality is fundamentally equivalent to mind or spirit. It emphasizes the role of the ideal or spiritual in interpreting experience. Idealism is opposed to materialism, which holds that the world is made of matter and is known through material forms and processes.

Monism is a philosophical belief that all things are part of a single, unified whole, or oneness. Monists believe that all things, despite their different forms, originated from the same source.
Monism is often contrasted with dualism, which is the belief that there are two distinct kinds of things, like mind and matter. Monism is also opposed to pluralism, which is the belief that there are many things.

I still say that interactional dualism, once the interaction problem is addressed, is unbiasedly examined it becomes the most likely true theory of mind in our reality.  This is primarily due to the principle and argument of Occam's Razor, which is admittedly only a guide to the most likely explanation for a given set of facts or phenomena, but is not an absolute rule. It however has proved to be a very good guide in the formation of scientific theories.

The interaction problem is the problem of how can immaterial spirit interact with physical matter (primarily of the brain) in order to allow human embodiment and manifestation in the physical world. Leaving alone the issue of what really is matter, since in  our reality (which is the physical world) matter is very obstinately existent, and stubbornly pushes back when we give it a push - it automatically interacts with our bodies and mind in our de facto physical reality.

The solution to this interaction problem is in my opinion the existence of Designers or a Designer of our reality (the "powers that be"), an existence that is evident from the discovery of ultra-intelligent and creative design in our reality - things like the fine-tuning for life of the laws of physics, and the problem that biological evolution must mostly involve Intelligent Designers since undirected semi-random walk Darwinism is a bankrupt theorey. The existence of innumerable massively complicated biological irreducibly complex systems within systems had to have an origin  in Intelligence, the "powers that be". Above all, massive amounts of complex specified information must absolutely have an origin in intelligent creative acts. Something does not come from nothing.

This gets back to the interaction problem of interactional Dualism. I think the solution is that the the obvious interaction that exists in order to allow our embodiment is a simple brute force fiat creation by the creators of our physical reality, the way our reality has to work so as to acheive their purposes. The fact of spirit-matter interaction in the brain is obviously necessary for embodiment and experience of spirits in the physical world, and the experience of embodied spirits negotiating and solving problems and spiritually growing mainly due to the hardships of the physical world is evidently the purpose of the creation of this physical system by the "powers that be".

Then, finally, the issue becomes how do Idealism and Monism compare with interactional Dualism in terms of the number and complexity of the auxiliary complicating hypotheses necessary for these philosophy of mind theories to explain certain paranormal phenomena which on the face of it seem to take place exactly according to interactive Dualism.

Let's look at some actual case data in a little detail. A good rule is that actual evidence trumps theory every time. The following is the beginning of Pam Reynolds' NDE OBE in her own words. It is unequevocal that her direct experience was of literally separating from and leaving her physical body (which she was evidently previously "inhabiting") to then temporarily remain in the physical world, float above her body and observe it and the physicians working on it, followed sometimes by travel through some sort of tunnel into a spiritual realm, only to return. There are many other cases of veridical NDE OBEs like it, although Reynolds' is especially detailed and complete. The experiences speak for themselves of the immaterial human spirit and consciousness manifesting in the physical world via inhabiting and somehow interacting with the physical body especially the brain, and then under extraordinary circumstances usually of trauma, leaving the body as some sort of mobile center of consciousness.  Such experiences with confirmatory veridical features are a direct demonstration of the interactional Dualist theory of mind. 

From Rivas, Titus; Dirven, Anny; Smit, Rudolf. The Self Does Not Die: Verified Paranormal Phenomena from Near-Death Experiences (p. 152). International Association for Near-Death Studies Kindle edition:


Another prominent paranormal phenomenon indicative of interactive dualism is the well-researched and verified reincarnation evidence.

The best statement of Occam's Razor is that it is the principle of parsimony, that the simplest explanation of a given phenomenon is most likely to be correct, or in other words that the fewer complicating additional unsupported assumptions you have to add to the philosophy or theory to  make it work, the closer is the explanatory theory likely to be to the truth. And it turns out, if you make enough unsupported assumptions, you can prove basically anything. Auxiliary hypotheses is another name for unsupported assumptions. Do you deny that Monism and Idealism (as defined above) have to have a number of auxiliary hypotheses or unsuppported assumptions added to them in  order to explain the data of the above sort of paranormal cases, and that interactional Dualism has to have nearly none, except questionably the proposed likely solution that such interaction was a brute force act of creation by fiat of the Designers or Designer?

Just so I understand:

- A Designer, or group of Designers, makes two substances out of Nothing? Or out of Its/Their own infinite Body/Bodies?

- The two substances are both extended into at least 3 dimensions, so that we have a physical extended world and a spiritual world extended?

- Any seeming interaction between the substances is actually a Parallelism, where a collection of conditional checks are acted out to ensure alcohol clouds the mind's judgement and a runner's will pushes past exhaustion?

- Said conditional check even holds for PK, even though different people exert different mental effort to manifest any PK at all, with some focusing to move some RNG generators and others able to perform much greater feats like levitation?

- When I see an apparition or an NDEr/OOBEr are they seen through my eyes, or some spiritual sight that is also part of the Designer's set of conditional checks? So even though I *think* I sense an apparition with sensory organs the reality is actually that I am seeing it through my spiritual sight? And when Pam Reynolds saw her physical body, there is no actual sensory continuity between the light of this world and her seeing? It just seems like that because of the Designer(s) setting up of parallelism when this universe is created?

- Psychic healing of any kind, shamanic or not, is also simply a matter of Parallelism. When Rolling Thunder says he is placing sickness into some fresh stakes that look rotted upon the completion of his ritual what is really happening is the Designers' conditional checks are healing the body and rotting the steaks independently?

If the above hold then it seems to me Interactionist Dualism only works if we accept a very bizarre view of causality, one that I am unconvinced holds up to deeper scrutiny. 

And if the substances of this universe and the afterlife are distinct and created whole cloth from Nothing I would just dismiss Interactionist Dualism entirely as nonsensical. There are people who think God can create Something from Nothing but I dislike this as I don't see a logical argument for why this is at all possible.

Let's look at some actual case data in a little detail. A good rule is that actual evidence trumps theory every time. The following is the beginning of Pam Reynolds' NDE OBE in her own words. It is unequevocal that her direct experience was of literally separating from and leaving her physical body (which she was evidently previously "inhabiting") to then temporarily remain in the physical world, float above her body and observe it and the physicians working on it, followed sometimes by travel through some sort of tunnel into a spiritual realm, only to return. There are many other cases of veridical NDE OBEs like it, although Reynolds' is especially detailed and complete. The experiences speak for themselves of the immaterial human spirit and consciousness manifesting in the physical world via inhabiting and somehow interacting with the physical body especially the brain, and then under extraordinary circumstances usually of trauma, leaving the body as some sort of mobile center of consciousness.  Such experiences with confirmatory veridical features are a direct demonstration of the interactional Dualist theory of mind. 

From Rivas, Titus; Dirven, Anny; Smit, Rudolf. The Self Does Not Die: Verified Paranormal Phenomena from Near-Death Experiences (p. 152). International Association for Near-Death Studies Kindle edition:

I think this gets to the heart of what I am saying. Science simply has to be pragmatic, otherwise it is worthless. The evidence is, as you say, emphatically in favour of Dualism, so that is the model science should settle on for the time being. Monism is a contrivance, which again might have some truth from God's perspective, but unless God has joined this forum at some point, we have to reason from where we are in time.

You only have to read books like "Irreducible Mind" to realise that while there is a mass of evidence needing explaining, many scientists talk as if there was no such evidence!

David

I think this gets to the heart of what I am saying. Science simply has to be pragmatic, otherwise it is worthless. The evidence is, as you say, emphatically in favour of Dualism, so that is the model science should settle on for the time being. Monism is a contrivance, which again might have some truth from God's perspective, but unless God has joined this forum at some point, we have to reason from where we are in time.

You only have to read books like "Irreducible Mind" to realise that while there is a mass of evidence needing explaining, many scientists talk as if there was no such evidence!

David

Edward Kelly, one of the principle authors of Irreducible Mind, is an Idealist though?

In fact when we look at the anti-materialist wave that started gaining momentum AFAIK we find Dualism to be conspicuously absent?

Platonism, Panpsychism, Idealism, and Informational Realism on the other hand seem to have gained ground. I know you can find variants of all of these having been advocated in papers as well as pop-sci journalism such as Scientific American & New Scientist. Not sure I've seen any such push for Dualism?

In contrast, it seems scientists dismiss anomalous data on the grounds that this data points to Dualism. That probably isn't a fair dismissal, but nevertheless I don't see how insistence that parapsychology associate itself with Dualism will help? If anything the opposite seems to be true, that an insistence on Dualism will only hurt the field further.

To even try and rescue Dualism one has to respond to the Interaction Problem. And skeptics certainly won't accept a Designer implemented Parallelism. Deeper examinations of Causation, where one tries to figure out how stuff of the same substance can even enter into causal relations, end up moving away from Dualism as well.

In terms of getting STEM academia to bring Parapsychology in from the cold I see Dualism as a dead end.

Edward Kelly, one of the principle authors of Irreducible Mind, is an Idealist though?

In fact when we look at the anti-materialist wave that started gaining momentum AFAIK we find Dualism to be conspicuously absent?

Platonism, Panpsychism, Idealism, and Informational Realism on the other hand seem to have gained ground. I know you can find variants of all of these having been advocated in papers as well as pop-sci journalism such as Scientific American & New Scientist. Not sure I've seen any such push for Dualism?

In contrast, it seems scientists dismiss anomalous data on the grounds that this data points to Dualism. That probably isn't a fair dismissal, but nevertheless I don't see how insistence that parapsychology associate itself with Dualism will help? If anything the opposite seems to be true, that an insistence on Dualism will only hurt the field further.

To even try and rescue Dualism one has to respond to the Interaction Problem. And skeptics certainly won't accept a Designer implemented Parallelism. Deeper examinations of Causation, where one tries to figure out how stuff of the same substance can even enter into causal relations, end up moving away from Dualism as well.

In terms of getting STEM academia to bring Parapsychology in from the cold I see Dualism as a dead end.

My point is that if Science is to move forward it needs the simplest explanation, NOT the most likely ultimate explanation, which I agree is probably Idealism.

There is no way current science - e.g. neuroscience - and use Idealism.

I can't find any more ways to say this.

David