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

Example: The essence of the subjective perception of the color red is not material since it has no material properties like weight or mass or energy or physical extension in space. This is due to subjective perception and awareness being in an entirely different existential realm than light rays of the required wavelength or the physical molecular properties of the object that reflects or radiates light of this wavelength, etc.

This perspective aligns precisely with the particle-wave duality, which is incomprehensible to intuition yet undeniably how the world operates. A common oversight in this forum is the belief that humanity possesses complete knowledge of all physical properties, thereby implicitly claiming an exhaustive understanding of what matter is. There's even a debater who repeatedly asserts that the brain functions as a Turing machine. This purportedly divine insight, often wielded as definitive proof of a spiritual realm's existence, falls short of being persuasive.

Wait, this isn't correct. The author compiled 125 cases retrospectively, which is different from conducting a prospective investigational study in a hospital setting with access to hospital records, among other resources. While it might be an interesting read, it doesn't offer substantial evidence for any specific hypothesis. I'm not disputing the occurrence of near-death experiences (NDEs), but I don't believe they serve as evidence for the existence of an immaterial mind. We don’t understand consciousness, it doesn’t  mean it’s immaterial.

Well... you're not taking into account that in various cases, experiencers report being able to know about things from outside of their body's sensory range, so even if we hypothetically accept a vaguely functioning consciousness during cardiac arrest, that should be impossible.

The overall body of evidence strongly points towards mind being immaterial ~ non-physical, rather, to put it more accurately.

Well... you're not taking into account that in various cases, experiencers report being able to know about things from outside of their body's sensory range, so even if we hypothetically accept a vaguely functioning consciousness during cardiac arrest, that should be impossible.

The overall body of evidence strongly points towards mind being immaterial ~ non-physical, rather, to put it more accurately.

There's another debater here who attributes the abnormal acquisition of information during NDEs to a kind of brain entanglement between the patient and the resuscitator (he does not use the word entanglement but proposes an inferrence mechanism). Given that entanglement exists, why should that not explain it?

In fact, there's a lot of evidence pointing to everyone's consciousness being connected, as seen in everyday synchronicities, a concept introduced by Carl Jung. I think everybody must have experienced this. Remember, reality is not local.

There's another debater here who attributes the abnormal acquisition of information during NDEs to a kind of brain entanglement between the patient and the resuscitator (he does not use the word entanglement but proposes an inferrence mechanism). Given that entanglement exists, why should that not explain it?

It comes across as an ad hoc solution to explain away the experience of perceiving from a location outside of a body, seeing one's body from a second-hand perspective, and being able to perceive things outside of one's bodily sensory range.

Entanglement cannot explain these crucial things. It reeks of... reaching for any "answer" other than those considered "supernatural" ~ no matter how absurd, unscientific or unsubstantiated. Much like multiverse theory versus fine-tuning.

In fact, there's a lot of evidence pointing to everyone's consciousness being connected, as seen in everyday synchronicities, a concept introduced by Carl Jung. I think everybody must have experienced this. Remember, reality is not local.

Jung was not a Physicalist or Materialist ~ a collective unconscious is not a physical or material phenomenon, and cannot be explained by "entanglement". The collective unconscious refers to common archetypes which reside in the human psyche, very reminiscent to Plato's world of Forms. The archetypes themselves are just "energies", and have no stable appearance, being able to manifest in a million different ways.

So this also cannot explain the raw experience reported by the near-death experience. Again, it feels like a desperate ploy to avoid the obvious answer ~ that the experience is simply as it appears ~ to reach for some explanation that can keep the phenomenon within the realms of Physicalism, no matter how absurd or illogical.

It comes across as an ad hoc solution to explain away the experience of perceiving from a location outside of a body, seeing one's body from a second-hand perspective, and being able to perceive things outside of one's bodily sensory range.

Entanglement cannot explain these crucial things. It reeks of... reaching for any "answer" other than those considered "supernatural" ~ no matter how absurd, unscientific or unsubstantiated. Much like multiverse theory versus fine-tuning.


Jung was not a Physicalist or Materialist ~ a collective unconscious is not a physical or material phenomenon, and cannot be explained by "entanglement". The collective unconscious refers to common archetypes which reside in the human psyche, very reminiscent to Plato's world of Forms. The archetypes themselves are just "energies", and have no stable appearance, being able to manifest in a million different ways.

So this also cannot explain the raw experience reported by the near-death experience. Again, it feels like a desperate ploy to avoid the obvious answer ~ that the experience is simply as it appears ~ to reach for some explanation that can keep the phenomenon within the realms of Physicalism, no matter how absurd or illogical.

How do you determine what can be explained by entanglement? This is yet another impressive display of the divine insight exhibited by several debaters here.

How do you determine what can be explained by entanglement?

Right back at you... you presume that an experience is not actually what it seems, and must actually be a confabulation, due to mysterious "entanglement". Seems like a stand-in for you not actually having any kind of meaningful answer. "Entanglement" does sound awe-inspiring, after all, especially when it's not understood.

This is yet another impressive display of the divine insight exhibited by several debaters here.

I mean, you seem have some "divine insight" yourself, if you can be so certain that it's "entanglement" rather than the experience just being allowed to be exactly as it appears to the experiencer.

Well... you're not taking into account that in various cases, experiencers report being able to know about things from outside of their body's sensory range, so even if we hypothetically accept a vaguely functioning consciousness during cardiac arrest, that should be impossible.

The overall body of evidence strongly points towards mind being immaterial ~ non-physical, rather, to put it more accurately.

I don't think it's possible to make these two things separate - I've tried and tried. What you call physical directly impacts what you call mind, and what you call mind directly impacts what you call physical. Just try drawing a picture, then put it away in a drawer for a week and forget about it. When you remove it from the draw and look at it again a week later you'll see the power this physical object has upon your mind, as it connects you to the thoughts you had during the period in which you drew it.

We know due to 30 odd years of privately funded work by Edwin Land, that colour cannot be a property of the world, yet you and I see green grass, and red apples as physical objects, and we can't unsee them. This seems to tie what you call mind and the physical together. Mind and physical (GoT's inside and outside) really should be thought about as one thing, inseparable... and we can call that... Experience... and more precisely mind and physical might be thought of as different aspects/perspective of experience. Thats the only way I can see out of the conundrum, and it's the only thing that seems to fit all the data.

Experience seems to emerges from something hidden in plain sight, something which is a far more primitive thing, something which we can investigate with a tool that is neither physical, nor mental, something different, a tools we call maths/geometry.

Our observations of QM phenomena and Spacetime phenomena also emerge from this primitive mathematical/geometrical structure.

Science deliberately sidesteps the problem of experience, probably a reasonable, neutral solution to pure enquiry, without getting tied up in knots. But others have pushed a lie upon upon us, that we are isolated individuals in a separate world. Somehow the lie and pure enquiry have become entwined. Somehow the lie and Experience have become entwined too.

I don't think it's possible to make these two things separate - I've tried and tried. What you call physical directly impacts what you call mind, and what you call mind directly impacts what you call physical. Just try drawing a picture, then put it away in a drawer for a week and forget about it. When you remove it from the draw and look at it again a week later you'll see the power this physical object has upon your mind, as it connects you to the thoughts you had during the period in which you drew it.

I wasn't separating them. Mind is qualitatively non-physical. As for the physical... I consider it to be simply another form of phenomena within experience. Physical phenomena. Which is why I am drawn to Kant's Critical Idealism.

I don't think it's possible to make these two things separate - I've tried and tried. What you call physical directly impacts what you call mind, and what you call mind directly impacts what you call physical. Just try drawing a picture, then put it away in a drawer for a week and forget about it. When you remove it from the draw and look at it again a week later you'll see the power this physical object has upon your mind, as it connects you to the thoughts you had during the period in which you drew it.

We know due to 30 odd years of privately funded work by Edwin Land, that colour cannot be a property of the world, yet you and I see green grass, and red apples as physical objects, and we can't unsee them. This seems to tie what you call mind and the physical together. Mind and physical (GoT's inside and outside) really should be thought about as one thing, inseparable... and we can call that... Experience... and more precisely mind and physical might be thought of as different aspects/perspective of experience. Thats the only way I can see out of the conundrum, and it's the only thing that seems to fit all the data.

Neutral Monism or Dialectical Monism can resolve this issue ~ of self and non-self, mind and non-mind, conscious subject and non-conscious object.

Experience seems to emerges from something hidden in plain sight, something which is a far more primitive thing, something which we can investigate with a tool that is neither physical, nor mental, something different, a tools we call maths/geometry.

Our observations of QM phenomena and Spacetime phenomena also emerge from this primitive mathematical/geometrical structure.

The map is not the territory. The model is not the thing being modeled. Mathematics and geometry are abstract means to measure the world of physical phenomena. Mathematics and geometry are not the source ~ they are a tool, crafted by a higher intelligence, a higher consciousness. than what we know of down here. Souls, spirits, gods, I don't know. Whatever you want to call primordial existence, unbound by physical existence and limitations.

Science deliberately sidesteps the problem of experience, probably a reasonable, neutral solution to pure enquiry, without getting tied up in knots. But others have pushed a lie upon upon us, that we are isolated individuals in a separate world. Somehow the lie and pure enquiry have become entwined. Somehow the lie and Experience have become entwined too.

We are isolated somewhat by physical limitations. When we experience this reality through the physical body, there is limitation. It's not a lie so much as just a consequence of incarnation. Yes, we can partially circumvent that with mental training, and maybe even psychedelics, when taken by individuals who have the right psychological tools and experience for the psychedelic to enable.

There's a reason why 99.9999% of individuals cannot just casually use telepathy or remote view or OBE. The physical body places limitations upon the capability of mind, in return for interaction with this reality. That's just how it is, for whatever reason this reality was created.

You appear to be skeptical that immaterial minds can possibly exist. Veridical NDE OBEs confirm that that they do, at least the minds or spirits of the NDErs who slip easily out of their bodies and pass through walls and ceilings with no resistance into other places in the physical and spiritual realms. They clearly are no longer tied to the physical.

Again, your certainty of that which is entirely unproven destroys your entire argument!  I look forward to the day when you begin to adopt a healthy agnosticism because you very often make good points.

Again, your certainty of that which is entirely unproven destroys your entire argument!  I look forward to the day when you begin to adopt a healthy agnosticism because you very often make good points.

How is it unproven when that is the experience that is reported? How else are we to interpret these commonalities of NDEs?