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

I would make a point of distinguishing the continuity of consciousness beyond the body from this question of two substances.

Absolutely. I'm definitely not arguing against the continuity of consciousness. This is all about whether there is evidence and even allowability in known physics for a non-physical substance that can interact with the brain at the neurophysical level.

I can only repeat my challenge, which you have not yet engaged with: "Sorry, but (then) you still need to identify what functions the bulk of the neurological structures of the brain are accomplishing, if it isn't enabling this interactional interface." Whatever these so far unidentified functions are, they must be very important since they are so metabolically costly. And I add that the only other function for this vastly complex system that comes to mind would presumably be to actually generate consciousness, which explanation we apparently agree is an untenable materialist reductionist position.

In the absence of an adequate response to this issue I can only suggest that it is perhaps a standoff where the preponderance of physical evidence points to my position, and (perhaps), basic physical thermodynamical theory claims such an interactional mechanism is impossible. I could only suggest that there may be only two outcomes on this issue: either somehow the neurophysiological data is false (that seems impossible since it is based on countless research studies covering fmri scanning, observed effects of various diseases, and many other types of research), or there somehow is a special case exception to the thermodynamic considerations in the special case of spirit embodiment. After all, we have no sure knowledge of what "laws" govern the spiritual realm, but we do know for sure that that it exists from the extensive evidence of many kinds of paranormal phenomena.

Also, there is no response to my observations regarding my presented 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.m

I will respond to you in a bit.

Absolutely. I'm definitely not arguing against the continuity of consciousness. This is all about whether there is evidence and even allowability in known physics for a non-physical substance that can interact with the brain at the neurophysical level.

Ah my comment was more about the insistence than the evidence points to some kind of interaction between distinct substances.

Though I am still not sure what a "physical" substance is....

Wouldn’t that entail that the other reality is also a physical system?

In any case, I believe we agree that the interactions of consciousness with the physical substance is likely to intersect with the mysteries of quantum mechanics.

I think this discussion is getting rather more tenuous! To me, there are a number of important points.

1) There isn't really a difference between Dualism and a Monism of some sort. both involve a mental component of some sort, and therefore we have to face the need for a mental -physical interaction.

2) Another way of looking at this is that either the brain inolves according to reasonably established physical laws - in which case the concept of Monism degenerates into Materialism, or it interacts with a mental component - in which case you have Dualism.

3) The interaction may well use Stapp's method - my gut instinct is that QM and consciousness are intimately connected - just as many of the pioneers of QM suspected.

4) Given Dualism, a lot of evidence falls into place - in particular NDE's OBE's, deathbed phenomena, etc. The book "Irreducible Mind" adds even more evidence collected by professionals - you should read it if you haven't already.

5) Every conceptual advance in science should be considered to be tentative for a long period of time. The important thing should be that the tentative advance makes it possible to classify/explain a lot of phenomena that otherwise have to be explained away in an ad-hoc way.

6) Do you still claim there is a fundamental difference between Dualism and a Neutral Monism?

David

I think this discussion is getting rather more tenuous! To me, there are a number of important points.

1)    There isn't really a difference between Dualism and a Monism of some sort. both involve a mental component of some sort, and therefore we have to face the need for a mental -physical interaction.

2)    Another way of looking at this is that either the brain inolves according to reasonably established physical laws - in which case the concept of Monism degenerates into Materialism, or it interacts with a mental component - in which case you have Dualism.

3)    The interaction may well use Stapp's method - my gut instinct is that QM and consciousness are intimately connected - just as many of the pioneers of QM suspected.

4)    Given Dualism, a lot of evidence falls into place - in particular NDE's OBE's, deathbed phenomena, etc. The book "Irreducible Mind" adds even more evidence collected by professionals - you should read it if you haven't already.

5)    Every conceptual advance in science should be considered to be tentative for a long period of time. The important thing should be that the tentative advance makes it possible to classify/explain a lot of phenomena that otherwise have to be explained away in an ad-hoc way.

6)    Do you still claim there is a fundamental difference between Dualism and a Neutral Monism?

David

I would [partially] agree with #1. Survival obviously necessitates the continuity of consciousness beyond the body.

Regarding #2, one could simply note that the "physical" is itself of the same "stuff" as the mental. This might mean Idealism is true or there is some kind of Neutral Monism. As you note it's the "laws" that make the difference, though every entity in a video game could have different rules but ultimately the underlying "stuff" of the computer is the same.

Regarding #3, I agree there is likely *some* connection between QM and Consciousness. However this could simply be the character of the "stuff" which makes up the "physical" reveals its more mental-like aspects at the QM level. It doesn't necessitate interaction between two substances.

Regarding #4, I would agree there's a Functional Dualism. But keep in mind Edward Kelly, who is one of the key authors of Irreducible Mind, is now an Idealist.

Regarding #5, the challenge I see for Dualism is to many it *is* in fact an ad-hoc way of trying to explain the relationship between the mental and physical.

Regarding #6....I think this can be a big difference. Under Dualism the study of the "physical" is distinct from the "mental", leaving many questions about not only the interactions between the brain/body and consciousness but additionally a variety of cases in the paranormal literature. Even an NDE becomes complicated to explain, because somehow the NDEr is seeing their physical body with mental "eyes"...but all sensory input is a sign of causal continuity which suggests at the very least overlapping substances if not a Monism.

I can only repeat my challenge, which you have not yet engaged with: "Sorry, but (then) you still need to identify what functions the bulk of the neurological structures of the brain are accomplishing, if it isn't enabling this interactional interface." Whatever these so far unidentified functions are, they must be very important since they are so metabolically costly. And I add that the only other function for this vastly complex system that comes to mind would presumably be to actually generate consciousness, which explanation we apparently agree is an untenable materialist reductionist position.

In the absence of an adequate response to this issue I can only suggest that it is perhaps a standoff where the preponderance of physical evidence points to my position, and (perhaps), basic physical thermodynamical theory claims such an interactional mechanism is impossible. I could only suggest that there may be only two outcomes on this issue: either somehow the neurophysiological data is false (that seems impossible since it is based on countless research studies covering fmri scanning, observed effects of various diseases, and many other types of research), or there somehow is a special case exception to the thermodynamic considerations in the special case of spirit embodiment. After all, we have no sure knowledge of what "laws" govern the spiritual realm, but we do know for sure that that it exists from the extensive evidence of many kinds of paranormal phenomena.

Also, there is no response to my observations regarding my presented 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.m

As you suggest, perhaps we should allow the debate regarding neurophysical transmission to a non-physical substance to reach a standoff. I have presented my arguments primarily from the perspective of physics, while you have offered yours mainly from the standpoint of neuroscience. I am not well-versed in neuroscience and would prefer not to engage in a discussion about the evolutionary purpose of various brain structures.

I would [partially] agree with #1. Survival obviously necessitates the continuity of consciousness beyond the body.

Regarding #2, one could simply note that the "physical" is itself of the same "stuff" as the mental. This might mean Idealism is true or there is some kind of Neutral Monism. As you note it's the "laws" that make the difference, though every entity in a video game could have different rules but ultimately the underlying "stuff" of the computer is the same.

Regarding #3, I agree there is likely *some* connection between QM and Consciousness. However this could simply be the character of the "stuff" which makes up the "physical" reveals its more mental-like aspects at the QM level. It doesn't necessitate interaction between two substances.

Regarding #4, I would agree there's a Functional Dualism. But keep in mind Edward Kelly, who is one of the key authors of Irreducible Mind, is now an Idealist.

Regarding #5, the challenge I see for Dualism is to many it *is* in fact an ad-hoc way of trying to explain the relationship between the mental and physical.

Regarding #6....I think this can be a big difference. Under Dualism the study of the "physical" is distinct from the "mental", leaving many questions about not only the interactions between the brain/body and consciousness but additionally a variety of cases in the paranormal literature. Even an NDE becomes complicated to explain, because somehow the NDEr is seeing their physical body with mental "eyes"...but all sensory input is a sign of causal continuity which suggests at the very least overlapping substances if not a Monism.

Maybe we are finally seeing eye to eye!

Remember that I have said a number of times that Idealism may well be the ultimate explanation for reality, but I don't think science is ready for it yet. A theory which is too abstract (or hard to calculate with) is useless - just as GR would have been a useless theory in the time of Newton. Adopting Dualism would be a stepping stone to Idealism - or to whatever else emeges. At the moment science is going nowhere much regarding the fundamental nature of consciousness.

Used crudely, Idealism could re-create the thought framework of the Middle Ages, where God could cause anything to happen, simply by willing it.

Don't worry about Dualism being ad-hoc idea (not that it is only ad-hoc to a Materialist), QM must have seemed massively ad-hoc when Plank came up with it. Gradually science came to realise that the graininess of QM came from the fact that Shroedinger's equation had discrete eigenvalues if you wanted time-independent solutions - i.e. what was ad-hoc gradually merged into a much grander scheme.

David

I would [partially] agree with #1. Survival obviously necessitates the continuity of consciousness beyond the body.

Regarding #2, one could simply note that the "physical" is itself of the same "stuff" as the mental. This might mean Idealism is true or there is some kind of Neutral Monism. As you note it's the "laws" that make the difference, though every entity in a video game could have different rules but ultimately the underlying "stuff" of the computer is the same.

Regarding #3, I agree there is likely *some* connection between QM and Consciousness. However this could simply be the character of the "stuff" which makes up the "physical" reveals its more mental-like aspects at the QM level. It doesn't necessitate interaction between two substances.

Regarding #4, I would agree there's a Functional Dualism. But keep in mind Edward Kelly, who is one of the key authors of Irreducible Mind, is now an Idealist.

Regarding #5, the challenge I see for Dualism is to many it *is* in fact an ad-hoc way of trying to explain the relationship between the mental and physical.

Regarding #6....I think this can be a big difference. Under Dualism the study of the "physical" is distinct from the "mental", leaving many questions about not only the interactions between the brain/body and consciousness but additionally a variety of cases in the paranormal literature. Even an NDE becomes complicated to explain, because somehow the NDEr is seeing their physical body with mental "eyes"...but all sensory input is a sign of causal continuity which suggests at the very least overlapping substances if not a Monism.

I don't think NDEs become complicated to explain under Dualism because of complicated interactions. 

As I have noted before, since it is very unlikely that during an NDE OBE the NDRr actually materializes a functional eyeball and associated neurological system to intercept the visible light in the vicinity (which floating eyeball of course would be observable by normal physical persons in the vicinity, hovering over the body of the NDEr for instance. Absurd. So no physical causal continuity since the NDEr spirit would be perceiving the scene using his/her higher faculties of ESP to directly psychically sense the scene with no physical interaction, and automatically translating this psychic perception into the physical visual format the NDEr has been
accustomed to over a lifetime.

I don't think NDEs become complicated to explain under Dualism because of complicated interactions. 

As I have noted before, since it is very unlikely that during an NDE OBE the NDRr actually materializes a functional eyeball and associated neurological system to intercept the visible light in the vicinity (which floating eyeball of course would be observable by normal physical persons in the vicinity, hovering over the body of the NDEr for instance. Absurd. So no physical causal continuity since the NDEr spirit would be perceiving the scene using his/her higher faculties of ESP to directly psychically sense the scene with no physical interaction, and automatically translating this psychic perception into the physical visual format the NDEr has been
accustomed to over a lifetime.

ESP would still entail causal continuity? For something to be perceived it must interact with the one perceiving.

6)    Do you still claim there is a fundamental difference between Dualism and a Neutral Monism?

David

I think the differences are pretty fundamental:

Substance Dualism asserts the existence of two fundamentally different kinds of substance: mental (mind) and physical (body), suggesting a clear division between mind and matter, where the mind is non-physical and operates independently of physical laws.
Neutral Monism proposes that both the mental and physical worlds stem from a single, fundamental, and neutral substance, which is neither purely mental nor purely physical, thus rejecting the dualistic separation and seeking a more unified understanding of mind and matter.

I personally don't believe that we, as human beings, are composed of anything beyond our physical bodies. When we are born, we are not truly conscious. Consciousness emerges during the first two years of life. I think if we had an external soul, we would exhibit higher levels of consciousness from infancy. I also believe that people waking up from a persistent vegetative state would report experiences from the spiritual world, had they possessed an external soul detached from the physical body.

We can, of course, still hope for a greater meaning of things, along with the promise of an afterlife. In my opinion, this position requires a significant amount of faith in that greater meaning.