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

Stafford Betty (Professor of Religious Studies at CSUB) posted this short essay in his blog at White Crow Books. Of course, my own view goes completely along with Stafford's.

http://whitecrowbooks.com/staffordbetty/...ciousness/

At death the instrument, the brain, fails absolutely. What happens to the conscious self at death according to dualism? It frees itself from the brain and moves on. This freeing is what constitutes death.

Materialists disagree. But they can’t account for the brain’s ability to create consciousness; they call it “the hard problem,” which to date remains “the insoluble problem.”

Materialists can’t explain how paranormal phenomena arise either. Materialists usually dismiss the paranormal as superstition; they often deny it even exists. For them, the afterlife is another superstition. It never happened or can happen. Dualists, however, have no problem accommodating the afterlife. The “hard problem” disappears. The consciousness that we all have—just is. It doesn’t owe its existence to the brain. Thus it doesn’t have to suffer the same fate as the brain at death. It can cut and run. And it does. It survives death.

I don't think is this good evidence for only Interactive Dualism ~ it also fits perfectly well in an Idealist or Neutral Monist worldview.

I don't think is this good evidence for only Interactive Dualism ~ it also fits perfectly well in an Idealist or Neutral Monist worldview.

I disagree. Idealism, monism and dualism are philosophical ideas that greatly contrast with each other in how they view the nature of reality.

Idealism is the view that all of reality is essentially spirit or consciousness - in other words physical matter/energy is consciousness and is actually the same single  metaphysical transcendental "substance".

Monism is the idea that all things in existence are part of a single essential oneness or whole. Monism holds that mental and physical phenomena are different manifestations of an ultimate single reality, which is transcendentally above consciousness itself.

But Dualism is the idea that there is a fundamental difference between the mental and physical realms. Dualism maintains that the mind and body are two distinct principles.

I agree that there are philosophical challenges to Dualism, but I feel that there are even greater challenges to Idealism and Monism.

When the actual empirical evidence from prominent paranormal phenomena indicative of survival and an afterlife is applied to Idealism and Monism, these two philosophies of mind just don't fit the observed characteristics - for instance the phenomenon of NDE OBEs, where much veridical evidence attests to the NDEr actually when in deep trauma literally experiences himself as separating from his physical body and brain as some sort of mobile center of consciousness, to make various observations in the physical and spiritual realms that can be later checked by investigators such as his observations while hovering above of his body being worked on by the rescusutation team, or travel through some sort of "tunnel" or transporting/transitioning means into a spiritual realm where the NDERr may encounter deceased loved ones sometimes not known to be dead. All these experiences likely to be in an enhanced form of consciousness and while the physical brain is dysfunctional.

These sort of real existent phenomena clearly imply the existence at least at our level of reality of two fundamentally separate "substances" - the physical, and the spiritual/mental.

To summarize, paranormal phenomena such as NDE OBEs seem to perfectly fit interactive dualism  as a theory of mind, and do not fit idealism and monism, unless these other theories are complicated and extensively modified by a number of auxiliary hypotheses generated to get them to fit the incompatible data. For instance Monism could be interpreted as the highest ultimate existential reality which at a lower level subdivides into a subsidiary lower realm of a different local reality - the interactional dualism by which the world actually works. This would seem to be the unnecessary multiplication or complication of explanations advised as being unlikely by the Occam's Razor principle of parsimony. Idealism also could be modified by auxiliary hypotheses to make it to better fit the observed interactional dualistic behavior of the human world, but that also runs into the principle of parsimony.

I disagree. Idealism, monism and dualism are philosophical ideas that greatly contrast with each other in how they view the nature of reality.

Eh, they're not nearly as contrasting as I think you make them out to be. They have a lot of overlap in various ways ~ unlike Materialism, which just turns absolutely everything on its head in a very unintuitive manner.

Idealism is the view that all of reality is essentially spirit or consciousness - in other words physical matter/energy is consciousness and is actually the same single  metaphysical transcendental "substance".

Monism is the idea that all things in existence are part of a single essential oneness or whole. Monism holds that mental and physical phenomena are different manifestations of an ultimate single reality, which is transcendentally above consciousness itself.

But Dualism is the idea that there is a fundamental difference between the mental and physical realms. Dualism maintains that the mind and body are two distinct principles.

And that's where Dualism runs into its fundamentally unanswered problems ~ how do two entirely distinct base substances interact? The incoherence of taking it literally is that there is no common medium ~ so it is rather unintuitive.

Objective Idealism provides an answer of a universal consciousness that it referred to as basically "God" with all of the traditional elements of a transcendental, infinite and universal being, with it being postulated as ground of being as it were ~ we exist within it, it supporting reality, allowing for a dualism within the manifest world.

But "consciousness" carries some odd connotations, so Neutral Monism rather defines mind and matter as being derivative from a base substance that can manifest both. A dualism within monism.

Which is where your fundamental misunderstanding of non-Dualist metaphysics shows ~ you cannot seem to comprehend the issues with Dualism, nor bridge the gap of belief in of creation by divine fiat as being basically no different to Objective Idealism or Neutral Monism, with the Divine being the universal consciousness or neutral substance that acts as the common medium that allows the two substances of mind and matter to interact in the most transparent manner that we observe.

As can be seen, when the actual empirical evidence from prominent paranormal phenomena indicative of survival and an afterlife is applied to Idealism and Monism, these two philosophies of mind just don't fit the observed characteristics - for instance the phenomenon of NDE OBEs, where much veridical evidence attests to the NDEr actually when in deep trauma literally experiences himself as separating from his physical body and brain as some sort of mobile center of consciousness, to make various observations in the physical and spiritual realms that can be later checked by investigators such as his observations while hovering above of his body being worked on by the rescusutation team, or travel through some sort of "tunnel" or transporting/transitioning means into a spiritual realm where the NDERr may encounter deceased loved ones sometimes not known to be dead. All these experiences likely to be in an enhanced form of consciousness and while the physical brain is dysfunctional.

None of this implies that mind and matter are two distinct base substances. All it implies is that the physical world is a stable manifestation. So the data applies quite equally to Idealism and Neutral Monism as it does to Dualism.

For the Objective Idealist, the physical world is stabilized by the power of the divine. For the Neutral Monist ~ same thing, more or less.

These sort of real existent phenomena clearly imply the existence at least at our level of reality of two fundamentally separate "substances" - the physical, and the spiritual/mental.

You've never been able to clearly explain how Dualism is a superior explanation to Neutral Monism or Objective Idealism, when all three have the same explanatory power.

Basically... none of them really touch upon the higher spiritual creative powers that give rise to manifestation, but the issue also exists that they logically cannot, because it outside of their purview.

To summarize, paranormal phenomena such as NDE OBEs seem to perfectly fit interactive dualism  as a theory of mind, and do not fit idealism and monism, unless these other theories are complicated and extensively modified by a number of auxiliary hypotheses generated to get them to fit the incompatible data. For instance Monism could be interpreted as the highest ultimate existential reality which at a lower level subdivides into a subsidiary lower realm of a different local reality - the interactional dualism by which the world actually works. This would seem to be the unnecessary multiplication or complication of explanations advised as being unlikely by the Occam's Razor principle of parsimony. Idealism also could be modified by auxiliary hypotheses to make it to better fit the observed interactional dualistic behavior of the human world, but that also runs into the principle of parsimony.

You are massively over-complicating things.

The physical world as observed works by Interactional Dualism ~ but it ultimately fails as an explanation of ultimate reality, the source of the physical world where mind and matter converge and intermingle.

There is no explanation of how matter can be its own source ~ it could thus not logically be a base substance.

And again, if we're talking divine fiat ~ that's just Neutral Monism with the Divine as the base substance, with mind and matter being derivative, thus making the Divine the common medium, as it were.

I don't think the Interaction Problem is that big of an issue, but only because the question of Causation remains mysterious when we say everything is the same "stuff".

But I am not sure we can ever have a clear accounting of Causation that doesn't, in some way, involve Minds.

I don't think the Interaction Problem is that big of an issue, but only because the question of Causation remains mysterious when we say everything is the same "stuff".

But I am not sure we can ever have a clear accounting of Causation that doesn't, in some way, involve Minds.

From my perspective, Causation only makes sense if there is a common medium through which different entities can interact. Mind and matter are different at this level, there is no doubt about that. But neither can logically be base substances.

On this physical plane, there must be something that allows mind and matter to interact. Mind has to descend and limit itself in order to resonate with a particular form, so it must logically be of a higher order than matter. As for what matter is, it cannot be a base substance, because it is derivative of a quantum world underlying it. Mind cannot be a base substance, as it is derivative of soul. Neither quantum nor soul can be base substances, either.

But if soul has creative power to manifest forms, then a collective of souls could manifest a reality that other souls can then incarnate into. We don't even know the actual limits of souls ~ but they're not infinite in scope.

Eh, they're not nearly as contrasting as I think you make them out to be. They have a lot of overlap in various ways ~ unlike Materialism, which just turns absolutely everything on its head in a very unintuitive manner.


And that's where Dualism runs into its fundamentally unanswered problems ~ how do two entirely distinct base substances interact? The incoherence of taking it literally is that there is no common medium ~ so it is rather unintuitive.

Objective Idealism provides an answer of a universal consciousness that it referred to as basically "God" with all of the traditional elements of a transcendental, infinite and universal being, with it being postulated as ground of being as it were ~ we exist within it, it supporting reality, allowing for a dualism within the manifest world.

But "consciousness" carries some odd connotations, so Neutral Monism rather defines mind and matter as being derivative from a base substance that can manifest both. A dualism within monism.

Which is where your fundamental misunderstanding of non-Dualist metaphysics shows ~ you cannot seem to comprehend the issues with Dualism, nor bridge the gap of belief in of creation by divine fiat as being basically no different to Objective Idealism or Neutral Monism, with the Divine being the universal consciousness or neutral substance that acts as the common medium that allows the two substances of mind and matter to interact in the most transparent manner that we observe.


None of this implies that mind and matter are two distinct base substances. All it implies is that the physical world is a stable manifestation. So the data applies quite equally to Idealism and Neutral Monism as it does to Dualism.

For the Objective Idealist, the physical world is stabilized by the power of the divine. For the Neutral Monist ~ same thing, more or less.


You've never been able to clearly explain how Dualism is a superior explanation to Neutral Monism or Objective Idealism, when all three have the same explanatory power.

Basically... none of them really touch upon the higher spiritual creative powers that give rise to manifestation, but the issue also exists that they logically cannot, because it outside of their purview.


You are massively over-complicating things.

The physical world as observed works by Interactional Dualism ~ but it ultimately fails as an explanation of ultimate reality, the source of the physical world where mind and matter converge and intermingle.

There is no explanation of how matter can be its own source ~ it could thus not logically be a base substance.

And again, if we're talking divine fiat ~ that's just Neutral Monism with the Divine as the base substance, with mind and matter being derivative, thus making the Divine the common medium, as it were.

I think you are entirely and greatly underestimating the Occam's Razor argument of the principle of parsimony, which has been found after a long time to be a reliable measure of the likelihood of hypotheses and theories. For Interactive Dualism to be a true theory of mind and philosophy mainly requires its main problem to be handled - the interaction problem. The hypothesis that a certain limited set of allowable interactions has been set up by the "powers that be" behind the world as an established by fiat feature of our existence in order to allow our physical existence on the Earth as spiritual beings having a material life, is the presumed goal of these "powers that be".

Whereas your explanations actually indicate that there have to be a number of much more complicating auxiliary hypotheses added to Idealism to have it fit the paranormal data, which data directly and simply fits and is predicted by Interactive Dualism. You suggest that for Neutral Monism to be the case, "the Divine is the base substance with mind and matter being derivative, thus making the Divine the common medium". Therefore there have to be some complicated laws and rules determining exactly how mind and matter directly emerge and derive from the Divine, making this theory much the more complex and ridden by multiple auxiliary hypotheses, and therefore much less likely per Occam's Razor - the principle of parsimony.

I think you are entirely and greatly underestimating the Occam's Razor argument of the principle of parsimony, which has been found after a long time to be a reliable measure of the likelihood of hypotheses and theories. For Interactive Dualism to be a true theory of mind and philosophy mainly requires its main problem to be handled - the interaction problem. The hypothesis that a certain limited set of allowable interactions has been set up by the "powers that be" behind the world as an established by fiat feature of our existence in order to allow our physical existence on the Earth as spiritual beings having a material life, is the presumed goal of these "powers that be".

Whereas your explanations actually indicate that there have to be a number of much more complicating auxiliary hypotheses added to Idealism to have it fit the paranormal data, which data directly and simply fits and is predicted by Interactive Dualism. You suggest that for Neutral Monism to be the case, "the Divine is the base substance with mind and matter being derivative, thus making the Divine the common medium". Therefore there have to be some complicated laws and rules determining exactly how mind and matter directly emerge and derive from the Divine, making this theory much the more complex and ridden by multiple auxiliary hypotheses, and therefore much less likely per Occam's Razor - the principle of parsimony.

Yes, Yes, Yes! Scientific theory absolutely must be informed by Occam's Razor (even though applying it does involve some judgment).

A simple theory can be actually better than a complex theory which can only really be appreciated after centuries of related development. I know I am repeating myself, but just think of the mess science would be in if Newton had come up with General Relativity instead of his pretty simple laws of motion and gravitation.

At the time, Newton and others had to come up with the ideas of plain old calculus, now taught in schools. Whether GR is right or wrong, if he had tried to adopt it back then nobody would be able to calculate anything. Even the trajectory of a cannonball would be intractable.

I vaguely remember that Newton was aware of inadequacies of his simple laws of gravity, but he had the sense to stick with them.

If physicists think it is reasonable to stick provisionally with GR and QM, science should embrace dualism provisionally.

David

You are massively over-complicating things.

The physical world as observed works by Interactional Dualism ~ but it ultimately fails as an explanation of ultimate reality, the source of the physical world where mind and matter converge and intermingle.

There is no explanation of how matter can be its own source ~ it could thus not logically be a base substance.

And again, if we're talking divine fiat ~ that's just Neutral Monism with the Divine as the base substance, with mind and matter being derivative, thus making the Divine the common medium, as it were.

I don't think you realise the extent to which science is pragmatic. I mean suppose you pour an aqueous solution into a glass beaker. In a sense that gives you a shell of glass molecules with a mixture of water and solute molecules inside.

I suppose in some abstract sense you should consider all the molecules together because they are interacting. Or you could go to an even more abstract view in which you are simply dealing with a mass of electrons and nucleons interacting with each other!

All science deals in approximations - both mathematical ans conceptual.

David

I think you are entirely and greatly underestimating the Occam's Razor argument of the principle of parsimony, which has been found after a long time to be a reliable measure of the likelihood of hypotheses and theories. For Interactive Dualism to be a true theory of mind and philosophy mainly requires its main problem to be handled - the interaction problem. The hypothesis that a certain limited set of allowable interactions has been set up by the "powers that be" behind the world as an established by fiat feature of our existence in order to allow our physical existence on the Earth as spiritual beings having a material life, is the presumed goal of these "powers that be".

Whereas your explanations actually indicate that there have to be a number of much more complicating auxiliary hypotheses added to Idealism to have it fit the paranormal data, which data directly and simply fits and is predicted by Interactive Dualism. You suggest that for Neutral Monism to be the case, "the Divine is the base substance with mind and matter being derivative, thus making the Divine the common medium". Therefore there have to be some complicated laws and rules determining exactly how mind and matter directly emerge and derive from the Divine, making this theory much the more complex and ridden by multiple auxiliary hypotheses, and therefore much less likely per Occam's Razor - the principle of parsimony.

Forgive me, but the frustration I have is that you never seem to be able to explain what exactly about Idealism is more "complicated" when it comes to explaining paranormal data. How can the non-physical interact with the physical in Interactive Dualism? There isn't any intuitive predictive power, because there is no explanation of how two entirely distinct base substances can even begin to interact. That is the essential complication of Dualism in explaining the paranormal in all of its richness and dynamic nature. Dualism creates its own complications by demanding two base substances, without being able to begin to explain how matter can be its own source, and yet some mysteriously still interact with mind.

From my perspective, the paranormal is much better explained by either Objective Idealism or Neutral Monism. Objective Idealism has God as the common medium by which spiritual entities can interact with the physical world, as both spirit and physical stuff follow the same ultimate metaphysical rules. Neutral Monism has matter as just being another manifestation of the neutral base substance, thus there is no issue of interaction between matter and mind, also just another manifestation of the base substance. Same core nature, different manifestation.

So, if we're abusing Occam's Razor... parsimony easily goes to Neutral Monism for me ~ Idealism, as nice as it is, has complications with fuzzy definitions of "consciousness".