Dualism versus (neutral) monism, consciousness, quantum mechanics [Night Shift split]

Agree with the highlighted. But I still am puzzled over how neutral Monism handles the differences between the interactive substance dualism way that you admit matter and mind behave in the physical world, and the spiritual state out of body. Let's consider a specific concrete example, say during an NDE OBE. How can this sometimes actually encountered temporary (apparently) fundamentally dual state of existence be reconciled with the assumptions of neutral Monism? The problem is that in this NDE OBE disembodied state, both the physical brain (which is still alive) and the immaterial spirit/mind, still exist at the same moment in time, and they are experienced in fundamentally separate realms and consist of fundamentally different "substances".

They cannot be fundamentally separate if the disincarnate NDEr is able to experience physical qualia like sight and hearing still. My problem is that fundamentally separate substances simply cannot interact without a common medium.

You have posited the idea of divine providence allowing for such interaction before, yes? There's your neutral substance in this example ~ the source of that divine providence, which created mind and the physical world, along with their capability to interact, albeit in very particular ways.

In that situation at that moment in time, how can this person still be composed of one single ultimately fundamental substance when this person simultaneously exists as two fundamentally different and separate natures (the spirit consciousness (soul), and the unconscious physical living brain)? It doesn't seem to make sense. Dual aspect neutral Monism ideas don't seem to work, because an aspect is merely a psychological construct, what something looks like to an observer or experiencer. Aspect doesn't have anything to do with existential differences.

You're making the mistake of thinking that the physical form is part of the person's nature ~ it's not, not fundamentally. It's more like an avatar that the incarnate soul seems to require to be able to experience properly in this reality. That is, this reality is properly known and experienced through the limitations and filters imposed by experiencing through the reality filter the physical form imposes as part of incarnation.

The physical form is partially molded, and fully animated by the incarnate soul throughout incarnation, but the incarnate soul is not the physical form. The experiences the incarnate soul has through the physical form are not the physical form's, because the physical form has no innate life, will or existence ~ those aspects belong purely to the incarnate soul that is animating the physical form. We may leave imprints upon the physical form, but it is still not what or who we are in any sense of the word.

I hope this offers some answers.

Just positing a Neutral Monism doesn't really solve much at all. I mean matter is the only thing science can work with. None of its equations extend to include the mental part of the Monism, and in practice we have a situation in which science is totally Materialistic - even if it starts to talk about Monisms or Panpsychism.

Science does not depend on any ontology to function. But it does depend on trusting that the senses present a coherent, stable and reliable physical world to us. That's one of the few axioms science depends upon. At that point, it matters not what your ontology is, because all metaphysics really is, is just an interpretation of what we perceive. Physicalists, Dualists, Idealists, etc, all perceive the exact same phenomenal world ~ they just interpret it differently, with different mental models.

As I see it, by tentatively accepting Dualism we have a way for science to explore phenomena which it currently ignores in one way or another.Well both Dualism and NM postulate two distinct components to reality, and both imply that these two components interact somehow or other.

Exploring the nature of reality has absolutely nothing to do with science, though, as science is simply not equipped to deal with metaphysical questions. The only reason I think Dualism is vaguely appropriate is because it can be easily observed that, from this perspective of physical reality, mind and matter are qualitatively dissimilar.

But beyond the physical reality, the distinction ceases to have meaning, as the physical world relies on a foundation that is non-physical. The weird world of the quantum is most dubiously "physical", as it has nothing in common with the atomic and subatomic world. It lies below those layers. The only reason it seems to be classed as "physical" in a classical sense is because Physicalists are extremely desperate to appear scientific, and need to control the perception of everything, to make their ontology seem like the "default", "rational", and so on.

Simply asserting that mind and matter are also derivable from a base substance doesn't seem to add much. I mean if Schroedinger's equation were combined with another equation relating to mind stuff, well what you write might have substance. However my gut feeling is that mind is not something that can be explained with equations.

At this level, no, it doesn't add anything. But it's not the point.

Neutral Monism applies much better at a transcendental level of reality, beyond the physical world, beyond even the quantum world. At the level, measurement is an entirely redundant concept, as physicality has no existence there. It is beyond physicality, beyond time as we understand it, even.

Please understand that I am not getting at you - plenty of academics will side with you. However academics sometimes seem to get stuck in arcane discussions that ultimately get forgotten about - like the number of angels that can dance on a pin head (OK possibly apocryphal).

Science's attitude to Dualism is in stark contrast to its attitude to the problem that GR and QM are incompatible - both are used regularly! I think my main point is that science is usually waay more pragmatic.

In the end, you need to understand that physicality cannot be fundamental when there are known realities more fundamental than it ~ the quantum world appears to be the source of the physical, yet the quantum defies measurement. And yet the quantum cannot be the source of reality, as there are spiritual realities beyond the quantum, as experienced by DMT trippers in one sense, and by NDE OBErs in a far more profound sense.

The discord between quantum mechanics and general relativity underscores the case for philosophical views like idealism or neutral monism, much like how quantum entanglement and the relativity of time challenge our understanding of reality. If the nature of existence were merely a matter of a physical domain devoid of any mental attributes, with all mental aspects relegated to a spiritual realm, one might expect this physical domain to be straightforward, governed by clear, coherent physical laws. However, the complexities and contradictions inherent in integrating quantum mechanics with general relativity suggest that such a simplistic, dualistic view of reality may not suffice. These scientific conundrums could indicate that reality is not purely physical in a conventional sense but might be better understood through frameworks that blend physical and mental aspects into a cohesive whole.

Indeed ~ it matches with my spiritual and philosophical experiences.

Dualism for this reality of physical phenomena, and Neutral Monism for the transcendental levels of reality where mind and matter cease to have meaning.

Idealism used to be appealing, but then I realized that mind as known cannot be the source of reality ~ it's far, far too limited in scope to have such capabilities.

The Neutral Monism of a... for want of a better term, supra-minds, souls, spirits, "deities", something that has vastly more capabilities and potentials than we can even begin to comprehend from this perspective, is necessary to create a perceived physical reality of this sheerness of complexity, complicatedness and depth.

Sorry for the wordiness. I'm just not sure how to convey the enormity of it.

Indeed, it makes sense to me that the physical is derivative from the non-physical ~ but not in the sense we understand mind. It requires an existence, a beingness far beyond what is known to us. Something the religious might call deities. Something Animist and Shamanic cultures might call spirits ~ though they have a vast "hierarchy" of spirits, depending on the culture. In some cases, a spirit will be vastly more powerful and so higher in the "hierarchy" than another ~ those are usually classed as creator spirits in some terminology or another.

Having encountered an entity whose scope of existence is far beyond my comprehension, I can begin to understand these concepts. Using religious terminology for the sake of "hierarchy", you could consider the creator spirits to be "arch-angels", which is a grossly inaccurate term, but it should paint some sort of really vague picture.

Yeah this is why I like Steve Taylor's use of the term Pan-Spiritism. I think "spirit" is itself a substance whose character includes the mental but said substance also can limit itself to what we perceive from the outside as "physical" character. 

I'd even go further and suggest Panentheism/Pandeism/Pantheism of some variety...though the "theism" should not necessarily be interpreted as meaning the kind of God who is a person in some plane of reality like Heaven/Asgard/Summer Country/Lokas/etc. This isn't to say such a thought is definitively wrong, and I do think "lesser" spirits are in realms such as those, just that this idea of God is a step beyond what we can guess using reason + mystical experience accounts.

Yeah... there are rules, but they seem more like... patterns that can be temporarily overcome with the right amount of psychic effort. But they cannot be broken, as they seem to be a... fundamental habit of this reality's functioning.

Not sure these regularities need to be "broken", as Deep Weird cases seem to work while ignoring many "laws"?

OTOH reality clearly isn't just pure chaos, even the QM stochastic behavior seems to be un-determined but also not random. And the fact we can have so many elegant mathematical proofs supporting our applied sciences shows the mental aspect of existence can be quite ordered.

I suspect some kind of Animism at work, though possibly Grounded by something like Classical Theism though that position's claim that Truth / Beauty / Goodness are just the same thing seen from different "angles" feels wrong to me...I do like Plotinus' idea of the One though...

So in this model the Soul, unlike the human, can truly learn from past mistakes and successes. Unfortunately this scheme is profoundly unfair to the human due to the human not being his soul in any humanly meaningful way - which is mainly due to the no memory of past lives issue and to the lack of participation in future life planning issue. But what is, is, and we have to accept it. It was established by powers vastly greater than our own.

I would even go farther and suggest Survival seems to be a natural phenomenon.

This isn't to discount the evidence of Cosmic Fine Tuning, but just as a city can become part of the wild landscape so too could the universe and even larger segments of reality be designed yet now left to some natural order. There could be some Ur-Mind behind all realities but I don't know if It has plans or interests...perhaps Narratives and unfolding Story?

Considering specific phenomena such as CORT's seems to me to be MUCH more valuable than haggling over philosophical concepts such as Neutral Monisms.

I'm inclined to agree but I think it depends on context. In this conversation, in the Gen. Consciousness Science section, I think the question of metaphysics either closes or opens more academic doors.

I think I get your position though - that if we can simply speak of two separate places we can get more done. Since we know a CORT case involves going "somewhere else" and coming back "here" we should just say these are separate domains with separate substances that can overlap. 

I do see how one could think this is the most pragmatic means of incorporating parapsychological evidence into the larger picture of the sciences...but sadly at minimum the historical case has not been kind to Dualism...no[r] am I sure one can ever truly fit all the evidence - which includes Deep Weird phenomena - into that paradigm...

.............................................................
I really have to question where there is a seemingly ad hoc need for a Divine Providence to make Substance Dualism workable through decree by fiat, when it's really just simpler to have Divine Providence as the Neutral Substance who then created the existences of physicality and mind, then allowing mind the capability to interact with physicality, albeit only effectively and efficiently through attachment to an appropriate physical medium.

With Neutral Monism, you can logically have both Idealism and Substance Dualism rolled into one, albeit in different forms than classically envisioned.


I'm not sure any of this can support the rather frail logic of how two entirely different base substances can interact without a common medium, raising endless questions of how they can ever logically interact in any sense. Appealing to decree by fiat through Divine Providence just seems rather odd, anyways, because that just implies Monism ~ a Creator who is neither mind nor matter. It's not even a leap to just assign that Creator as the Neutral Substance of Neutral Monism. Maybe even as the Absolute in Objective and Absolute Idealism.
.......................................................

I have to agree with this assessment, though I would interpret it along the lines of there still being a sort of immediate practical reality to the interactional substance Dualist model, since it is how a vast amount of phenomena actually work in human experience despite an ultimate existential reality of a One Substance composing the creative Intelligence behind everything. Your highlighted statement indicates essentially the same sort of creation of rules by fiat of a higher power that I have been suggesting.

I also would agree with your statement about Neutral Monism but with the caviat that this understanding needs to be the proper interpretation of this philosophy.