The Problem of Seth's Origin: A Case Study...

NM sets up the step to differentiate informational processes being a separate pathway of causality than physics.  In this way each can be a separate reductive methodology to describe real world events.  However, in my view, They are too intertwined to be "neutral".  Dualism seems not quite right, because it also has a limit.  Dualism can replace monisms of various styles - but why only 2 domains of generative activity?  I think there is more than two.

How do you see these different domains interacting?

Just for clarification, IMO there is a functional/observed dualism that we see in the varied cases suggestive of survival. The personality often seems to have a "spirit" body, or at least a perspective, free from the physical body.

At a fundamental level, I do think whatever makes up the material universe is the same "stuff" as whatever makes up the spiritual realms. I just don't think fundamentally different types of "stuff" can interact unless Someone like God is coordinating the cause/effect from correlations...but then I'd say the fundamental level is God and "God-stuff"...though I also think all causation, even within the realm of the same "stuff", is ultimately mental causation...

Hopefully whatever the truth of the "isms" we'll all cheerfully debate it in the next life...

"Your time has come - So tell us truthfully before you go, what sort of paradise do you expect to discover when you have passed through the veil?"

"In Paradise, the words worship and argument mean the same thing - The Almighty is not a tyrant. In the House of God all voices are free to speak as they choose, and that is the form of their devotion."
  -Salman Rushdie, Enchantress of Florence

I do find it odd to see the argument that idealism is all theoretical as though materialism or dualism or anything in between (pansychism, panentheism, all the other isms) is anything other than theoretical. How can you prove that the flag is still there if there is no observer? You just can't. It seems obvious to you because you are conditioned to think that way but you can't prove it. 

To me, it seems obvious that the mind is both the observer and the observed and that the separation of the two is an illusion. It may be a necessary illusion for the sake of evolving consciousness, but it is all one mind.

Evidence from psychical research clearly suggests that discarnate spirits exist and they are still individuals.

Observation of nature clearly shows that there is a plurality of individual minds instead of one mind.

One mind theories are not supported by evidence and they are also illogical.

At a fundamental level, I do think whatever makes up the material universe is the same "stuff" as whatever makes up the spiritual realms. I just don't think fundamentally different types of "stuff" can interact unless Someone like God is coordinating the cause/effect from correlations...but then I'd say the fundamental level is God and "God-stuff"...though I also think all causation, even within the realm of the same "stuff", is ultimately mental causation...

I think we are not so far apart on this, Sci. I've previously concluded that dualism seems to work for all practical purposes - at least in this universe - but that ultimately, fundamentally, there is only one stuff and that stuff is mind.

Evidence from psychical research clearly suggests that discarnate spirits exist and they are still individuals.

Observation of nature clearly shows that there is a plurality of individual minds instead of one mind.

One mind theories are not supported by evidence and they are also illogical.

Firstly I think you have read a different meaning into what I had to say on these matters. In an earlier post I said this:

The individual is uniquely valid while, at the same time, being a constituent part of the whole. I am at once a self and God (as are you, of course).

Whether these theories are illogical is your opinion but you make it an assertion in the same way that materialists assert that there is no evidence for psychic phenomena. I would suggest that there is an understandable fear of losing identity if it is suggested that the individual will be subsumed into some universal single mind. That thought triggers the same fears in me. But I don't think it works that way.

As this is a thread about Seth, I will point out that the book Seth Speaks is an explanation of this issue. The sub-title to the book is "The Eternal Validity of the Soul". Seth maintains that the individual soul not only persists but continues to evolve in spirit. There is no dissipation of self as we are inclined to think of it. But that does not mean that the individual is somehow separate from the whole. The experience of the individual adds to the experience of the whole because it was never really separate. I am not separate from God right now yet I feel and operate as an individual. I don't feel subsumed. I feel like I have free will and I believe that I do. That, by the way, is the basis of my answer to the argument from evil (i.e. what kind of god would allow such suffering?) ... I would argue that we have unfettered free will and personal responsibility.

As this is a thread about Seth, I will point out that the book Seth Speaks is an explanation of this issue. The sub-title to the book is "The Eternal Validity of the Soul". Seth maintains that the individual soul not only persists but continues to evolve in spirit. There is no dissipation of self as we are inclined to think of it. But that does not mean that the individual is somehow separate from the whole. The experience of the individual adds to the experience of the whole because it was never really separate. I am not separate from God right now yet I feel and operate as an individual. I don't feel subsumed. I feel like I have free will and I believe that I do. That, by the way, is the basis of my answer to the argument from evil (i.e. what kind of god would allow such suffering?) ... I would argue that we have unfettered free will and personal responsibility.

Yeah I don't think Idealism, or even Non-Dualism, is necessarily incompatible with the I-Self existing as an transphysical person who lives on in the spiritual realms.

Idealism would just mean that everything is mental. That might mean there are only Subjects, each the center of its own reality, and the consensus is where they overlap. Donald Hoffman has something akin to that idea.

Or one could just say that once an alter of Mind@Large is created, it cannot be or will not be uncreated.

How do you see these different domains interacting?

"In Paradise, the words worship and argument mean the same thing - The Almighty is not a tyrant. In the House of God all voices are free to speak as they choose, and that is the form of their devotion."
  -Salman Rushdie, Enchantress of Florence

Describing the interaction is a large topic and maybe in this thread is not the right place.