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

@Laird 

If there really is a proper, actual external reality... how do we explain qualia, given that we can never observe the thing-in-itself? Qualia are private, as it were, yet rely fully on interaction with the so-called external world. Actually... when it comes the shared physical medium, all we have are our private qualia.

There is a mystery of why things can interact at all ~ why can I touch, say, a table, and feel a certain sensation? Why do all of we humans generally share very similar, if not the same, range of archetypal sensory awareness to draw upon, that allow us humans to communicate, indirectly, that we are experiencing this thing or that thing ~ hot, redness, sweetness, pain, love, etc?

If the world is truly external, then why do we experience being so truly part of it, through the sheerness of continuous sensory awareness?

It is natural for us to say "I am in pain" ~ it is the external, physical body that is felt to be hurting, yet because matter and physics has no concept of pain, that pain must be entirely mental... or astral, or whatever. Unless what we think of as the "physical body" is simply the closest layer of the astral body to the physical, hence appearing to be identical for all intents and purposes.

If I touch a table, and feel a wooden feeling... is that not a direct sensing of qualia, a sensory interpretation of something? Thus, it is rather unclear that there is a distinction between Experiencer and what is within Experience, except that we decide what is so based on our immediate mental model of reality.

Sheldrake's Mind-as-Field idea may be the best bet, if we think of Fields as Simple in the sense that they don't have parts.

This at least can explain how filter/transmitter theories could possibly work, how memories aren't stored yet changes to the brain affect our access to them, how Psi can work across distances, how wounds in one life can be birthmarks in the next, etc.

We shouldn't necessarily think [Persons-as-Souls] are exactly like the fields of physics, though listening to the Sheldrake-Vernon dialogues it seems a lot of seemingly non-mental concepts actually have their origin as referring to mental characteristics...so I would say just as Paul Brunton once said we needed to mentalize space and spacialize mind, we also need to [bring] mentality back to our physics as well as try and figure out how a Person with non-physical aspects could stand in relation to the World...

As I like to often bring up, Attanasio wrote, "...And he sat amazed under the skywide realization that his immortal soul dwelled not inside him: He lived inside the cosmic immensity of his soul..."

Sheldrake's Mind-as-Field idea may be the best bet, if we think of Fields as Simple in the sense that they don't have parts.

Doesn't Faggin also hold similar beliefs, albeit Faggin's Mind-as-Field is quantum in nature?

This at least can explain how filter/transmitter theories could possibly work, how memories aren't stored yet changes to the brain affect our access to them, how Psi can work across distances, how wounds in one life can be birthmarks in the next, etc.

Makes complete sense to me. Mind is not "extended" in that it doesn't have physical or even astral properties, but is extended in the sense that it strongly resonates with the physical and astral forms that it is correlated with.

Psi has been demonstrated to have enough non-local effects ~ telepathy, remote viewing, deceased relative dreams, remote healing (prayer, etc), NDE OBErs being able to just teleport through thought and intention alone, etc. Therefore Mind-as-Field does make perfect sense here. Moreso than conventional filter/transmitter theory.

We shouldn't necessarily think [Persons-as-Souls] are exactly like the fields of physics, though listening to the Sheldrake-Vernon dialogues it seems a lot of seemingly non-mental concepts actually have their origin as referring to mental characteristics...so I would say just as Paul Brunton once said we needed to mentalize space and spacialize mind, we also need to [bring] mentality back to our physics as well as try and figure out how a Person with non-physical aspects could stand in relation to the World...

Indeed. What are the relevant dialogues, considering that they are 26 minutes each, and there are 93(!) of them?

As I like to often bring up, Attanasio wrote, "...And he sat amazed under the skywide realization that his immortal soul dwelled not inside him: He lived inside the cosmic immensity of his soul..."

That would also seem to be my experience... our soul being inside of our body would imply that the body is outside of the soul, or that we aren't our soul, or something. But our body being within our soul makes far more sense ~ the soul is the superset of our existence, after all.

Doesn't Faggin also hold similar beliefs, albeit Faggin's Mind-as-Field is quantum in nature?

Makes complete sense to me. Mind is not "extended" in that it doesn't have physical or even astral properties, but is extended in the sense that it strongly resonates with the physical and astral forms that it is correlated with.

Psi has been demonstrated to have enough non-local effects ~ telepathy, remote viewing, deceased relative dreams, remote healing (prayer, etc), NDE OBErs being able to just teleport through thought and intention alone, etc. Therefore Mind-as-Field does make perfect sense here. Moreso than conventional filter/transmitter theory.

Indeed. What are the relevant dialogues, considering that they are 26 minutes each, and there are 93(!) of them?

That would also seem to be my experience... our soul being inside of our body would imply that the body is outside of the soul, or that we aren't our soul, or something. But our body being within our soul makes far more sense ~ the soul is the superset of our existence, after all.

From what I've read of Irreducible it does seem Faggin has a similar ideal.

As for whether Mind is extended or not, it's not clear to me extension is by necessity a property that would make the Mental physical. As per the above videos about Russel's idea re: Universals, it's through Them that extension becomes known. Another way to look at it is that extension as we experience it needn't be a genuine property of fundamental physics, given the varied theories that suggest Space & Time are emergent from "deeper" Structure.

It also seems to me that Cartesian Dualism & Leibnizian Monadism both were born from challenges presented by the Mechanistic philosophy that held humans and animals were just machines in a machine-like universe. If those who wished to combat the encroachment of Materialism & the Disenchantment of Nature had been able to turn to physics' study of Fields, Relativity, and QM I suspect we'd have gotten better defenses for the place of the Soul in the Scientific Image.

I'm admittedly wary of trying to say extension is in some way illusory, as I don't see proponents really gaining much ground in STEM academia by arguing that all the Mind-Body interactions are resolved by the Body being a dream. That could be true, but it will seem like a cheap rhetorical trick to someone who is reasonably skeptical. Similarly when Dualists speak of the Mind being extensionless and the body being in extended space, a host of challenges spring up that are probably why Dualist metaphysics - in my experience at least - are [largely] regarded as a faith-based position by STEM academics.

Probably forgetting some, but I personally thought the following were relevant Dialogues:

The Speed of Gravity: Sheldrake-Vernon Dialogue 84

The Extension of Mind Through Space and the Sense of Being Stared At: Sheldrake-Vernon Dialogue 82

Forms and the Reformation of Science: Sheldrake-Vernon Dialogue 92

Purposes in Nature and Minds: Sheldrake-Vernon Dialogue 91

The Nature of Energy: Sheldrake-Vernon Dialogue 85

[Laird]

So if I understand this correctly the Dualism has little to nothing to do with Survival evidence but rather is a Dualism between Persons and that which is Impersonal, whatever the Impersonal is - Matter, Fields, Platonic Maths + Universals, etc?

Yes, with three clarifications:

Firstly, it's not that the dualism itself has nothing to do with survival, but that the argument I've presented for it here has nothing to do with survival. An argument from (evidence of) survival could also be made though.

Secondly, it's not just (substance) dualism in general for which I'm arguing, but interactive (substance) dualism. That rules out such dualisms as epiphenomenalism, which is not interactive but one-way.

Thirdly, I'd exclude Platonic maths and universals from the possibilities for the second, impersonal substance on interactive dualism, because (1) they are changeless, and thus cannot truly be interacted with in the relevant sense, and (2) to count them as a substance in the necessary sense would be to mistakenly reify them.

I mean if that's the case I would agree that all metaphysics outside of Monadology would probably be Dualisms of a sort

Not interactive dualisms. That, it seems to me, is very exclusive. Physicalism and idealism (including cosmopsychism) are substance monisms, on which there is no second substance with which to interact. Epiphenomenalism (including as a property dualism) is a substance dualism but a non-interactive one. Panpsychism etc (where basic entities combine to form composite entities) is essentially epiphenomenalist in nature and thus non-interactive: the consciousness associated with each basic entity just "hangs off" it as a sort of property.

What else is there?

and possibly would include Monadology depending on whether a Causal Network is part of God

Leibniz's Monadology doesn't seem to entail a causal network, and if some other purported pluralistic idealism did, then wouldn't truly be an idealism, because this causal network would be or entail a substance other than mind and its experience.

But wouldn't this apply to most Idealisms if they divide what is Conscious and what is in Consciousness?

"What is in Consciousness" is not a separate substance, but an aspect of the substance which is the person ("what is Conscious"), so that distinction is irrelevant to interactive substance dualism.

Even most Physicalisms save for those (Type-B or some such?) that try to claim pains/thoughts/etc just *are* Structures would be Dualist in this sense?

Can you give an example of such a physicalism?

The only exceptions besides Monadology I can think of then would maybe be the Pan-isms, though even there you might have Pluralisms if for example non-Divine Persons are conscious fields while "God" is a Mind identified with the fabric of space itself (Itself?)...this would still be a "Person-only" ontology but with some extended elements that all have mental character but are, for other reasons, to be regarded as different substances.

So, on these views, God as a person would be of a different substance to all other persons, and God and all other persons would interact. I suppose that that might fit the definition of an interactive substance dualism, but it's not the sort you stipulated at the start, and which I endorse: that between persons and the impersonal.

I like the Game World analogy, I was thinking of the question in similar terms. I can go deeper into that part but I want to make sure I am understanding the basic argument first.

Please do feel free to go deeper if you think you understand now.

[Laird]

@Valmar, I can't make sense of your argument, whatever it is. Your use of terms is too loose. For example, your conclusion in part reads...

it is rather unclear that there is a distinction between Experiencer and what is within Experience

...but it is unclear what you mean by "what is within Experience". Do you mean the contents of the experience itself, or do you mean the objects of the experience?

Your prior question was:

If I touch a table, and feel a wooden feeling... is that not a direct sensing of qualia, a sensory interpretation of something?

This is confused: qualia are an aspect of the person (consciousness) undergoing them, but not even that person "directly senses" them. That would imply that they are objects to be sensed, but they are not; they are simply another way of talking about the person's phenomenal experience. They are not "out in the world".

The simple answer to your general questions epitomised by...

If the world is truly external, then why do we experience being so truly part of it, through the sheerness of continuous sensory awareness?

...is, "Because we are in relationship with the world". I don't know the details of how this relationship works. That's potentially a matter for scientific investigation.

I just want to flag though that I don't want to get into a back-and-forth with you over this. I have found that my discussions with you simply go in circles and are fruitless.

Thirdly, I'd exclude Platonic maths and universals from the possibilities for the second, impersonal substance on interactive dualism, because (1) they are changeless, and thus cannot truly be interacted with in the relevant sense, and (2) to count them as a substance in the necessary sense would be to mistakenly reify them.

What are the qualities of the impersonal realm? I assume the "primary qualities" usually assumed for the physical, with the "secondary qualities" as Experiences?

Not interactive dualisms.

So there has to be a physical world, as Physicalists define it?

Leibniz's Monadology doesn't seem to entail a causal network, and if some other purported pluralistic idealism did, then wouldn't truly be an idealism, because this causal network would be or entail a substance other than mind and its experience.

Do causal networks need to be a different substance? I'm not sure this is clear, given God's Will doesn't seem like a substance to me?

Can you give an example of such a physicalism?

Well I was thinking the rest of the physicalisms - the Type A IIRC - would fit but I guess you are saying the Person isn't physical but the rest of reality is?

Please do feel free to go deeper if you think you understand now.

TBH...I'm not sure I do...it's unclear to me what the impersonal is if it lacks secondary qualities & participation in the Universals, because then it's unclear what grounds the physical's relational properities. By this I mean how does it deal with the problem noted by Casper Wilstrup:

I propose you conduct an experiment: Try answering this question, “What exactly is mass?”

Perhaps you would proceed to define mass in terms of other physical properties, say energy and velocity, or perhaps force and acceleration. But then, what is force? What is energy?

If you continue this game, you will find that you are inevitably led down a never-ending spiral of definitions and questions. It won’t be long until you are back to the starting point — to mass. Try as you might, you will find yourself entrapped in a circular argument, going round and round ad infinitum. That is, of course, until you bring consciousness into the mix. You see, mass is something that is experienced or sensed by us in certain ways under certain conditions. With this reference to our own consciousness, we find a way to end the infinite loop.

Not sure if it helps but the physicist Smolin says something similar, as I've admittedly noted ad nauseam:

We don't know what a rock really is, or an atom, or an electron. We can only observe how they interact with other things and thereby describe their relational properties.

Perhaps everything has external and internal aspects. The external properties are those that science can capture and describe - through interactions, in terms of relationships. The internal aspect is the intrinsic essence, it is the reality that is not expressible in the language of interactions and relations.

@Valmar, I can't make sense of your argument, whatever it is. Your use of terms is too loose. For example, your conclusion in part reads...

My terms are not what I'd consider "loose" ~ I am using what I think to be the generally accepted definitions from philosophy and spiritual nomenclature?

If you think they are, ask me what each of the "loose" terms mean, then, as I am not certain which ones you think are "loose".

...but it is unclear what you mean by "what is within Experience". Do you mean the contents of the experience itself, or do you mean the objects of the experience?

I mean the totality of experience and everything within it. The superset. I don't understand such distinctions ~ contents, objects... it's all qualia, aspects, within experience, no matter how we slice and dice it.

This is confused: qualia are an aspect of the person (consciousness) undergoing them, but not even that person "directly senses" them. That would imply that they are objects to be sensed, but they are not; they are simply another way of talking about the person's phenomenal experience. They are not "out in the world".

Now you're confusing me...

if I touch a wooden table I can see, and feel the sensation of woodenness, how is that not a direct sensing? My senses are giving me the qualia of sight and touch of wood, and that is as direct as my senses can show me. So they are objects to be sensed ~ I am sensing them through sight and touch. They are out in the world, insofar as we sense an apparently defined external world.

The simple answer to your general questions epitomised by.....is, "Because we are in relationship with the world". I don't know the details of how this relationship works. That's potentially a matter for scientific investigation.

The central question is what is the nature of this relationship? It's painfully obvious that there is a relationship, but that elucidates absolutely nothing, because every metaphysic and ontology asks this question.

Science cannot tell us anything about metaphysical or ontological questions ~ it never has been able to.

Science can tell us about how physical and chemical things interact with other physical or chemical things, or build abstract statistical relationships between things, but that's about it, from what I can see.

I just want to flag though that I don't want to get into a back-and-forth with you over this. I have found that my discussions with you simply go in circles and are fruitless.

Because you seemingly refuse to acknowledge that your definitions may be too rigid.

Words and definitions should never be rigid ~ lest we be unable to understand the definitions of others.

I understand your definitions, I think, but I find them unable to cope with things outside the rigid boundaries they set.

They deny the experienced reality of one-to-many shared experiences I have had with my spirit guides, for example. We can collective feel and experience the exact same things if we are in resonance and we overlap our awarenesses.

From what I've read of Irreducible it does seem Faggin has a similar ideal.

Hmmmm ~ do we know if Faggin and Sheldrake have ever corresponded? They would get along quite well, I believe.

As for whether Mind is extended or not, it's not clear to me extension is by necessity a property that would make the Mental physical. As per the above videos about Russel's idea re: Universals, it's through Them that extension becomes known. Another way to look at it is that extension as we experience it needn't be a genuine property of fundamental physics, given the varied theories that suggest Space & Time are emergent from "deeper" Structure.

I think that rather the physical ~ including space in three dimensions, and time (as change) ~ is simply a particular form of extension. Extension seems to exist in the astral too, but it far more flexible, from what the loong spirit has noted through trying to describe it to me. Space and shape is far looser a concept, and time... well, apparently time is a rather different concept up there ~ it doesn't pass in any linear sense, depending on where in that... space that they are. Only through resonance with me do they experience a flow of time that is like mine.

Thus, extension seems to be a mental feature than a purely physical one. Especially if minds can identify with a physical form and the space it occupies, along with Sheldrake's ideas of the mind extending beyond the brain and body to touch what we are looking at ~ including the sense of being stared at.

In the case of psychic perceptions of auras, energy fields, etc, then mind must somehow be extendible through fields if that is possible.

Even in dreams, we experience apparently infinitely extended spaces only limited by imagination. Heck, even imagination can be basically infinite... limited by imagination. That said, imagination, even dreams, are curious ~ purely mental, yet they "occupy" space in our minds... which also appear to be infinite in mental space.

Minds are far stranger than we often give credit for, I think.

It also seems to me that Cartesian Dualism & Leibnizian Monadism both were born from challenges presented by the Mechanistic philosophy that held humans and animals were just machines in a machine-like universe. If those who wished to combat the encroachment of Materialism & the Disenchantment of Nature had been able to turn to physics' study of Fields, Relativity, and QM I suspect we'd have gotten better defenses for the place of the Soul in the Scientific Image.

Indeed ~ Tesla had the right idea, I think... along with the founders of quantum mechanics ~ Planck, etc.

I'm admittedly wary of trying to say extension is in some way illusory, as I don't see proponents really gaining much ground in STEM academia by arguing that all the Mind-Body interactions are resolved by the Body being a dream. That could be true, but it will seem like a cheap rhetorical trick to someone who is reasonably skeptical. Similarly when Dualists speak of the Mind being extensionless and the body being in extended space, a host of challenges spring up that are probably why Dualist metaphysics - in my experience at least - are [largely] regarded as a faith-based position by STEM academics.

I used to think that this was an illusion too... because of the idea of dreams, Buddhist illusionism, the Hinduist Maya concept, etc. But... illusions are just more qualia within experience, so even illusions are real, in the sense that we known that we mistakenly believed that qualia to be something more, before it is relegated to be an illusion ~ shadows cast by trees at night being recognized as just that, rather that being cast by an actual animal.

Even if NDErs do report that their OBE state does legitimately feel realer-than-real, that doesn't mean that this shared intersubjective incarnate state known through the physically-limited senses isn't real ~ it is simply more limited and restricted in scope.

More clearly, the NDE OBEr state is more expanded in sensory scope ~ there is a much wider range of sensing, including seeing colours they've never seen before, telepathy, teleportation, other psychic abilities, the super-empathetic telepathic abilities deceased loved ones are reported to use with ease, etc.

Probably forgetting some, but I personally thought the following were relevant Dialogues:

The Speed of Gravity: Sheldrake-Vernon Dialogue 84

The Extension of Mind Through Space and the Sense of Being Stared At: Sheldrake-Vernon Dialogue 82

Forms and the Reformation of Science: Sheldrake-Vernon Dialogue 92

Purposes in Nature and Minds: Sheldrake-Vernon Dialogue 91

The Nature of Energy: Sheldrake-Vernon Dialogue 85

Cheers. Will investigate.