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

Sci has suggested that causality is probably mental in its essence, but the suggested existence of "Mental Energy" and our everyday experience of embodiment seem to predict that causation can also be physical-to-mental.

Even the supposed "physical" would need to have its causation be mental causation since for any particular cause in time it is very difficult to explain why a particular effect must happen out of all possible things that can happen.

The one example of possibility selection I *do* know about [from the inside] is the one I perform through my own acts of volition.

There are hundreds of pages of philosophical texts that get deeper but that's the introductory reasoning for why someone would believe in the Volitional Theory of Causation. It doesn't really have to do with the paranormal, though I do think the sum of cases is suggestive of this causal theory.

[Laird]

I try to understand this. Let's use the example of an actual event that does sometimes happen - an NDE OOBE. How to interpret this? The human is apparently a complex combination of an immaterial subjective conscious entity or spirit which is the inner aspect of this spirit's "mental energy", the objective aspect of "Mental Energy" ("Mental Energy" apparently shares aspects of both the objective and the mental/subjective), and the physical body and brain. The spirit therefore can (as sometimes experienced and observed during NDE OOBE) pass entirely freely through material walls. In doing this without any interference it of course must leave the physical body behind.

These observations seem clearly to imply dualism of some kind.

Unfortunately, these observations also seem to imply that this concept doesn't solve the problem of interaction - there is still a basically mysterious interaction between two fundamentally different things, the objective aspect of "Mental Energy", and the immaterial inner spiritual subjective mental aspect or quality of it (which is the seat of subjective experience). And there is a direct causal relationship going both ways.

But two fundamentally different things presumably can't interact, any more than the quale of the color red of an object can interact with the weight of the object. The two things are different fundamental aspects or qualities of the same object, and these two things can't possibly directly interact, since red doesn't have a weight and vice versa.

I appreciate your engagement and attempt at understanding. Re the bit I've coloured orange-red: you present a different framing to the one I do. In your framing, the two aspects of the one phenomenon interact causally with each other. In my framing, that they are dual aspects of the one phenomenon implies a relationship of shared identity rather than causal interactivity: mental energy is in a sense what subjective experience looks like from the outside; it is what subjective experience is objectively comprised of; it is the external representation of subjective experience. In short, there is no need for causal interaction because it is a singular phenomenon.

Now, maybe this is a matter of semantics; maybe it's just word games - and I do sometimes suspect that that's what a lot of philosophy and in particular philosophical disagreement boils down to! - but do you at least see the sense in my framing, and can you even see it as objectively coherent?

If not, then that's OK. Maybe I need to work on my framing, or maybe the conceptualisation is mistaken; again, I'm open to revision if my ideas at this point don't make sense. (And I can't even claim this as my idea anyway; I borrowed it from Analytic Idealism so as to fit it into dualism).

I appreciate your engagement and attempt at understanding. Re the bit I've coloured orange-red: you present a different framing to the one I do. In your framing, the two aspects of the one phenomenon interact causally with each other. In my framing, that they are dual aspects of the one phenomenon implies a relationship of shared identity rather than causal interactivity: mental energy is in a sense what subjective experience looks like from the outside; it is what subjective experience is objectively comprised of; it is the external representation of subjective experience. In short, there is no need for causal interaction because it is a singular phenomenon.

Now, maybe this is a matter of semantics; maybe it's just word games - and I do sometimes suspect that that's what a lot of philosophy and in particular philosophical disagreement boils down to! - but do you at least see the sense in my framing, and can you even see it as objectively coherent?

If not, then that's OK. Maybe I need to work on my framing, or maybe the conceptualisation is mistaken; again, I'm open to revision if my ideas at this point don't make sense. (And I can't even claim this as my idea anyway; I borrowed it from Analytic Idealism so as to fit it into dualism).

I guess I just can't follow you here. It seems to me that subjective experience by its very nature is completely private and inner, and simply has no objective aspect, it has absolutely no "looks like from outside", no quality of being an "external representation" of any objective physical thing. You simply can't physically separate yourself from a perception (composed of mind-stuff) and draw a representation of it. You fundamentally can't see or feel tactilely a thought, which is composed of mind. 

The ultimate inner nature of mind or a subjective experience composed of mind, is a mystery, but it is definitely of a different fundamental nature, a different existential category, than an objective fact of the world. Example: the subjective experiencing of the color red is not physical, whereas the objective reality of the red colored object is a physical reality in the physical world whose different aspects include mass, dimensions, and wavelengths of reflected light subjectively perceived as the color red. 

The objectively physically real object is composed of matter and energy which are in an entirely different existential category than whatever subjective perception is composed of, and therefore the objectively physically real object cannot be an "external representation" of the subjective perception or thought. Like the fact that the mass of an object is fundamentally not an external representation of its perceived color. Its mass has little or no relation to its color.

 
The subjective experiencing of the perception of the color red is an ineffable "thing" with absolutely no weight or physical dimensions, and therefore this subjective state of consciousness and perception simply has no physical aspect or quality. Any more than the subjective perception of the weight of a piece of steel when held in the hand has any actual objective reality of mass or dimensions.

I'm trying to say it in different ways, but basically the ineffable essence of the subjective perception itself is for a fact somehow completely composed of an immaterial "something" we term consciousness or mind, that cannot be objectively and physically seen, felt or smelled. Therefore, subjective perception simply has no objective physical aspect or quality.

Even the supposed "physical" would need to have its causation be mental causation since for any particular cause in time it is very difficult to explain why a particular effect must happen out of all possible things that can happen.

The one example of possibility selection I *do* know about [from the inside] is the one I perform through my own acts of volition.

There are hundreds of pages of philosophical texts that get deeper but that's the introductory reasoning for why someone would believe in the Volitional Theory of Causation. It doesn't really have to do with the paranormal, though I do think the sum of cases is suggestive of this causal theory.

I don't quite see this as any sort of certainty. It seems to me that though some cause-effect events are definitely due to human volition, many others are due to mechanical causation, physical interactions between different objects whose motions and energies have been determined by previous (physical not mental) mechanical interactions, and so forth going back ad infinitum, with the exception of the interference caused by previous human volitional interactions in this causal chain. A common example of such a mixture of both volitional and mechanical cause-and-effect would be a game of pool. An extreme example of a purely predictable predetermined cause-effect sequence is the interaction of planetary bodies in space with each other and with the Sun, following with great exactitude the Newtonian laws of motion except under certain circumstances where Einsteinian relativity calculations are even more accurate. These laws predict with great accuracy what particular effect in celestial mechanics results from what particular cause, without mental causation or volition entering the picture.
   
This is the reason why in truth, in a vast range of circumstances, determinism obtains, where a particular effect indeed must happen out of all possible things that can happen.

This determinism of course ultimately applies completely only in the upper size range of dimensional scale in the absence of human volition. At the smallest scale of the elementary particles making up matter and energy it boils down to quantum mechanical interactions between elementary particles, which may according to certain interpretations of the theory inherently involve the observations of some sort of mind. But this is just with some interpretations of quantum mechanics.

Also of course, there is also a metaphysical/philosophical interpretation which would posit that all of reality is "mind stuff" and that therefore at the lowest, most basic level, all of our reality is some form of consciousness, and that therefore conscious volition somehow enters into all physical events.

I don't quite see this as any sort of certainty. It seems to me that though some cause-effect events are definitely due to human volition, many others are due to mechanical causation, physical interactions between different objects whose motions and energies have been determined by previous (physical not mental) mechanical interactions, and so forth going back ad infinitum, with the exception of the interference caused by previous human volitional interactions in this causal chain. A common example of such a mixture of both volitional and mechanical cause-and-effect would be a game of pool. An extreme example of a purely predictable predetermined cause-effect sequence is the interaction of planetary bodies in space with each other and with the Sun, following with great exactitude the Newtonian laws of motion except under certain circumstances where Einsteinian relativity calculations are even more accurate. These laws predict with great accuracy what particular effect in celestial mechanics results from what particular cause, without mental causation or volition entering the picture.
   
This is the reason why in truth, in a vast range of circumstances, determinism obtains, where a particular effect indeed must happen out of all possible things that can happen.

This determinism of course ultimately applies completely only in the upper size range of dimensional scale in the absence of human volition. At the smallest scale of the elementary particles making up matter and energy it boils down to quantum mechanical interactions between elementary particles, which may according to certain interpretations of the theory inherently involve the observations of some sort of mind. But this is just with some interpretations of quantum mechanics.

Also of course, there is also a metaphysical/philosophical interpretation which would posit that all of reality is "mind stuff" and that therefore at the lowest, most basic level, all of our reality is some form of consciousness, and that therefore conscious volition somehow enters into all physical events.

Why would determinism apply?

The problem is always trying to explain the reason why some particular thing can happen when there are an infinite number of possibilities. Even if we limit these possibilities to the stochastic cloud of slight deviations there remains an issue of why one thing would consistently happen among the possibilities.

If the reason is some brute fact law, we run into the issues of why the laws cannot ever change and how a law - wherever and whatever it is - can restrict matter while being of an apparently wholly different type of "stuff" different from said matter. Even the term, "law", suggests the involvement of Minds in both coming up with but also needing to enforce said law.

Both PK cases and evidence of Cosmic Fine Tuning already suggest mental causation can alter physical causation, and QM suggests there is no determinism at the foundation level of the physical...to the point even Penrose wonders if there are conscious decisions down there.

This isn't to say the Volitional Theory of Causation *has* to be true, but without it I don't see how to make sense of causation. Determinism that happens for no good reason is no better than Randomness which happens for no reason after all, in fact I would label the former as merely a special case of the latter. Yet Randomness seems to be against our logical expectations, leaving Volition as the one kind of causal grounding I can know from the inside.

edit: As a point of clarification, I'm not saying particles are thus conscious or that Idealism is true. It could be the case that matter is continuously directed by (a?) God or some other metaphysics, but the proper metaphysical explanation of causation even with the physical needs Minds.

Why would determinism apply?

The problem is always trying to explain the reason why some particular thing can happen when there are an infinite number of possibilities. Even if we limit these possibilities to the stochastic cloud of slight deviations there remains an issue of why one thing would consistently happen among the possibilities.

If the reason is some brute fact law, we run into the issues of why the laws cannot ever change and how a law - wherever and whatever it is - can restrict matter while being of an apparently wholly different type of "stuff" different from said matter. Even the term, "law", suggests the involvement of Minds in both coming up with but also needing to enforce said law.

Both PK cases and evidence of Cosmic Fine Tuning already suggest mental causation can alter physical causation, and QM suggests there is no determinism at the foundation level of the physical...to the point even Penrose wonders if there are conscious decisions down there.

This isn't to say the Volitional Theory of Causation *has* to be true, but without it I don't see how to make sense of causation. Determinism that happens for no good reason is no better than Randomness which happens for no reason after all, in fact I would label the former as merely a special case of the latter. Yet Randomness seems to be against our logical expectations, leaving Volition as the one kind of causal grounding I can know from the inside.

edit: As a point of clarification, I'm not saying particles are thus conscious or that Idealism is true. It could be the case that matter is continuously directed by (a?) God or some other metaphysics, but the proper metaphysical explanation of causation even with the physical needs Minds.

If we refine the problem down to why in causation some particular thing can happen rather than any of an infinite number of other possibilities, then we can further refine it down to just the mystery of why there is something rather than absolutely nothing. It seems to me that this is the ultimate mystery and it is obviously unsolvable and impenetrable to human minds, other than speculations relating to a supernatural Creator or creators outside of our reality. Of course the unknowability or impenetrability of this mystery is then proven by the obvious infinite regression that then results. 

It becomes apparent that trying to come up with a plausible answer to this ultimate question is futile and an act of extreme hubris. In my opinion that applies also to attempts to intellectually understand other lesser foundations of our reality, like causality. Given this assessment, I still think that we can make one general plausible speculation - that whatever the answer is, it has to do with the anthropic certainty that these fundamental "ways that things work" in our reality are necessary for our existence.

If we refine the problem down to why in causation some particular thing can happen rather than any of an infinite number of other possibilities, then we can further refine it down to just the mystery of why there is something rather than absolutely nothing.

I don't see why this would follow?

We know within the Something that includes our existence that change happens in myriad ways, and there at least seems to be a relation between certain states (causes) and certain later states (effects).

We're never trying to get Something from Nothing, just trying to ground the fact that isolated sections of Something can be altered in their apparent properties by other sections of Something.

I don't see why this would follow?

We know within the Something that includes our existence that change happens in myriad ways, and there at least seems to be a relation between certain states (causes) and certain later states (effects).

We're never trying to get Something from Nothing, just trying to ground the fact that isolated sections of Something can be altered in their apparent properties by other sections of Something.

The ultimate basal anthropic "thing that has to exist in order for us to exist" is that there must actually be something, not absolutely nothing. The next step up from this anthropic existential truth is that in addition to something existing rather than absolutely nothing, many subsidiary derivative such things must also exist as characteristics of our reality in order for us to exist, such as causality and the rules of logic and mathematics.

The ultimate basal anthropic "thing that has to exist in order for us to exist" is that there must actually be something, not absolutely nothing. The next step up from this anthropic existential truth is that in addition to something existing rather than absolutely nothing, many subsidiary derivative such things must also exist as characteristics of our reality in order for us to exist, such as causality and the rules of logic and mathematics.

Well there has to be Something since we're here. And since Something can't come from Nothing, Something - or Someone - was always here.

Admittedly this gets us into the question of temporal regression into the past, and whether that's logically acceptable - I go back and forth on this. But again we're already here, so there has to be some way for that to happen.

From there we get into one of the most obvious aspects of Something, its ability to change which then leads us to ask about causation. We know mental causation is different from physical causation since Materialism is a false faith due to the Something From Nothing issue. Additionally you can't apply force vectors to emotions and reasoning when trying to chart the outcome, and of course so much of our understanding and confidence in applied science rests on Maths which rests on Proofs which rests on Logic which is wholly mental.

The question then becomes whether there is some way to properly conceive of "physical" causation. After spending some time trying to see how it could be done I eventually came to accept there isn't any real solution, because for any Law you run into Talbott's problem of matter needing to have something in it that "listens" to said Law ->

The conviction that laws somehow give us a full accounting of events seems often to be based on the idea that they govern the world's substance or matter from outside, "making" things happen. If this is the case, however, then we must provide some way for matter to recognize and then obey these external laws. But, plainly, whatever supports this capacity for recognition and obedience cannot itself be the mere obedience. Anything capable of obeying wholly external laws is not only its obedience but also its capability, and this capability remains unexplained by the laws.

Then we can say the "law" is merely descriptive of something internal to the nature of the "physical"...but I don't think this really helps, especially when we look at those particles in their "random" quantum behavior where even Penrose wonders if there's decision making going on.

The other tact to take is that the "physical" has no real causal properties, and it is mere Luck that governs what seems to be any sense of Order. A roll of the dice*, so to speak, that has been lucky enough to allow for all our sciences...but this also feels unsatisfying given the logical nature of maths and, as Wigner pointed out, the uncanny efficacy of maths in this world.

Then, to make a long story short, I found that the best possible theory for causation starts with my own volition. From there I can conjecture that Minds - whether ours, or spirits, or God, or conscious particles, or whoever - is involved with every causal relation.

This doesn't mean Idealism is true, though I can see it being an argument in favor of Idealism as I do think it's easier to fit this idea of Volitional-as-Causation in with some kind of Monism. OTOH there remains the obvious functional Dualism that is needed to explain why there's a brain and why we have two domains - this universe and the experienced spiritual realms - that seem incredibly distinct.

* figure of speech since this complete lack of any genuine causal constraints would mean something truly random so no stochastic modeling could be applied.

Well there has to be Something since we're here. And since Something can't come from Nothing, Something - or Someone - was always here.

Admittedly this gets us into the question of temporal regression into the past, and whether that's logically acceptable - I go back and forth on this. But again we're already here, so there has to be some way for that to happen.

From there we get into one of the most obvious aspects of Something, its ability to change which then leads us to ask about causation. We know mental causation is different from physical causation since Materialism is a false faith due to the Something From Nothing issue. Additionally you can't apply force vectors to emotions and reasoning when trying to chart the outcome, and of course so much of our understanding and confidence in applied science rests on Maths which rests on Proofs which rests on Logic which is wholly mental.

The question then becomes whether there is some way to properly conceive of "physical" causation. After spending some time trying to see how it could be done I eventually came to accept there isn't any real solution, because for any Law you run into Talbott's problem of matter needing to have something in it that "listens" to said Law ->


Then we can say the "law" is merely descriptive of something internal to the nature of the "physical"...but I don't think this really helps, especially when we look at those particles in their "random" quantum behavior where even Penrose wonders if there's decision making going on.

The other tact to take is that the "physical" has no real causal properties, and it is mere Luck that governs what seems to be any sense of Order. A roll of the dice*, so to speak, that has been lucky enough to allow for all our sciences...but this also feels unsatisfying given the logical nature of maths and, as Wigner pointed out, the uncanny efficacy of maths in this world.

Then, to make a long story short, I found that the best possible theory for causation starts with my own volition. From there I can conjecture that Minds - whether ours, or spirits, or God, or conscious particles, or whoever - is involved with every causal relation.

This doesn't mean Idealism is true, though I can see it being an argument in favor of Idealism as I do think it's easier to fit this idea of Volitional-as-Causation in with some kind of Monism. OTOH there remains the obvious functional Dualism that is needed to explain why there's a brain and why we have two domains - this universe and the experienced spiritual realms - that seem incredibly distinct.

* figure of speech since this complete lack of any genuine causal constraints would mean something truly random so no stochastic modeling could be applied.

It seems to me that this is just "kicking the can down the road" so to speak, because then we now have to explain two additional required causal processes. The first one is where some form of Mind by psychokinesis or some other apparently paranormal schema and resultant force is doing the actual volitional shoving of matter and energy around to mimic our rational causal model. This process is just as mysterious: what is the inner nature of this shoving around process? 

Now we have to explain three things in toto: Mind itself,  psychokinesis, which is also a mystery, and finally as mystery #3, we also have to explain why these volitional actions of Mind mimic the present logical causal model to near perfection, rather than some other set of rules that could be immeasurably simpler and take much less total effort. This actual process of volitional causality seems to involve a much greater continual and greater mental effort than merely creating a mindless deterministic causal mechanism of great complexity (the latter being a logical deduction from observation ).

So, with this explanatory option there is no net gain in wisdom, in fact a net gain in ignorance.

I think your previous suggestion that "....we (could) say the "law" is merely descriptive of something internal to the nature of the "physical"", a Design option, is more viable since in being simpler it is more likely (being just one mystery) since it meets the Ockham's Razor principle of parsimony. This option is of the same very high existential order as the anthropic necessity for the laws of logic and mathematics to rule our reality - causality as just the "way things work" is as existentially fundamental and unknowable as the law of the excluded middle or the geometrical law of there being 3 spacial dimensions plus time's arrow.

The bottom line appears to be that the search for a deep understanding of causality is hubris and doomed to failure by the very way our reality is designed, where there are fundamentally humanly unknowable features of our reality designed in to our reality in order to enable sentient intelligent creatures like ourselves to exist in a (sometimes rewarding) environment. At least one apparently viable explanation for the motive for this Design would be the possible desire of this Designer to create beings that it can share existence with. 

One final observation: all of these possible explanations invoke the deadly mystery of a necessary eventual infinite regression, since that infinite regression in turn by implication just invokes the ultimate seemingly irrational mystery that reality evidently always existed and never had a beginning, never had a creator, only reinforcing the observation of the hubris of this enterprise.