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

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.

I’m not certain about anything. I’m extremely agnostic when it comes to these matters. But it’s clear that you are “trapped” by a Newtonian/classical way of perceiving the universe. Nothing is as you experience them with your senses, and often they defy intuition. Time is not an absolute, but a coordinate. Quantum mechanics challenges our notions of reality in very fundamental ways, including concepts of causality, locality, and even the nature of reality itself. Our most advanced microscopes can provide images that suggest the structure of atoms or molecules, but these images are often based on indirect measurements (such as electron microscopes) or are visual representations of mathematical data rather than direct "photographs." And yet, you argue from an implicit assumption that you understand the “physical.” and hence there’s a need for something immaterial. I suggest you read up on Bernado Kastrup’s ideas to get some perspective.

I’m not certain about anything. I’m extremely agnostic when it comes to these matters.

You don't seem very agnostic when it comes to NDEs.

But it’s clear that you are “trapped” by a Newtonian/classical way of perceiving the universe.

Where have I implied that at all...? I'm somewhere between Transcendental / Critical Idealism, Neutral Monism and Dialectical Monism.

Nothing is as you experience them with your senses, and often they defy intuition.

I'm not a naive realist, but I do think that the world presented to us by our senses meshes together quite coherently. A stable "illusion", as it were. It is quite real from the perspective of how our senses present this physically phenomenal world to us, whatever it may actually be beyond that.

Time is not an absolute, but a coordinate.

Well... I can agree with that much, after my recent Ayahuasca journey... I somehow experienced a past-life from another reality in real time, with the other reality me being aware of my presence.

Quantum mechanics challenges our notions of reality in very fundamental ways, including concepts of causality, locality, and even the nature of reality itself. Our most advanced microscopes can provide images that suggest the structure of atoms or molecules, but these images are often based on indirect measurements (such as electron microscopes) or are visual representations of mathematical data rather than direct "photographs." And yet, you argue from an implicit assumption that you understand the “physical.” and hence there’s a need for something immaterial. I suggest you read up on Bernado Kastrup’s ideas to get some perspective.

Oh dear... you make a series of arguments that implicitly refute Materialism and Physicalism, and then continue to argue as if that is evidence that only the material or physical exists, seemingly.

I understand that the physical exists only as a phenomena that comes through sensory perception. It appears quite clearly to me that the mind cannot be material or physical as the mind and its contents have no material or physical qualities. Worse, the observer, who witnesses the phenomena of inner mind and outer matter, is non-phenomenal, so it can never be observed, being that which observes.

You don't seem very agnostic when it comes to NDEs.


Where have I implied that at all...? I'm somewhere between Transcendental / Critical Idealism, Neutral Monism and Dialectical Monism.


I'm not a naive realist, but I do think that the world presented to us by our senses meshes together quite coherently. A stable "illusion", as it were. It is quite real from the perspective of how our senses present this physically phenomenal world to us, whatever it may actually be beyond that.


Well... I can agree with that much, after my recent Ayahuasca journey... I somehow experienced a past-life from another reality in real time, with the other reality me being aware of my presence.


Oh dear... you make a series of arguments that implicitly refute Materialism and Physicalism, and then continue to argue as if that is evidence that only the material or physical exists, seemingly.

I understand that the physical exists only as a phenomena that comes through sensory perception. It appears quite clearly to me that the mind cannot be material or physical as the mind and its contents have no material or physical qualities. Worse, the observer, who witnesses the phenomena of inner mind and outer matter, is non-phenomenal, so it can never be observed, being that which observes.

I’m not advocating for classical eliminative materialism, as I believe this position is almost certainly false. My entry into this discussion was to argue that we will never discover a 'radio receiver' in the brain that receives 'consciousness' from the immaterial realm, influencing the brain's physical state in a manner detectable by any known physical activity.

I think Bernado Kastrup’s ideas fits better with the evidence:

“I argue that we do not need to postulate a whole universe outside consciousness – outside subjective experience – in order to make sense of empirical reality. The implication is that all reality, including our bodies and brains, are in consciousness, not consciousness in our bodies and brains.”

https://www.bernardokastrup.com/2014/08/...s.html?m=1

There’s no reason to believe that both “a physical world” and “and an immaterial” world exists. Monoism is a stronger bet imho

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.

Consider a veridical NDE OBE where the NDEr is verified by his account along with external evidence to have, while his physical brain was dysfunctional, actually effortlessly separated from his body and passed through several walls. I say that amounts to proof that the locus of his consciousness at that time was immaterial and able to physically separate from his brain and body. If his consciousness had been material in any way there would have been a blocking or at least a resistance. Dictionary definitions:  immaterial = not physical;  not physical = not tangible or concrete. 

If you disagree, please explain exactly how or in what sense the NDEr's consciousness actually was tangible or concrete. Preferably without using nebulous subject to endless speculation quantum mechanical concepts and images, such as particle-wave duality and entanglement. If you insist in using them, then please explain exactly how (or at least furnish a plausible theory to explain how) such quantum mechanical entities and concepts are, rather than being unrelated, actually causally involved in the veridical NDE OBE cited above.

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.

Unproven? See my response to sbu in post #44 above.

Consider a veridical NDE OBE where the NDEr is verified by his account along with external evidence to have, while his physical brain was dysfunctional, actually effortlessly separated from his body and passed through several walls. I say that amounts to proof that the locus of his consciousness at that time was immaterial and able to physically separate from his brain and body. If his consciousness had been material in any way there would have been a blocking or at least a resistance. Dictionary definitions:  immaterial = not physical;  not physical = not tangible or concrete. 

If you disagree, please explain exactly how or in what sense the NDEr's consciousness actually was tangible or concrete. Preferably without using nebulous subject to endless speculation quantum mechanical concepts and images, such as particle-wave duality and entanglement. If you insist in using them, then please explain exactly how (or at least furnish a plausible theory to explain how) such quantum mechanical entities and concepts are, rather than being unrelated, actually causally involved in the veridical NDE OBE cited above.

I’m sorry to say that your perception of physicalism doesn’t make sense as the classical/Newtonian perspective you try to apply is no longer applicable. You believe you have a complete ontological understanding of matter, but in reality, nobody does. This is precisely why many of the founding figures of quantum mechanics were non-realists. As we” don’t know what matter is there’s no reason to bring in imaginary non-matter concepts in the discussion.

I’m sorry to say that your perception of physicalism doesn’t make sense as the classical/Newtonian perspective you try to apply is no longer applicable. You believe you have a complete ontological understanding of matter, but in reality, nobody does. This is precisely why many of the founding figures of quantum mechanics were non-realists. As we” don’t know what matter is there’s no reason to bring in imaginary non-matter concepts in the discussion.

What is an imaginary non-matter concept?

Also there is a difference between "physical" as in whatever physics studies and Physicalism which is an illogical religious faith that asserts the "physical" has no fundamental/irreducible mental content but can somehow produce said content.

Of course pseudo-skeptics like to conflate the two conceptions of the "physical", but this is just intellectual dishonesty.

I’m sorry to say that your perception of physicalism doesn’t make sense as the classical/Newtonian perspective you try to apply is no longer applicable. You believe you have a complete ontological understanding of matter, but in reality, nobody does. This is precisely why many of the founding figures of quantum mechanics were non-realists. As we” don’t know what matter is there’s no reason to bring in imaginary non-matter concepts in the discussion.

As I expected, you neatly slipped out of responding to my requests for specific explanations, in favor of broad generalities. Of course I don't believe I have complete understanding of the ultimate nature or essence of matter. I just make the obvious observation that as far as mind-matter relationship is concerned the world at the macro human level works closely according to some sort of interactive dualist theory. You refuse to engage in detail to explain how that can be in the context of your monoism belief system.

I’m not advocating for classical eliminative materialism, as I believe this position is almost certainly false.

What about Materialism or Physicalism in general?

My entry into this discussion was to argue that we will never discover a 'radio receiver' in the brain that receives 'consciousness' from the immaterial realm, influencing the brain's physical state in a manner detectable by any known physical activity.

Ah, so you're expecting a literal mechanism... well, receiver theory and filter theory do not posit actual physical mechanisms, nor do they require them, as mind being immaterial and non-physical would do away with the need for a mechanism. A mechanism is only really necessary for physical-to-physical communication. Mind appears quite capable of influence the brain's physical state without being detectable, after all. Otherwise, we wouldn't have Illusonism or Eliminativism as actual ideologies.

I think Bernado Kastrup’s ideas fits better with the evidence:

“I argue that we do not need to postulate a whole universe outside consciousness – outside subjective experience – in order to make sense of empirical reality. The implication is that all reality, including our bodies and brains, are in consciousness, not consciousness in our bodies and brains.”

https://www.bernardokastrup.com/2014/08/...s.html?m=1

There’s no reason to believe that both “a physical world” and “and an immaterial” world exists. Monoism is a stronger bet imho

Then you are misunderstanding, if not misrepresenting, his words in the weirdest way. For Kastrup, mind is entirely immaterial and non-physical in nature. For Kastrup, the physical world is just an appearance in mind. The brain is just the appearance of mind in a physical sense, though he never implies that destroying the brain destroys the mind. Though, for Kastrup, mind is only individualized by brains, so when that goes, mind gets fully reabsorbed into the universal mind.

Of course, he ignores, or at worst, is unaware of the voluminous evidence for survival. Not sure where reincarnation and past-life memories fit into his ontological stance, though...

I’m sorry to say that your perception of physicalism doesn’t make sense as the classical/Newtonian perspective you try to apply is no longer applicable. You believe you have a complete ontological understanding of matter, but in reality, nobody does. This is precisely why many of the founding figures of quantum mechanics were non-realists. As we” don’t know what matter is there’s no reason to bring in imaginary non-matter concepts in the discussion.

It's... funny. You talk about nobody having a complete ontological understanding of matter, yet you imply that mind is material, without evidence. You seem to lack the ability to distinguish between material and physical qualities, and immaterial and non-physical qualities. Mind has no observable material or physical qualities ~ I can study my mind, and find nothing there that has such qualities. Indeed, materiality and physicality appear as nothing more than phenomena within sensory perception.

Maybe you'd like to actually define and explain what materiality and physicality are for you, so we're not left arguing against an argument you've never clarified.