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

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

What is being measured on the Mental side of Dualism? Is it the search for some gap the "physical" cannot explain?

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.

The research into consciousness of infants seems to be going further down the age level, possibly to the fetus...the latter having political import beyond the remit of this forum but nevertheless the research is there...

Also I think at least one person from a coma has reported an OBE with veridical elements? @tim might know. [Also I think @Ninshub posted something about this...]

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

To my knowledge, in all the research into clairvoyance and remote viewing and NDE OBE viewing there has been no hint of any detectable physical interaction with the physical scene. The NDEr can apparently pass through walls with absolute ease and no obstruction or interference from this solid matter. It seems that the ESP is directly sensing the physical configuration in space and time but without bouncing something off and processing the reflected bits to get an image.

The research into consciousness of infants seems to be going further down the age level, possibly to the fetus...the latter having political import beyond the remit of this forum but nevertheless the research is there...

How could we ever know if they are consciousnes when we can’t measure it or remember our own first years of life?

If we had external consciousness controlling our baby body I would expect we could remember it.

How could we ever know if they are consciousnes when we can’t measure it or remember our own first years of life?

If we had external consciousness controlling our baby body I would expect we could remember it.

People have claimed to remember their births, though AFAIK there hasn't been any verification of this.

As for the latter...not even sure why that should be expected if the external consciousness specifically wants to experience a human life. Though the past life cases are good enough that even Sam Harris admitted there is something there which needs more research...

To my knowledge, in all the research into clairvoyance and remote viewing and NDE OBE viewing there has been no hint of any detectable physical interaction with the physical scene. The NDEr can apparently pass through walls with absolute ease and no obstruction or interference from this solid matter. It seems that the ESP is directly sensing the physical configuration in space and time but without bouncing something off and processing the reflected bits to get an image.

It doesn't need to be measured "physically", it is just logically the case that to perceive means getting some information from what is perceived.

To me the answer lies in recognizing the "physical" is just one, arguably limited, aspect of the Monism.

People have claimed to remember their births, though AFAIK there hasn't been any verification of this.

Having spent time with several newborns, including my own, I've noticed that humans are initially born with a basic level of consciousness. This includes rudimentary abilities like a newborn's capacity to recognize their parents after a few months. As they reach the age of 2, children begin to form episodic memories, marking the start of a more complex development of consciousness that continues to mature in tandem with their physical growth into adulthood.

As for the latter...not even sure why that should be expected if the external consciousness specifically wants to experience a human life.

I think we are well into fiction here. Why not suggest we really are trapped iin the matrix. It’s more exciting.

Having spent time with several newborns, including my own, I've noticed that humans are initially born with a basic level of consciousness. This includes rudimentary abilities like a newborn's capacity to recognize their parents after a few months. As they reach the age of 2, children begin to form episodic memories, marking the start of a more complex development of consciousness that continues to mature in tandem with their physical growth into adulthood.

I would agree, it is very unclear to me when people say babies don't have consciousness. This frankly seems to be more politics based, but there is more work being done on infant and even fetal consciousness so we'll see where the results lie.

I think we are well into fiction here. Why not suggest we in the matrix?

Because the Simulation Hypothesis doesn't have the level of Survival evidence?

Fiction in these discussions, to me, is when something is just not possible. The Materialist faith is a good example.

Fiction in these discussions, to me, is when something is just not possible. The Materialist faith is a good example.

That's a fair definition. However, it opens up a broad scope of ideas to explore. I would argue that one could devise a simulation hypothesis that aligns with evidence of survival.

That's a fair definition. However, it opens up a broad scope of ideas to explore. I would argue that one could devise a simulation hypothesis that aligns with evidence of survival.

Sure, there already is a Dualist Simulation Hypothesis.

The challenge for any Simulation Hypothesis, and arguably Idealism as its Consciousness-Only variant, is that you can provide explanations for pretty much every encountered aspect of reality.

When a theory can explain away anything one has to wonder about how good a theory it is. 

I think the best theories take evidence seriously, with some logical guidance. To me the best theories seem to be some kind of Monism, and this holds whether or not one is considering the paranormal. 

Idealism falters because it doesn't really give us a good accounting for why there is a brain, plus it seems to ignore the "for-ness" of consciousness and tries to make it substance on its own. Materialism/Physicalism fails because it's not clear what the "physical" is outside conscious perception or why we should assume consciousness is illusory+reducible.

Neutral Monism, as a broad term with many possibilities, seems to be the right track...