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

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

I have always argued that while Idealism (Bernado Kastrup’s ideas) may represent ultimate reality, paradoxically they are much less likely to progress scientific understanding of consciousness at this time.

There is a sequence of scientific theories that allows ideas to be tested and data to be recognised, rather than being spuriously dismissed.

Here is my example (I don't know if you have read it from me before).

Suppose for example that Newton had somehow hit on the theory of General Relativity rather than his theory of gravity combined with his laws of dynamics and F=m a.

Yes the theory would have been more exact presumably, but would it have been more useful? In those days science would not have been sophisticated enough to work with 16 x 16 tensors or the concept of a space-time metric.

Nobody would have known how to extract exact results, loads of incorrect results would have been derived, and science would have stalled until someone came up with Newton's laws as we know them.

By analogy, I think dealing with the concept that matter is REALLY something that is simulated by consciousness, and that space and time are just ideas within a (presumably non-human) consciousness, won't let anyone derive actual conclusions - just waffle!

If science adopted Dualism, that would not prevent it shifting over to Idealism at a later date - just as adopting NG did not stop science shifting over to GR later on.

Note also that despite the adoption of GR almost all day-to-day calculations are done using NG rather than GR - for obvious practical reasons. Likewise, I suspect that Dualism will always be easier to use than Idealism.

The final point I would make, is that the Physicist Henry Stapp even supplied science with an interaction mechanism between mind and matter - thus Dualism would not be immediately obviously wrong, unlike GR and QM, which are happily used by physicists, even though they don't mix.

David

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.

I like this view too.  I suspect that dualism supports defining and exploring but isn't literally true.  We tend to separate things because it is instinctive to do so and this creates models of reality that we take literally.  My tentative view at the moment is that all is information and is only experientially different.  How do you feel about information science?  I think it can explain a whole lot of stuff that would otherwise be difficult to explain.

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.

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.

We obviously disagree completely. I am genuinely very interested in a list of this evidence you refer to, and how it overturns the neurological research evidence for my interactional dualist position that I outlined in post #59 at https://psiencequest.net/forums/thread-n...1#pid56301 . I agree that the interaction problem is severe, but feel that my cited counter-evidence based on physical neurological research is even more powerful, enough to overcome it. It seems an assessment has to be along the lines of the abductive argument to the best of several competing explanations. 

In particular, I would be interested in your assessment of how the research-derived functions of the various neurological structures of the brain that I partially enumerated are not likely to be what they look to be - part of a vast interactional dualist receiver/transducer-like system, and if so what their true functions really are. The old abductive reasoning adage might be apropos, that if it walks like a duck and looks like a duck and sounds like a duck it probably really is a duck and not a swan. 

My basic argument boils down to the observation that regardless of the (arguable) absence of a plausible interactional mechanism, the research evidence on the functions of the brain's many specialized structures looks very much to be implementing the several preliminary stages of physical neurological/spirit causal transduction that could be expected under the interactional dualist model. If not, then what are these vastly complex structures really doing?  Of course, the common materialist explanation is typically that this vast apparatus is generating consciousness.

Resolving this conflict would amount to identifying the true functions of the brain under the neutral monist (or idealist) model, which so far at least to me seems always to be couched mostly in philosophical generalizations rather than getting down to the nitty gritty of incorporating and accounting for the actual vast quasi-mechanisms of the brain.

By the way, there is more evidence that the mental faculties of abstract thought and logic must be solely part of the immaterial soul rather than spirit functions mirrored by and interfaced with by the brain. Famous neurosurgeon and epilepsy researcher Wilder Penfield noted that there are no intellectual seizures — that is, that epileptic seizures never evoke abstract intellectual thought. He also noted that during his fifty years of clinical practice and research, stimulation of the brain — either by seizures or by a neurosurgeon during surgery — never evoked abstract thinking. Finally, patients who have had their brains essentially cut in half to eliminate siezures have completely normal powers of abstract thought after the procedure. They are still one person.

While various degrees of awareness around the time of cardiac arrest are fairly common, compelling Out-of-Body Experiences (OBEs) verified by healthcare professionals (HCPs) are extremely rare. In a thread on the AwareOfAware blog, the author requested the top five reports of Near-Death Experiences (NDEs) (https://awareofaware.co/2023/11/18/top-five-ndes/). Following the thread, it becomes clear that if ten reports had been requested, they would not have been found. How can we draw any conclusions from such elusive phenomena? Although the scientific worldview is not entirely complete and sometimes contradicts itself—suggesting that there is more to the world than what we can see—I am not ready to leap to any extreme conclusions based on such scant evidence.

As you are well aware, there are a huge number of reports of NDE's, OBE's, etc. Indeed, there is a long thread on this very forum devoted entirely to NDE's.

What extreme sceptics do, of course, is to demand such impossible rigour that only a few cases are left. So for example, it isn't good enough that someone well into a cardiac arrest can recall his rescue - e.g. from drowning - and can mention who was present and what they did, or that someone being resuscitated can recall particular events that happened before a heart beat was established(usually from an elevated viewpoint - not the viewpoint of someone squinting through closed eyelids).

Of course, if you apply ever more stringent conditions to the evidence you can cut it down as much as you like, for example you could demand only cases where the patient was attached to an ECG machine!

Unless you acknowledge that this process can and does take place, there seems little point in further discussion.

David

So for example, it isn't good enough that someone well into a cardiac arrest can recall his rescue - e.g. from drowning - and can mention who was present and what they did, or that someone being resuscitated can recall particular events that happened before a heart beat was established(usually from an elevated viewpoint - not the viewpoint of someone squinting through closed eyelids).

David

These kind of details are so often exaggerated and embellished in books.  The paranormal sells like hot cakes!  Experiences do exist, of course but I have seen so many of these kind of details debunked that I think it is wise to be skeptical.  Every time we debate these subjects we should bear this in mind and evidence in favour is always with the proviso, "assuming all the parties involved and the author are giving accurate information."

These kind of details are so often exaggerated and embellished in books.  The paranormal sells like hot cakes!  Experiences do exist, of course but I have seen so many of these kind of details debunked that I think it is wise to be skeptical.  Every time we debate these subjects we should bear this in mind and evidence in favour is always with the proviso, "assuming all the parties involved and the author are giving accurate information."

While it is true there is money to be made from paranormal advocacy, I would say it pales compared to the billions made by the assumptions of materialism that power major, at times questionable industries like "Big Pharma".

There's also the contrast to organized religions, which are also in some cases multi-million to billion dollar industries.

As such, on balance, I suspect the money a few have made even with questionable claims - Bengson's healing comes to mind, arguably Eben Alexander's books too - is balanced by the re-distribution of power to individuals the paranormal seems to point toward.

We obviously disagree completely. I am genuinely very interested in a list of this evidence you refer to, and how it overturns the neurological research evidence for my interactional dualist position that I outlined in post #59 at https://psiencequest.net/forums/thread-n...1#pid56301 . I agree that the interaction problem is severe, but feel that my cited counter-evidence based on physical neurological research is even more powerful, enough to overcome it. It seems an assessment has to be along the lines of the abductive argument to the best of several competing explanations. 

In particular, I would be interested in your assessment of how the research-derived functions of the various neurological structures of the brain that I partially enumerated are not likely to be what they look to be - part of a vast interactional dualist receiver/transducer-like system, and if so what their true functions really are. The old abductive reasoning adage might be apropos, that if it walks like a duck and looks like a duck and sounds like a duck it probably really is a duck and not a swan. 

My basic argument boils down to the observation that regardless of the (arguable) absence of a plausible interactional mechanism, the research evidence on the functions of the brain's many specialized structures looks very much to be implementing the several preliminary stages of physical neurological/spirit causal transduction that could be expected under the interactional dualist model. If not, then what are these vastly complex structures really doing?  Of course, the common materialist explanation is typically that this vast apparatus is generating consciousness.

Resolving this conflict would amount to identifying the true functions of the brain under the neutral monist (or idealist) model, which so far at least to me seems always to be couched mostly in philosophical generalizations rather than getting down to the nitty gritty of incorporating and accounting for the actual vast quasi-mechanisms of the brain.

By the way, there is more evidence that the mental faculties of abstract thought and logic must be solely part of the immaterial soul rather than spirit functions mirrored by and interfaced with by the brain. Famous neurosurgeon and epilepsy researcher Wilder Penfield noted that there are no intellectual seizures — that is, that epileptic seizures never evoke abstract intellectual thought. He also noted that during his fifty years of clinical practice and research, stimulation of the brain — either by seizures or by a neurosurgeon during surgery — never evoked abstract thinking. Finally, patients who have had their brains essentially cut in half to eliminate siezures have completely normal powers of abstract thought after the procedure. They are still one person.

I guess I can only conclude that either there are no substantive responses to my points, or that boredom has ensued. Too bad.

I guess I can only conclude that either there are no substantive responses to my points, or that boredom has ensued. Too bad.

Please have patience, I’m away for a few days, I will be right back 

@sbu

You wrote:

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.

OK, but where the heck does that get you - or anyone?

I mean you seem to prefer science to other views of studying reality. So how could science discover any variety of monism. I mean all that science can do is perform physical experiments - such as neuroscience experiments. However a monism implies a reality that is a fusion of mental and physical. I can't see how any hypothetical experimental results will bridge the gap between Materialism and Monism - that gap is just as hard as the gap between Materialism and Dualism!

I guess the only type of experiment that might be relevant would be a parapsychological one, but these are usually interpreted in terms of realities that you would not support.

I am of course pretty cynical, and I think that talk of Monism is like the once fashionable talk of Panpsychism. Again, I can't imagine a single experiment that would support Panpsychism without in effect supporting Dualism!

Are either of those philosophical concepts anything more than a distraction?

David

@sbu

You wrote:

OK, but where the heck does that get you - or anyone?

I mean you seem to prefer science to other views of studying reality. So how could science discover any variety of monism. I mean all that science can do is perform physical experiments - such as neuroscience experiments. However a monism implies a reality that is a fusion of mental and physical. I can't see how any hypothetical experimental results will bridge the gap between Materialism and Monism - that gap is just as hard as the gap between Materialism and Dualism!

I guess the only type of experiment that might be relevant would be a parapsychological one, but these are usually interpreted in terms of realities that you would not support.

I am of course pretty cynical, and I think that talk of Monism is like the once fashionable talk of Panpsychism. Again, I can't imagine a single experiment that would support Panpsychism without in effect supporting Dualism!

Are either of those philosophical concepts anything more than a distraction?

David

I can't imagine any science ever discovering any variety of any philosophy concerning mind because mind is not physical and, as you said, "all that science can do is perform physical experiments."  That doesn't prevent us discussing on a purely philosophical level the ideas that make most sense to us.  We can, however study the processes of the mind, such as the brain's extraordinary work while asleep, which is the title of this thread.