Dualism or idealist monism as the best model for survival after death data

Best way forward or unnecessary detour? A review of “Dual-Aspect Monism and the Deep Structure of Meaning”

Edward Kelly

The essay below is our first long-form book review. The target book is Dual-Aspect Monism and the Deep Structure of Meaning, by Harald Atmanspacher and Dean Rickles, Routledge, New York, 2022. Prof. Kelly argues that the dual-aspect monism defended in this book represents an unnecessary side path in the search for a successor to physicalism, and that idealism is a better option. Atmanspacher’s and Rickles’ assertion that “The deep structure of meaning is a unique attribute of the dual-aspect approaches” is simply incorrect, for a deep structure of meaning is inherent in consciousness itself, and consciousness is fundamental to idealism in general.

[Edit by Laird: the post to which nbtruthman was responding has been moved to its own thread: The decombination problem, related arguments, and potential solutions: an analysis]

A comment from one who is not greatly involved in and tutored in academic philosophy: 

I applaud this admirable and very thorough extended analysis, one that took a lot of effort.

Apparently most of the thinkers' concepts so excellently reviewed here implicitly or explicitly deny survival and an afterlife. My inclination is to thereby simply discount them as invalid based on what I consider to trump philosophical arguments for many forms of monism and idealism - the existence of the large body of empirical evidence that has accumulated for some form of modified interactional dualism, or in other terms, some form of the filter/transmitter/receiver model. An apparent dualism of some form that appears to necessarily exist, because it accomplishes and manifests the observed (in paranormal phenomena such as NDEs) dualistic survival of physical death of the human spirit as a separate mobile immaterial center of consciousness. Where an apparent underlying ultimate monistic sea of "mind stuff" has differentiated into two separate "realms" of two very different substances - the mental and the physical. Out of this large body of evidence, probably the best is the NDE data, which indeed was the focus of most of the winning Bigelow contest essays.

A comment from one who is not greatly involved in and tutored in academic philosophy: 

I applaud this admirable and very thorough extended analysis, one that took a lot of effort.

Apparently most of the thinkers' concepts so excellently reviewed here implicitly or explicitly deny survival and an afterlife. My inclination is to thereby simply discount them as invalid based on what I consider to trump philosophical arguments for many forms of monism and idealism - the existence of the large body of empirical evidence that has accumulated for some form of modified interactional dualism, or in other terms, some form of the filter/transmitter/receiver model. An apparent dualism of some form that appears to necessarily exist, because it accomplishes and manifests the observed (in paranormal phenomena such as NDEs) dualistic survival of physical death of the human spirit as a separate mobile immaterial center of consciousness. Where an apparent underlying ultimate monistic sea of "mind stuff" has differentiated into two separate "realms" of two very different substances - the mental and the physical. Out of this large body of evidence, probably the best is the NDE data, which indeed was the focus of most of the winning Bigelow contest essays.

As a functional dualism sure, but as a metaphysical argument this would be like saying radio waves or a router's wireless signal proves that there are two distinct substances.

That said, there is no definite resolution to the question of substance, or even how stuff of the same substance can interact. I'd even say the Hard Problem of Causation means demarcating substances is quite difficult.

As a functional dualism sure, but as a metaphysical argument this would be like saying radio waves or a router's wireless signal proves that there are two distinct substances.

That said, there is no definite resolution to the question of substance, or even how stuff of the same substance can interact. I'd even say the Hard Problem of Causation means demarcating substances is quite difficult.

It's not a metaphysical argument - it's the conclusion from empirical evidence (not from abstract reasoning alone) that numerous observations indicate that some form of interactional dualism is how mind and matter actually behave in human experience. In some paranormal experiences such as NDE OOBEs mind and matter don't seem to behave as a single substance, but more like two distinct substances that can interpenetrate without damage, or separate from each other with the spirit becoming a mobile center of consciousness. The experience of normal physical life seems very much to be where spirit resides in and intricately interpenetrates the brain in order to somehow interactionally manifest in the physical via the brain and body.

It is then up to the philosophers to metaphysically explain this rather messy evidence.

It's not a metaphysical argument - it's the conclusion from empirical evidence (not from abstract reasoning alone) that numerous observations indicate that some form of interactional dualism is how mind and matter actually behave in human experience. In some paranormal experiences such as NDE OOBEs mind and matter don't seem to behave as a single substance, but more like two distinct substances that can interpenetrate without damage, or separate from each other with the spirit becoming a mobile center of consciousness. The experience of normal physical life seems very much to be where spirit resides in and intricately interpenetrates the brain in order to somehow interactionally manifest in the physical via the brain and body.

It is then up to the philosophers to metaphysically explain this rather messy evidence.

This seems to be a very selective piece of the paranormal evidence, ignoring things that have been already mentioned - reincarnation birthmarks, ectoplasm, PK, physical remnants/markets of spirits, Psi & psychedelics, etc...

To be clear I do think any believer in Survival has to note there is a distinction between the body and the soul/mind/spirit, but it isn't clear at all this requires there to be two substances. If what demarcates a substance is its causal interactivity, then people being able to perceive appartions and OOBErs suggests there is only one substance.

Descartes suggested two substances because he said Res Cogitans had no spatial extension among other qualities, but this one seems to be the most troublesome and the root of the Interaction Problem. Of course Seems to me an extensionless soul doesn't go to the afterlife and experience other realities, nor does it get witnessed by people in our "physical" world.

As such even the evidence you refer to can be used to argue against two separate substances. What we could say is that there is a distinct spirit holding our mental faculties that utilizes the brain, why I mentioned radio waves and wireless signals. Those are distinct from radios and computers/smart-phones yet few people, AFAIK, would argue that the waves and signals indicate a separate "substance"...whatever "substance" means.

[Laird]

On Sci's suggestion I've moved my belated response to Ian's earlier posts (#35 - #37, #49, #51, #55, and #98) into a new thread: The decombination problem, related arguments, and potential solutions: an analysis.

If I've caught up any posts in the move that you guys think I ought not to have (in particular, any in the ongoing exchange between Sci and nbtruthman), then please let me know and I'll move them back.

any in the ongoing exchange between Sci and nbtruthman), then please let me know and I'll move them back.

I'd move these back simply because they are more inline with this thread, and would be a distraction from your post.

[Laird]

I'd move these back simply because they are more inline with this thread, and would be a distraction from your post.

Done. @nbtruthman, I've edited your original response to add a link to the now-moved post to which it was responding. Feel free to re-edit to your liking.

This seems to be a very selective piece of the paranormal evidence, ignoring things that have been already mentioned - reincarnation birthmarks, ectoplasm, PK, physical remnants/markets of spirits, Psi & psychedelics, etc...

To be clear I do think any believer in Survival has to note there is a distinction between the body and the soul/mind/spirit, but it isn't clear at all this requires there to be two substances. If what demarcates a substance is its causal interactivity, then people being able to perceive appartions and OOBErs suggests there is only one substance.

Descartes suggested two substances because he said Res Cogitans had no spatial extension among other qualities, but this one seems to be the most troublesome and the root of the Interaction Problem. Of course Seems to me an extensionless soul doesn't go to the afterlife and experience other realities, nor does it get witnessed by people in our "physical" world.

As such even the evidence you refer to can be used to argue against two separate substances. What we could say is that there is a distinct spirit holding our mental faculties that utilizes the brain, why I mentioned radio waves and wireless signals. Those are distinct from radios and computers/smart-phones yet few people, AFAIK, would argue that the waves and signals indicate a separate "substance"...whatever "substance" means.

Of course there are other types of allowed spirit/physical interactions besides the primary one which is embodiment, which is the mechanism involved in NDE OOBEs. These other sorts of paranormal manifestations can readily be explained as rare and exceptional special case interactions. Reincarnation birthmarks, for instance, are understandable as a situation where the newly inhabited or soon to be inhabited and controlled baby or fetus is physically influenced by the spirit.

Of course there are other types of allowed spirit/physical interactions besides the primary one which is embodiment, which is the mechanism involved in NDE OOBEs. These other sorts of paranormal manifestations can readily be explained as rare and exceptional special case interactions. Reincarnation birthmarks, for instance, are understandable as a situation where the newly inhabited or soon to be inhabited and controlled baby or fetus is physically influenced by the spirit.

Allowed by who?

And then how is this entity or entities making it so some things are allowed and some are not? This seems to suggest that ultimately there is some third medium out of which the distinction of Mind and Matter is crafted...in addition to making us wonder why some reincarnation cases retain a physical reminder of a fatal wound and some do not...

Even seeing apparitions with our eyes, this suggests light* is working in the physical way it normally does.

I also think ectoplasm still remains unexplained in this paradigm since that isn't just an example of mind-matter harmoniously being linked. Also what happens in varied shamanic healings when the illness is transferred from the physical body to another physical object.

There's even a case noted by anthropologist Edith Turner where a shamanic healing involves some kind of ectoplasm leaving the body. Who knows how many of these cases stretch across humanity's primordial history.

This isn't to say Idealism fares much better than Dualism, since it also has to give us rules to explain why a shaman can't just psychically heal someone without using any physical medium. I suppose one can use an Idealist-Simulation reference to "physical" reality being akin to the coded rules in a video game but as with all references to the Simulation Hypothesis when you can explain everything and anything you arguably actually weaken rather than strengthen your case...

*I actually think there is a case to be made that everything is made from a spiritual Light that gets "murkier" as it approaches the status of physical light but that's a discussion for later...