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

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.....

I don't really understand what 'qualitatively non-physical' means in relation to what you call mind? I did think you were separating what you call mind and physical... but if you say you're not... well you're not, but I'm not understanding your position from what you've written. I can't really comment on the philosophical labels you mention as I know nothing about them. I don't really agree that maths and geometry are a means to measure the physical world, I'm pretty sure they emerge from the same primitive structure which Experience itself emerges from, because our experience emerges from those mathematical and geometrical relationships, so we have discovered them within experience.

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.

I think we do those things overtly with phones, pictures, CCTV, books etc., and we always do them as part of experience. I don't think my physical body can be any different than everything else within my experience. I do think we're creating this shared experience - which is the important part for me. I don't know if something else created what we understand as the primitive mathematical structure which underlies QM and Spacetime, possibly, but it feels of distant interest to me compared to realising that we seem to be connected by matching patterns upon the primitive mathematical structure.

I don't really understand what 'qualitatively non-physical' means in relation to what you call mind? I did think you were separating what you call mind and physical... but if you say you're not... well you're not, but I'm not understanding your position from what you've written. I can't really comment on the philosophical labels you mention as I know nothing about them.

The physical is merely another form of phenomena within experience. The reality beyond the phenomenal, the noumenal, we have no knowledge of, yet it must exist to ground our experiences.

I don't really agree that maths and geometry are a means to measure the physical world, I'm pretty sure they emerge from the same primitive structure which Experience itself emerges from, because our experience emerges from those mathematical and geometrical relationships, so we have discovered them within experience.

Experience cannot emerge from mathematical or geometric relationships, as experience itself cannot ever be described with them. Now, the physical phenomena within experience ~ that can be measured using the mathematical and geometric, as those are the only applicable things we can apply them to. Mathematics and geometry, conceptually, exist purely within experience, so they must be derivative of experience.

Logically, I consider mathematics and geometry to be the creation of a higher mind, a higher, unbound, unlimited existence, as it were, call it, soul, spirit, god, whatever.

I think we do those things overtly with phones, pictures, CCTV, books etc., and we always do them as part of experience. I don't think my physical body can be any different than everything else within my experience.

Well, of course it's not ~ it's composed of matter and affected by physics. But there is the influence of mind as well, which animates the physical matter of the body.

I do think we're creating this shared experience - which is the important part for me. I don't know if something else created what we understand as the primitive mathematical structure which underlies QM and Spacetime, possibly, but it feels of distant interest to me compared to realising that we seem to be connected by matching patterns upon the primitive mathematical structure.

There are no primitive mathematical structures ~ they are all models of reality. A framework, at best. You can use mathematics and geometry to model the construction of a house, yes, but the house itself is not composed of a foundation of mathematics and geometry ~ the material of the house is entirely independent of the mathematics and geometry.

What about Materialism or Physicalism in general?


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 disagree. Transduction is the action or process of converting something especially messages (information) or energy into another form. Any receiver has to incorporate elaborate transduction mechanisms in order to work, an obvious example being the TV set which mechanizes the one-way transduction of electromagnetic waves into picture and sound. This inherently requires complicated and elaborate conversion and other processing. 

Receiver theory in mind-brain philosophy has the same principle and directly implies and requires there being some sort of transducer system as part of the brain "receiver", where the transduction is of an entirely more fundamental nature than physical transduction - in the brain the transduction is both ways: back and forth between corresponding mind states and neural structure states. What more important function could there be for the incredibly complex neural mechanisms of the brain, than to enable mind to embody itself?

Of course there is no understanding of how the brain does this drastic transduction, though there has been a quite detailed understanding developed of how sight and sound sensory data is converted into neural states, which is a part of the transduction and further processing that precedes the brain-to-mind stage while embodied. The Penrose/Hameroff OrchOR theory seems to be in the right direction at least, proposing that what amounts to the brain state to mind state transduction is accomplished by a quantum-mechanical process in neurons.

The physical is merely another form of phenomena within experience. The reality beyond the phenomenal, the noumenal, we have no knowledge of, yet it must exist to ground our experiences.


Experience cannot emerge from mathematical or geometric relationships, as experience itself cannot ever be described with them. Now, the physical phenomena within experience ~ that can be measured using the mathematical and geometric, as those are the only applicable things we can apply them to. Mathematics and geometry, conceptually, exist purely within experience, so they must be derivative of experience.

Logically, I consider mathematics and geometry to be the creation of a higher mind, a higher, unbound, unlimited existence, as it were, call it, soul, spirit, god, whatever.


Well, of course it's not ~ it's composed of matter and affected by physics. But there is the influence of mind as well, which animates the physical matter of the body.


There are no primitive mathematical structures ~ they are all models of reality. A framework, at best. You can use mathematics and geometry to model the construction of a house, yes, but the house itself is not composed of a foundation of mathematics and geometry ~ the material of the house is entirely independent of the mathematics and geometry.

i don't really understand any of your replies, they don't seem to connect to any of the things I've learnt here, so I can't really take it any further.

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.

Finally, we find common ground. I joined the discussion to challenge nbtruthman's claim that there exists a mechanism with a causal relationship to physical brain states, a mechanism that might eventually be discovered.

Then you are misunderstanding, if not misrepresenting, his words in the weirdest way. 

No, I'm aware that I'm not advocating for the exact same position as Kastrup. My argument is solely that reality is composed of one substance (monism), with idealism being one form of monism. I support a slightly different variant, neutral monism.

It seems you and nbtruthman lean towards substance dualism. However, I don't believe there is strong evidence supporting the reality of substance dualism; in fact, there's a vast amount of evidence against it.

I disagree. Transduction is the action or process of converting something especially messages (information) or energy into another form. Any receiver has to incorporate elaborate transduction mechanisms in order to work, an obvious example being the TV set which mechanizes the one-way transduction of electromagnetic waves into picture and sound. This inherently requires complicated and elaborate conversion and other processing. 

Receiver theory in mind-brain philosophy has the same principle and directly implies and requires there being some sort of transducer system as part of the brain "receiver", where the transduction is of an entirely more fundamental nature than physical transduction - in the brain the transduction is both ways: back and forth between corresponding mind states and neural structure states. What more important function could there be for the incredibly complex neural mechanisms of the brain, than to enable mind to embody itself?

Of course there is no understanding of how the brain does this drastic transduction, though there has been a quite detailed understanding developed of how sight and sound sensory data is converted into neural states, which is a part of the transduction and further processing that precedes the brain-to-mind stage while embodied. The Penrose/Hameroff OrchOR theory seems to be in the right direction at least, proposing that what amounts to the brain state to mind state transduction is accomplished by a quantum-mechanical process in neurons.

Hmmmmmm. I was under the impression that receiver theory was less literal, and more of a metaphorical attempt to understand how mind and brain interact. That there is a two-way communication happening. A sort of... mind influencing the direction of the brain, the brain having no life or will of its own.

However, I find receiver theory dissatisfying for this reason ~ it doesn't line up with what is experienced by NDErs, where they pop outside of their body, their mental faculties expanding. Filter theory seems much more satisfactory an explanation here, where the human filter limits the scope and range of consciousness in such a way that the consciousness has a human experience, identifying with more and more over time.

Finally, we find common ground. I joined the discussion to challenge nbtruthman's claim that there exists a mechanism with a causal relationship to physical brain states, a mechanism that might eventually be discovered.

And yet, one has never been discovered in practice, so... yeah.

No, I'm aware that I'm not advocating for the exact same position as Kastrup. My argument is solely that reality is composed of one substance (monism), with idealism being one form of monism. I support a slightly different variant, neutral monism.

It seems you and nbtruthman lean towards substance dualism. However, I don't believe there is strong evidence supporting the reality of substance dualism; in fact, there's a vast amount of evidence against it.

I lean much more towards Neutral Monism, though I also find much interest in aspects of Transcendental Idealism and Dialectical Monism.

For me, the Neutral Substance is something akin to the Tao of Taoism, the Brahman of mystical Hinduism, or the Veils of Negative Existence from the Jewish Kabbalah. An ineffable existence beyond any incarnate being's possibility to comprehend.

Mind, as we know it, I consider to be simply a much lesser or even much limited form of what me might call soul or spirit ~ unbounded, disincarnate mind. Such an existence is far more probable to be fundamental than matter. Such an existence might even be routinely confused as being "gods" or "deities" due to such existences not being bound by physicality.

Finally, we find common ground. I joined the discussion to challenge nbtruthman's claim that there exists a mechanism with a causal relationship to physical brain states, a mechanism that might eventually be discovered.


No, I'm aware that I'm not advocating for the exact same position as Kastrup. My argument is solely that reality is composed of one substance (monism), with idealism being one form of monism. I support a slightly different variant, neutral monism.

Well nbthruthman and I are quite far apart in worldview.  I do appreciate many of your thoughtful posts.  However, your assertion that there is not a causal relationship to physical brain states via information processing is changing rapidly.

A term of science that underpins much of modern physics and information science is the concept of state.  In analysis and quantification, states are critical to framing events and process.  In so doing both physical and informational variables are used.  A. N. Whitehead was a foundational thinker expounding neutral monism and was 100 years ahead of the trend of panpyschism, now rapidly emerging in the fields of biology.  He does address this issue of "translation" of mental work influencing physical biology.

  In computer science, a state space is a discrete space representing the set of all possible configurations of a "system". It is a useful abstraction for reasoning about the behavior of a given system and is widely used in the fields of artificial intelligence and game theory.

My hypothesis is that there are structured objects in two (or more) environments.  There are physical objects in physical space and there are informational objects in informational spaces.  To understand a process or event - knowing the physical structure sets-up a measurable object that can be transformed by forces.  Likewise, an informational structure is analyzed to determine the fixed information and the potential for transformation by mind.   Whitehead posits that material reality is altered by something like a catalytic influence of mind.  I strongly agree.

You can have as much data as you want about a material object and not account for it in any comprehensive manner.  States in physics are full of the effects of informational activity.

Where in the nervous system electro-chemistry can you derive the meaningful content of dreams, without considering the informational history and development of a person?  Dreaming seems to an unconscious informational process sorting experiences into memory.

Hmmmmmm. I was under the impression that receiver theory was less literal, and more of a metaphorical attempt to understand how mind and brain interact. That there is a two-way communication happening. A sort of... mind influencing the direction of the brain, the brain having no life or will of its own.

However, I find receiver theory dissatisfying for this reason ~ it doesn't line up with what is experienced by NDErs, where they pop outside of their body, their mental faculties expanding. Filter theory seems much more satisfactory an explanation here, where the human filter limits the scope and range of consciousness in such a way that the consciousness has a human experience, identifying with more and more over time.

Then I would ask what function or functions do you think the brain actually accomplishes with its incredible amount of neural machinery and other types of organizations. Whatever these are they must be supremely important, because evolution has found it necessary to devote 25% of the energy consumption of the physical body to maintaining it despite it weighing only 2% of the body total.

Neurological research has revealed the functions of many different areas of the brain. To get more into this it is necessary to go to a much higher level of detail.

From https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/body/22638-brain :

Your brain receives information from your five senses: sight, smell, sound, touch and taste. Your brain also receives inputs including touch, vibration, pain and temperature from the rest of your body as well as autonomic (involuntary) inputs from your organs. It interprets this information so you can understand and associate meaning with what goes on around you.

"Your brain enables:

Thoughts and decisions.
Memories and emotions.
Movements (motor function), balance and coordination.
Perception of various sensations including pain.
Automatic behavior such as breathing, heart rate, sleep and temperature control.
Regulation of organ function.
Speech and language functions.
Fight or flight response (stress response).

All these functions and more are manifested and allocated to the major specialized distinct areas of the brain:

- Cerebrum: Your cerebrum interprets sights, sounds and touches. It also regulates emotions, reasoning and learning. Your cerebrum makes up about 80% of your brain.
- Cerebellum: Your cerebellum maintains your balance, posture, coordination and fine motor skills. It's located in the back of your brain.
- Brainstem: Your brainstem regulates many automatic body functions. You don’t consciously control these functions, like your heart rate, breathing, sleep and wake cycles, and swallowing. Your brainstem is in the lower part of your brain. It connects the rest of your brain to your spinal cord."

I think the receiver/transducer theory is to some extent borne out by the neurological research derived evidence.

It's interesting and important to note that the writer instinctively takes the second person perspective in his narrative; second-person pronouns are words like “you” that refer to a person being spoken or written to. In this case of looking at what is really going on during human embodiment, I see that the author of the neuroanatomical description is addressing a hypothetical "operator" person or human consciousness designated "You" who experiences and finds meanings and understands and through the faculty of agency does things with the body depending on being complexly "enabled" or "interpreted" for to do these things by the many different functional areas of the brain. This instinctive philosophical position of there being a massive existential gulf between the body/brain and an intimately interfaced human sentient conscious "operator" is evidently taken by the neuroanatomical analysis author based on the clear implications of the neurological data, where the brain and body very much look like some sort of incredibly complex robot that has been programmed to support in many different ways its operator "you" in manifesting in the world. That is evidently how the neuroscientifically knowledgeable writer instinctively imagines the human being in toto.

This organization of the brain and its functions is instinctively imagined based on the observed organization and functional/anatomical characterization of the data, to be a separate central locus of consciousness and subjective perception with the quality of agency or intentionality, intricately interfaced with by all the functional neurological brain structures supporting and enabling the nucleous entity. Addressed by the author as a central immaterial "you" separate from the mechanism, this highest of the many human sub-entities or functional divisions is seen as really the "operator" of the overall system, an "operator" that in life becomes totally experientially merged with the autonomic functions of the neural mechanism.

The neuroscientific observation that clinches it is that brain structures for the highest mental functions like logic and abstract reasoning have never been identified, despite great efforts. These higher functions are evidently part of the immaterial spirit self, the "you" being addressed, which is the mobile locus of consciousness that is during some NDEs capable of quickly disentangling itself from all the brain interfaces to float away, separating itself from the physical brain and body and able to move elseware to observe and directly experience various things in the worlds, and then returning back into its intimate association with the brain.

As can be seen, the veridical NDE OBE data is in conformance with the receiver/transducer theory as I interpret it. There doesn't seem to be any basic conflict.

This very extensive exceedingly intricate control/response and sensory interface implemented in the brain is the part of the total brain function that physically enables the body to act in the world, and looks to account for almost all of the size and complexity and processing sophistication of the brain, and its monopolization of 25% of the body's total energy generation.

The last and also supremely important stage of the transduction function in the brain is the interface between all the multitudinous support functions, and the sentient ultimate "operator" or "pilot" of this organism, who typically becomes totally merged in experience while immersed in the operations of the physical body. That is the greatest mystery, how the various "enable" signal functional processes work in interfacing with the "operator" consciousness.

Thanks everybody for a great discussion in this thread. Lots of food for thought.