Psi and the Problem of Consciousness

[Laird]

Courtesy of the SPR Facebook page is Psi and the Problem of Consciousness by George Williams, published in The Journal of Mind and Behavior in the Summer and Autumn 2013, Volume 34, Numbers 3 and 4 edition.

I haven't yet read it but it looks fascinating. Here's the abstract:

In this paper, I consider what the growing evidence in parapsychology can tell us about the
nature of consciousness. Parapsychology remains controversial because it implies deviations
from the understanding that many scientists and philosophers hold about the nature of
reality. However, given the difficulties in explaining consciousness, a growing number of
philosophers have called for new, possibly radical, explanations, which include versions of
dualism or panpsychism. In this spirit, I briefly review the evidence on psi to see what
explanation of consciousness might best be supported. After a brief survey of the evidence,
I conclude that the best explanation would probably be neutral monism. I then explore
a framework for neutral monism, using well-known features of quantum mechanics, to
develop a ground or bridge between consciousness and matter. This framework, which I
believe helps explain the psi evidence, suggests that a non-local proto-conscious field of
potential or seed stuff underlies both matter and consciousness.

This paper comes to the conclusion that neutral monism is the most reasonable explanation of the psi data in parapsychology. That is curious. Was "psi data" in this case only data documenting psi phenomena that has been developed by investigation in the laboratory, like telepathy, clairvoyance, and psychokinesis? This neutral monism conclusion looks as if it was arrived at by conveniently excluding from consideration a whole world of other paranormal phenomena that have much veridical evidence but which can't be investigated in the laboratory. These areas include NDEs, reincarnation memories of small children, and mediumistic communications. These phenomena can better be fitted into an interactive dualism theory of mind/matter, since they clearly point to the existence of a separate mobile spiritual center of consciousness that either can interact with the physical world via inhabiting the brain and body or inhabit spiritual realms. Apparently two separate substances. It is considerably harder to reconcile these phenomena with neutral monism.

[Laird]

This paper comes to the conclusion that neutral monism is the most reasonable explanation of the psi data in parapsychology. That is curious. Was "psi data" in this case only data documenting psi phenomena that has been developed by investigation in the laboratory, like telepathy, clairvoyance, and psychokinesis?

Having just now finished reading the paper, I can answer with confidence: yes.

This neutral monism conclusion looks as if it was arrived at by conveniently excluding from consideration a whole world of other paranormal phenomena that have much veridical evidence but which can't be investigated in the laboratory. These areas include NDEs, reincarnation memories of small children, and mediumistic communications. These phenomena can better be fitted into an interactive dualism theory of mind/matter, since they clearly point to the existence of a separate mobile spiritual center of consciousness that either can interact with the physical world via inhabiting the brain and body or inhabit spiritual realms. Apparently two separate substances. It is considerably harder to reconcile these phenomena with neutral monism.

A fair point.

I find it illuminating to consider that there is always(?) going to be a distinction between "consciousness as subjective experience" and "consciousness as that objective 'stuff' by and through which subjective experiences are had". The latter, it seems to me, is not in essence any different to "ordinary" matter - in the sense that it is a dynamic, structured, energetic "thing-ness" - other than that it supports / consists in subjective experience.

In this light, the two separate substances posited by interactive dualism need not be all that different from one another, and perhaps there are not even two distinct substances, but rather a gradation of one substance from "more conducive to conscious experience" to "less conducive to conscious experience". That's the paradigm I'm most amenable to at the moment, anyway. And, looked at in this way, the distinctions between dualism, idealism, and neutral monism can be somewhat dissolved.

In this light, the two separate substances posited by interactive dualism need not be all that different from one another, and perhaps there are not even two distinct substances, but rather a gradation of one substance from "more conducive to conscious experience" to "less conducive to conscious experience". That's the paradigm I'm most amenable to at the moment, anyway. And, looked at in this way, the distinctions between dualism, idealism, and neutral monism can be somewhat dissolved.

Yeah I believe this is the sort of thing at least some Buddhists believe. We should also consider our mind/matter divides are an aspect of our own time, neither the Scholastic Christians, Buddhists, nor Vedic philosophers would divide things in the same way.

Other cultures might also make less strict divides between object/external and subject/internal...