Some defence of substance dualism

Just my usual arguments I've laid out before:

- It's incredibly unclear what the "physical" is supposed to be. Physics captures the relational data, but does not give us an accounting of "essence" - what things are. And so the "physical" is then just data and mathematics, the first of which is a collection of conscious observations and the latter a collection of mental objects buttressed by logic which again is mental.

- PK, and arguably even other forms of Psi, demand causal continuity of some sort between the "physical" and the "spiritual". The fact the OOBEr can see and be seen (and sometimes even felt) also means there is a causal chain moving between the spiritual and physical levels.

- Ectoplasm suggests there is actually a continuity of substance, just in different "states".

- The varied Deep Weird cases, whether of spirits or "ultra-terrestrials" also suggests the physical "stuff" is not lawful in the way physics claims it is.

- Even when Survival evidence discusses other realities, those realities have some "physical" aspects - namely extension in space - that Descartes felt was a key attribute of the physical world. However spatial extension is tied in with our experience of the world, so it isn't even clear how one makes the proper division between that which is "physical" and that which is mental or spiritual.

- If Dualists are going to insist that the interaction between Mind and Matter happens at the quantum level, they are still positing causal continuity. At which point we have to ask, in line with all the aforementioned points, why does the QM level of matter allow for causal interaction but the classical level does not?

Of course there is the functional, observed dualism that we have a body that becomes a corpse but until then serves as our vehicle in this world. But this is not a dualism of substances, because ultimately it seems there is one primordial substance that makes up Everything. The alternative, IMO, would not be Dualism but Pluralism where you have many substances that have some overlapping causal continuity but I think this invites a lot of needless complexity for questionable gain.

 I agree that there seems to be some limited sort of causal continuity between some psychical or paranormal phenomena and the physical, with the one huge not limited case - the interactional brain/immaterial mind interface that implements mind/spirit embodiment, but for the vast majority of interfaces in ordinary life there is stark discontinuity. Just look at the Hard Problem, which recognizes that all conscious mental phenomena including awareness, thought, emotion, subjective awareness, qualia and so on are completely and fundamentally immaterial and in an entirely different existential category or realm than the physical. Just try to weigh or measure the physical extension of a thought for instance. This is non-interactive dualism to the extreme in this particular arena, which governs much of life.

However, a de facto interactive dualism governs the major phenomenon of mental/spirit embodiment in the world of conscious human persons living in the physical, and also the relatively infrequent paranormal phenomena. Paranormal phenomena that are demonstrably and evidentially governed by interactive dualism include NDEs and reincarnation type cases.

So it is a complicated, messy sort of overall picture, but isn't that what reality and the way it works in the real world usually turn out to be? Part of this complication is that it is probably the case that at the most basic underlying level everything is some sort of "mind stuff', but the problem with this is that this is more of an academic philosophical understanding without much in the way of practical effect on our lives. The world at the macro level of living behaves very much as if it is mostly governed by some form of non-interactive dualism, but with the very major exception of the brain interaction mechanism behind embodiment, along with numerous minor paranormal exceptions. The existence of quantum mechanics governing the world of the atomic and subatomic (and therefore drastically affecting and enabling the physical) adds great further complication to this overall picture.

In terms of the metaphysical foundations of such a complicated metaphysics, I looks to me that that must be messy. This messiness would be explained by the notion that "the powers that be" (higher creative intelligence(s) that originally designed our reality) deliberately set up a complicated system this way involving many exceptions to rules, because the diverse array of design requirements necessitated numerous tradeoffs where implementation of two or more of the requirements inevitably interfered with each other and forced adoption of many exceptions to the original rules or requirements. The primary design requirement was to enable the existence of a world of imperfect but promising conscious beings such as ourselves.

The existence of such greatly creative higher intelligence(s) that set up our reality in the beginning is in my opinion amply established by the evidences furnished by the clear existence of the exceedingly fine tuning of the natural laws of physics for the existence of life as we know it, by the many instances of fine tuning of supposedly random circumstances of our planet Earth that fostered the development of conscious human beings with our technology and science, and last but not least the evidence for the intelligent design behind evolution which invalidates orthodox neo-Darwinism. All these diverse elements tie together in a bigger picture.

To be fair a scientist caught performing fraud is likely to have their career severely diminished to outright ruined?

I wouldn't be too sure about that if it can be kept secret. Universities seem reluctant to admit that such things have happened in their establishment.

David

The existence of such greatly creative higher intelligence(s) that set up our reality in the beginning is in my opinion amply established by the evidences furnished by the clear existence of the exceedingly fine tuning of the natural laws of physics for the existence of life as we know it, by the many instances of fine tuning of supposedly random circumstances of our planet Earth that fostered the development of conscious human beings with our technology and science, and last but not least the evidence for the intelligent design behind evolution which invalidates orthodox neo-Darwinism. All these diverse elements tie together in a bigger picture.

I'm not sure I accept that argument. If we live in a Dualistic world, I think the 'true' laws of physics would be radically different, but would approximate the laws we know at normal temperatures, pressures, etc.

For example the lucky coincidence of nuclear physics that supposedly gave rise to a carbon-rich universe relates to the physics of stellar interiors, which is very far removed from normal temperatures and pressures!

David

I agree that there seems to be some limited sort of causal continuity between some psychical or paranormal phenomena and the physical, with the one huge not limited case - the interactional brain/immaterial mind interface that implements mind/spirit embodiment, but for the vast majority of interfaces in ordinary life there is stark discontinuity. Just look at the Hard Problem, which recognizes that all conscious mental phenomena including awareness, thought, emotion, subjective awareness, qualia and so on are completely and fundamentally immaterial and in an entirely different existential category or realm than the physical. Just try to weigh or measure the physical extension of a thought for instance. This is non-interactive dualism to the extreme in this particular arena, which governs much of life.

The Hard Problem is noting the difficulty in describing the qualitative 1st Person PoV in terms of the quantitative 3rd Person PoV.

Chalmers, to my knowledge, never says that the solution *must* be Dualism. He has made arguments in favor of Dualism, but even there IIRC he speaks of Property Dualism which doesn't give us an immortal soul.

That being said, I do agree that to some extent aspects of mind do seem to suggest an immaterial self. Qualia are intimately tied to reasoning and thinking, and reasoning & thinking involve Universals. Thoughts are also intrinsically about their subject, whereas physically things can represent multiple things. A thought of a tree is intrinsically about that tree, whereas even a real tree can stand for whatever mind(s) decide they represent. 

However none of this shows Substance Dualism is true, just that there is a good reason to think minds are not merely the "stuff" of physical or even corporeal type.

However, a de facto interactive dualism governs the major phenomenon of mental/spirit embodiment in the world of conscious human persons living in the physical, and also the relatively infrequent paranormal phenomena. Paranormal phenomena that are demonstrably and evidentially governed by interactive dualism include NDEs and reincarnation type cases.

If you mean the mind survives the death of the physical body, then yeah I'd agree that this dualism exists. I don't believe this requires a division of substances however.

So it is a complicated, messy sort of overall picture, but isn't that what reality and the way it works in the real world usually turn out to be? Part of this complication is that it is probably the case that at the most basic underlying level everything is some sort of "mind stuff', but the problem with this is that this is more of an academic philosophical understanding without much in the way of practical effect on our lives. The world at the macro level of living behaves very much as if it is mostly governed by some form of non-interactive dualism, but with the very major exception of the brain interaction mechanism behind embodiment, along with numerous minor paranormal exceptions. The existence of quantum mechanics governing the world of the atomic and subatomic (and therefore drastically affecting and enabling the physical) adds great further complication to this overall picture.

We seem to agree here that there are levels. There is a level at which the spirit/psyche/mind is distinct from the body, but there is some underlying level.

I actually, however, don't think the underlying level is just "mind stuff"...As much as it's academic suicide to say it's "spirit stuff" I feel this is probably the most accurate term that still doesn't capture whatever the Primordial Substance is.

In terms of the metaphysical foundations of such a complicated metaphysics, I looks to me that that must be messy. This messiness would be explained by the notion that "the powers that be" (higher creative intelligence(s) that originally designed our reality) deliberately set up a complicated system this way involving many exceptions to rules, because the diverse array of design requirements necessitated numerous tradeoffs where implementation of two or more of the requirements inevitably interfered with each other and forced adoption of many exceptions to the original rules or requirements. The primary design requirement was to enable the existence of a world of imperfect but promising conscious beings such as ourselves.

The existence of such greatly creative higher intelligence(s) that set up our reality in the beginning is in my opinion amply established by the evidences furnished by the clear existence of the exceedingly fine tuning of the natural laws of physics for the existence of life as we know it, by the many instances of fine tuning of supposedly random circumstances of our planet Earth that fostered the development of conscious human beings with our technology and science, and last but not least the evidence for the intelligent design behind evolution which invalidates orthodox neo-Darwinism. All these diverse elements tie together in a bigger picture.

I would agree with some of this, though I am more doubtful on how creative and higher-than-us the Designers are. They seem to have been quite limited given the vast amount of what seems like "filler" our universe consists of. There's also the varied issues with biology, which seems to require a vast amount of suffering to produce forms that themselves are vulnerable to all sorts of illnesses.

Beyond that it seems like this world is itself quite strange even in its supposedly mundane aspects, and then stranger still when one notes the variety of Deep Weird cases that occur.

And there is the curious question of why do [we] incarnate into bodies that doesn't have a good answer. The world is not a school AFAICTell, but it also doesn't seem like a prison necessarily. Perhaps the designers left, or died themselves within the higher frame "above" this universe?

I'm not sure I accept that argument. If we live in a Dualistic world, I think the 'true' laws of physics would be radically different, but would approximate the laws we know at normal temperatures, pressures, etc.

For example the lucky coincidence of nuclear physics that supposedly gave rise to a carbon-rich universe relates to the physics of stellar interiors, which is very far removed from normal temperatures and pressures!

David

I don't think this is a partial refutation of fine tuning - it's just an observation of the complication and sophistication of the nature of the evident fine tuning. It doesn't matter to what probably great extent the fine tuning probably necessarily involved tinkering with or computing in the interdependence of many diverse other elements of the physics laws - what matters is the end result which is I think clearly way beyond randomness.

Beyond that it seems like this world is itself quite strange even in its supposedly mundane aspects, and then stranger still when one notes the variety of Deep Weird cases that occur.

I wonder if some of those Deep Weird cases represent slimpses of the real reality beneath what we tihin we see.

I don't think this is a partial refutation of fine tuning - it's just an observation of the complication and sophistication of the nature of the evident fine tuning. It doesn't matter to what probably great extent the fine tuning probably necessarily involved tinkering with or computing in the interdependence of many diverse other elements of the physics laws - what matters is the end result which is I think clearly way beyond randomness.

I am increasingly struck by how physics has endlessly explained things by expanding the scales of time, space, energy/mass, etc over which it operates.

For example, think for a moment about Halton Arp, a former student of Hubble, who provided some interesting evidence that some (maybe all) quasars are not what they seem to be because they are associated with nearby galaxies. This has to be purely statistical, or the large red shifts are generated in some other way than the doppler shift. Halton Arp reckoned he had good evidence that this relation could not be explained statistically.

If he was right (he died in 2012) then the scale of the universe would shrink by a huge factor, and there would be no way to determine large astronomical distances because 'Hubble's law' could not be used!

Likewise the concept of the Big Bang seems to depend on some rather dodgy concepts such as the supposed early inflationary phase of the universe.

I suspect that the true picture of the universe may start to look more human-sized.

The fact that galaxies (including our own) do not rotate according to the Newtonian/Einsteinian law without the introduction of arbitrary amounts of 'dark matter' suggests to me that GR is basically wrong!

I suspect the probability that carbon can exist in the universe, may look quite different when all of this is corrected!

OK, I know I am very cynical.

David

The fact that galaxies (including our own) do not rotate according to the Newtonian/Einsteinian law without the introduction of arbitrary amounts of 'dark matter' suggests to me that GR is basically wrong!

OK, I know I am very cynical.

I don’t think you are cynical. I suspect you are deliberately misleading for reasons I don’t fully understand.

With your scientific education, you know well enough that any scientific theory is a model. A model may work within certain constraints and still fail to work outside those constraints. General Relativity (GR) fits extremely well with all experimental observations available 100 years ago, while Newtonian gravity worked for all observations 400 years ago.

Does that mean they are “basically” wrong? Of course not. Without GR corrections, the GPS system would not work. So GR is very much an accurate model of gravity on scales from just above the Planck Length up to at least the solar system.

I don’t think you are cynical. I think you are deliberately misleading for reasons I don’t fully understand.

I emphatically do not want to be deliberately misleading.

With your scientific education, you know well enough that any scientific theory is a model. A model may work within certain constraints and still fail to work outside those constraints. General Relativity (GR) fits extremely well with all experimental observations available 100 years ago, while Newtonian gravity worked for all observations 400 years ago.

Does that mean they are “basically” wrong? Of course not. Without GR corrections, the GPS system would not work. So GR is very much an accurate model of gravity on scales from just above the Planck Length up to at least the solar system.

The problem is that GR isn't the only theory that would correct the precession of the orbit of mercury. I don't know if that would account for the GPS issue. I have seen it pointed out that GPS works as a result of various corrections,some of them totally ad-hoc, because the main concern was to make it work. GR also comes with a completely new understanding of space-time.

However, when you look at a galaxy with structures - such as the spiral structure of our galaxy, NG/GR would definitely predict such structure to be wiped out after just one rotation - just as the planets do not rotate about the sun in a way that preserves any structure.

I think trying to fix that anomaly by introducing dark matter is particularly bizarre as the distribution of dark matter would have to be carefully adjusted in order to make the spiral structure stable.

Another area where modern science seems to have gone astray, can be seen in the following sequence:

1) There were suggestions from scattering that these particles might be composite.

2) Theory suggested that they might decompose into quarks with fractional charge.

3) Particles with fractional charge would have been an amazing discovery and a serious search was made for such particles. Since charge is conserved it would have been possible to detect particles containing a quark with a simple Millikan -type experiment. I wonder what technological spinoffs this would have led to!

4) In the end someone came up with the suggestion that quarks are always confined and cannot be spotted as single objects.

5) A huge theoretical structure - the standard model - has been built out of the 'existence' of quarks.


Is this the way science should be done? It seems to me that the lure of quarks and the sophisticated mathematical models that could represent them should have come after they had been shown experimentally to exist.

As it is, I think many people assume quarks to be experimental facts, when they are not.

I am cynical about science, and I very much doubt whether it can be relied on to make predictions in circumstances that cannot be directly explored experimentally.

Yes, theories are just models, but certain scientists are very keen to forget that, and for example report confidently on what happened 10^(-10) seconds after the Big Bang!

If Dualism is a valid way to look at the world, then there has to be some way to describe the interaction between mind and matter. If that is discovered, it may well change structure of physics in some profound ways.

David

I wonder if some of those Deep Weird cases represent slimpses of the real reality beneath what we tihin we see.

I am increasingly struck by how physics has endlessly explained things by expanding the scales of time, space, energy/mass, etc over which it operates.

For example, think for a moment about Halton Arp, a former student of Hubble, who provided some interesting evidence that some (maybe all) quasars are not what they seem to be because they are associated with nearby galaxies.  This has to be purely statistical, or the large red shifts are generated in some other way than the doppler shift. Halton Arp reckoned he had good evidence that this relation could not be explained statistically.

If he was right (he died in 2012) then the scale of the universe would shrink by a huge factor, and there would be no way to determine large astronomical distances because 'Hubble's law' could not be used!

Likewise the concept of the Big Bang seems to depend on some rather dodgy concepts such as the supposed early inflationary phase of the universe.

I suspect that the true picture of the universe may start to look more human-sized.

The fact that galaxies (including our own) do not rotate according to the Newtonian/Einsteinian law without the introduction of arbitrary amounts of 'dark matter' suggests to me that GR is basically wrong!

I suspect the probability that carbon can exist in the universe, may look quite different when all of this is corrected!

OK, I know I am very cynical.

David

 I guess I don't see how all this refutes in any way the evident fine tuning of the laws of physics for the existence of life as we know it. If some of these laws need to be revised the fine tuning still exists since we and our planet still are here, and the likelihood of this fine tuning being due to just chance remains virtually nil.

 I guess I don't see how all this refutes in any way the evident fine tuning of the laws of physics for the existence of life as we know it. If some of these laws need to be revised the fine tuning still exists since we and our planet still are here, and the likelihood of this fine tuning being due to just chance remains virtually nil.

I take your point, but if the scientific story - or scientific model, as sbu puts it - only conforms with reality under a very limited range of conditions, then perhaps it can't tell us about the origin of carbon in nuclear reactions in stars (for example). Perhaps in the true model of reality the universe simply began with certain percentages of carbon and the other elements!

I am saying, "What if we know far less about the universe than we think we know?". Maybe life, which obviously needs carbon, can conjure carbon up in some mysterious way. I mean if psi has been around for billions of years, who knows what it might have achieved using its coupling to a spirit world implied by Dualism!

Of course, maybe we should re-label that process as a form of fine tuning!

David