What is “dualism” and why is it controversial?

WJM, Lost a reply to a database error. Try something: >> I notice something in the above statement: apparently, you are saying that the credibility of our minds requires the existence of an actual, external material world. Do you not find anything suspect in that view?>> Our common experience so pervades our minds that if it is delusional, mindedness becomes grand delusion. >>Also, to reiterate, I’m not saying that the experience of the waking world is the same as a dream, any more than a dream is the same as imagination, or either of those things are the same as conscience/morality, or mathematics, or logic. There are many different kinds of mental experiences. Surely you don’t consider logic and morality comparable to dreams or imagination?>> Conscious, minded experiences. See above on the issue of delusion. KF kairosfocus

KF, I can't make out if there is an answer to either of my questions in #101 in your #102. Thanks for your time anyway. William J Murray

WJM, I am of course saying that we experience, perceive, act into and generally understand ourselves to inhabit a common space-time, causally connected physical world. One that exhibits properties familiar and subtle. One independent of OUR particular minds -- we are not projecting it, it was there before we were conceived or born and would have been there if we were never born. (The mind of God is utterly a different matter: in him we live, move and have our being, he upholds all things by his power and reason that orders and sustains reality as an ordered system.) If our common perception and understanding is fundamentally false to the actual state of affairs in reality, then a very large part of our perception and understanding would be delusional; and not just our physics, chemistry, biology etc, our whole commonplace experience goes poof. That undermines the credibility of mindedness when it comes to anything else, were that so. For if we are THAT delusional, there is little reason to trust anything else in our cognition, perception etc. Including when we propose logic model worlds and address structure and quantity, abstracta and relationships starting with say the naturals, reals and complex numbers. So, there is a valid comparison to a dream state vs an awake state. In the former, the perceived world is cast up by our interior life and often is radically diverse from the waking world we operate in. If the latter is part of a simulation cast up by our minds, then the perception of sharp difference and independence -- objectivity -- would be again a grand delusion. (Notice, how ever so many would argue that moral principles, laws of logic, schemes of math etc have no objectivity. I hold, we can have objective abstracta, even necessary being ones framework to any possible world.) If the matter is a simulation projected by the mind of God, then it would be independent of our minds. But we just made God into one of those clever Leibniz type demons who undetectably deludes us to imagine we inhabit a world of physical entities. That goes down some pretty serious lines starting with undermining the inherent goodness of God. Such a "god" would only be a powerful demon. I hold instead that God is inter alia inherently good and creator (including of the heavens and the earth), a necessary and maximally great being worthy of loyalty, love and reasonable, responsible service in light of our evident nature. I think the comparative difficulties issue tells on this case. There is nothing inherently evil or wrong or flawed with there being a physical world, especially one shaped to sustain soul-making. One in which we are amphibians capable of exploring, learning, growing, loving. Therefore, of responsible, rational freedom, creating a world of good. (And I am sure you can see the Plantinga side.) Going further for the moment, I wonder if the issue that the only minds we are directly aware of is our own would on a simulation model, would not then spiral down into a pernicious solipsism where we can identify the demon spinning the perception: oneself, the sole entity. And more, but again, I am extended on too many high intensity fronts to have energy just now to fully elaborate, I only sketch. KF kairosfocus

I appreciate the engagement, KF. At least you've given me some opportunity here to explore some things, even if time pressures on you mean I'm mostly doing it on my own. ;)

I cannot shake, that reducing the experienced waking world to a dream-like state ends in grand delusion and undermining of credibility of mind.

I understand the difficulty, but I notice something in the above statement: apparently, you are saying that the credibility of our minds requires the existence of an actual, external material world. Do you not find anything suspect in that view? Also, to reiterate, I'm not saying that the experience of the waking world is the same as a dream, any more than a dream is the same as imagination, or either of those things are the same as conscience/morality, or mathematics, or logic. There are many different kinds of mental experiences. Surely you don't consider logic and morality comparable to dreams or imagination? William J Murray

WJM, Yesterday, I had to deal with a local issue plus a thread that decided to go hot. Pity. This topic properly should run slowly and reflectively. What I will say is that I cannot shake the point that conscious self-aware experience is mental and that it communicates with just as much self-evidence that we experience embodied life in a common physical world. Instruments and analysis of that world have surprised us many times, in a fine grained manner, leading to the atomic-molecular and quantum picture. We also routinely distinguish dream and awake states. I cannot shake, that reducing the experienced waking world to a dream-like state ends in grand delusion and undermining of credibility of mind. KF kairosfocus

KF: Well, you repeating your talking points over and over isn't much of a conversation anyway. I was hoping for more vigorous debate on the subject, some significant criticism by which to better explore and examine this perspective. Since it's not worth your time, I'll look elsewhere :) William J Murray

WJM, it is a pity that so much is going on all at once, even just here at UD. I note, the issue turns on the ugly gulch Kantian question. We experience an inner life and through that life we experience also existence in an outer, physical world based on solids, liquids, gases etc. Indeed, our experience is that our embodied existence is in that world, and we find others as ourselves leading to the social world. These take up a huge part of our experience as conscious individuals. So now we see an intersection and a pervasion of the inner world. If that outer world is essentially a delusion, i.e. there is no outer world remotely like what we experience, then we are in the grips of grand delusion, utterly undercutting the minds that we now may be using to infer that claim of delusion. No, I am not saying that say the atomic-molecular-quantum picture coming from observations, instruments and reasoning is grossly wrong (I am implying that it shows us the how of the material world, e.g. contact forces when we sit in a chair, say, but that just gives us deeper insight on solidity etc). The Plato's world-like model implies grand delusion and discredits the very minds used to put up such. These discredit themselves through that self-referentiality. Instead, we need to find a way to accept unity and diversity in a coherent world, addressing the one and the many issue in its many facets. I cannot seriously deny my embodiment in a world that is based on atoms, molecules etc, and I cannot deny that I am a responsible, rational, conscious, self-aware, time-bound significantly free agent who therefore transcends GIGO-limited computational substrates (even those based on brains). I wish there was time for a more detailed exchange, maybe later; and the several local, regional and international streams of thought and action all demand some focus. KF kairosfocus

KF said:

Recall, I am speaking to the one and the many and recognise both our inner experiences and the outer world that we collectively experience. I can find no good reason to dispense with either.

You and I both know we can never experience any "outer" world. Plato's cave. And I'm not asking for anyone to "dispense" with any experience, only to re-categorize it arguendo. William J Murray

KF said:

If there is no actual world, all of this will be delusional, as will be the associated perceptions.

Note that in the above, you reference "actual" as synonymous with "material", which sets your foundation in materialist perspective. Then you reference "delusional" in exactly the manner I pointed out was a philosophical error wrt presuming, arguendo, a mind-based experiential existence.

That would utterly undermine credibility of mind.

Only when one's perspective is rooted in the materialist perspective. Unfortunate, since "credibility" can only be established in and by the mind, using purely mental categorizations, interpretations and principles. William J Murray

PS: Recall, I am speaking to the one and the many and recognise both our inner experiences and the outer world that we collectively experience. I can find no good reason to dispense with either. kairosfocus

WJM, I think it is a commonplace of the human story that we inhabit a physical world, now understood to work on quantum principles at micro level. This is based on a vast array of perceptions, experiences, interactions, discussions etc. If there is no actual world, all of this will be delusional, as will be the associated perceptions. That would utterly undermine credibility of mind. My point is essentially that of F H Bradley replying to the Kantians on the ugly gulch between the phenomenal world and that of things in themselves. KF kairosfocus

KF, But I'm not inferring a grand delusion. This is part of my point. The problem with that conceptual characterization is that its origins and are rooted in materialism. It is a materialist conceptualization of mind, not a mind-foundational conceptualization. The evidence and the logic are what they are, and they both support (to put it mildly) that we live in a mental experiential framework, not a "physical" one. We can either ignore the logic, evidence and the philosophical problems and insist that there is in fact an external, material world, or we can actually try to understand what it may mean to exist, rather, as experiencers of mental phenomena without an external, material reality. It's a difficult task because most are far too wedded (I'd say subconsciously) to the material framework for the job. There is a vast array of apparently consensual, predictable phenomena we experience. If we presume arguendo that this category of experience is still mental and is, indeed, highly consensual (and we cannot live as if it is not), all this means is that many or most of us are sharing mental experiences that are much or mostly the same as others. No actual, physical world is required for that kind of consensual experience. All it has to be is highly consistent throughout the minds of those who are sharing those experiences (which it would have to be anyway, even if we added an entire actual, material world). The idea that error exists is mental - fundamental logic. Logic is a mental phenomena, as real as any perception of an exterior, physical world - yet, logic is not found in that category of experience. It lies in another category of mental experience we know begins with self-evident truths - cannot be seen or touched, but only realized mentally. We assume everyone (or at least most people) have access to these real mental principles, as much as they have access to the consensual phenomena we call the physical world. The consensual nature of our shared expereinces rely as much on shared mental principles that we cannot see or touch as it does on the experience of "seeing and touching" in the mental category of the "physical world". There are many, many things that people experience that are easily explicable via this framework, but which are dismissed from the materialist perspective simply because those experiences are not more consensual. What does "delusion" mean in a mind-based framework? It cannot have the same meaning that it does from a material perspective. If potential for erroneous delusion is raised as an objection to the mind-based framework, it must be done from that perspective. The materialist-perspective objection is logically inapplicable. It is, IOW, an error. IMO, most people that agree that our existences are mind-primary don't even begin to think that through from the mind-primary perspective; rather, they explore it and advocate it from a material-primary framework without even realizing it. Exploring the concept of what mind-primary means, in coordination with logic and evidence, is IMO an incredibly untapped philosophical undertaking. I don't limit what "mind" is to materialist-bound preconceptions and false dichotomies. I've found it to be a very rich, deep and broad undertaking in attempting to understand what it means - rationally - from its own framework. I should think you know me better, by now, than to think I would toss this stuff out here casually without deep consideration ;) This is not solipsism and has nothing to do with allowing "delusion" or "self-destructive" perspectives, this is about understanding the ramifications of what it would mean for us to be individualized consciousnesses living mental existences in an "substrate" ocean (that's an analogy) of completely interconnected mind with virtually limitless capacity. BTW, I would argue that "common sense" is often wrong, and in any event, IMO it is rooted in a materialist perspective. It may be common sense that the sun revolves around the Earth, or that the Earth must be standing on something, or that "light" is either a wave or a paticle but not both; that doesn't make it true. William J Murray

PS: by experience, I indicate, this is the grand, consistent message of our conscious mindedness. kairosfocus

WJM, indeed our senses are mental. The problem with inferring a grand delusion is that it then undermines the credibility of any sensation or thinking including worldviews analysis. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that reduction to grand delusion is self-destructive and indicates error. Instead, a common sense approach is reasonable: take both the life of the mind and the physical world we experience seriously and seek a worldview where they both make sense. KF kairosfocus

KF, I understand what you are saying ... but I don't agree with your conclusion. Philosophically, and logically, there's absolutely no reason for a material, exterior world because there is nothing - absolutely nothing - it gains us in terms of experience. Everything you said is (1) mental experience and (2) theory derived from mental experience. All of our senses are mental experiences. Yes, the idea that there is an exterior, material world is one of the more universal, ubiquitous assumptions - so deep and pervasive that few have sees any reason to question it - at least until quantum experimentation started delivering the results they did. Based on what we know of subatomic phenomena, it's entirely reasonable to question if there is actually a material world at all. I realize this is probably on the order of questioning if the world hangs "on nothing" or if the sun is actually moving through the sky. Those represent the same kind of ubiquitous experiential norms that is being challenged by current knowledge. But, I'm more of a logician and philosopher than anything resembling a scientist. So, the question I posed myself is - what would be the purpose of an actual material world? Of what value would it be? If we postulate that within mind there lies the capacity to generate all the consensual experience of a material world without the need of an actual material world, why would there be a physical world? We have found no such thing as "matter"; what we have found is "energy." No solid, indivisible "atoms". What is "energy"? As I said, "energy" is word used to reify an experiential behavior pattern as a "thing" - but we have found no "thing" there. Just patterns of experiences, seemingly of things that, when you look close enough, are not even "moving" - they are disappearing in one location and reappearing in another - correlating to statistical probabilities - giving the impression of moving. There is no "there" there. Philosophically, we cannot experience a material world even if it did exist. We cannot see beyond our experience, but even our experience of examining the so-called exterior material world shown us that matter simply does not exist. We haven't found any matter. The closer we look, the more blatant it is that matter doesn't exist; only the experience of what, on a certain scale, appears to be matter exists - matter that is no more real as matter than matter in a dream. William J Murray

WJM, actually, most light in the cosmos passes us by utterly unperceived. To perceive (for us) requires interactions with photons, which of course automatically destroys them. Yes, we infer from the observed to the unobserved that is of like nature, here photons in radiation fields. That is the way of science, and you have surfaced a key issue just how much of the unobserved is addressed almost without realising that. Even the questions and errors of a first class probing mind like yours are precious. We need a lot more people like you, to save our civilisation from the abyss whose brink we so carelessly tread. Many do not know that a cliff's edge is by definition in a state of collapse so you do not have to go over the edge to fall, the edge can come to you without warning, crumble, roar, gone. Energy, of course is a fairly abstract concept rooted in but going far beyond observations. The operational definition on capability to do work by imparting ordered, forced motion, quantified by integral of force vector dot displacement differential vector etc is saying we define a set, little more. But whatever this is in root essence, we know it to be absolutely central to physics and the operations of the cosmos. Notice, even the Higgs boson was identified in an energy range, so many million electron volts. This is a convenient energy unit for particles etc, the energy transaction an electron goes through by changing electrical potential by a volt. The volt onward being a metric on work done or energy converted per unit charge moved in an electrified region between identified points (or to/from "infinity"). We investigate the physical world and per reversing Plato's Cave hold that if the world is delusional we put our mental, conscious perceptions and reasoning in a state of grand, untrustworthy delusion. So, we revert to almost Reidian common sense: unless we have excellent reason to dismiss the common sense physical world in aspects shown to be in error we accept our senses and instrumental extensions as on the whole accurate. For co-ordinated coherent delusion on that scale is maximally less plausible. So, we must take both mind and matter and their interaction such as to type and share this seriously. That's why it is so important to understand that a computational substrate is little more than refined, organised rock that neither is nor cares to be rational or responsible. It blindly grinds away as Leibniz's mills. We need both mind and matter, we peculiar amphibians shaped of the dust of earth but breathed in with the heavenly breath of soul, thus mind. KF kairosfocus

KF, There is no "antecedent to perception" other then in theoretical form. It's not logically possible. We can only theorize about that which is prior to or beyond our capacity to perceive (naturally or via instrumentation). What is "energy"? The term represents perceived patterns and behaviors. Just because we give it a term that reifies those patterned behaviors as if there is a "thing" beyond those patterns, doesn't give that theory any added weight. This is basic Plato's Cave philosophy. The theory that something exists outside of the cave of our experience is ultimately just that - a theory. That's all it can be because there is no way out of the cave. William J Murray

WJM, light can be perceived but antecedent to that it is a key form of energy, in the form of photons. And as light is in effect present in a radiation field, this implies the origin of the space-time, temporal-causal domain also. Many have suggested, we here see a description of the singularity leading onward to the ongoing stretching out of space itself. Hence the half-jokes about the First Church of Christ, Big Bang, with Sir Fred Hoyle as reluctant evangelist. KF kairosfocus

KF, Does a blind person experience photons as light? Do photons create the experience of light in dreams? Light is the experience of a conscious entity. Photons are not "light." All experience is a mental experience. Try having an experience without, or outside of, your mind. Experience = mind. The theory of an external, physical world is just that - a theory based upon interpretation of mental experiences. William J Murray

WJM, light is photons, energy. Thence, mass and matter via a famous equation. KF kairosfocus

kf said:

WJM, I would argue that the mind of God — think here, en arche en o logos — is fully capable of creating energy and from energy a material world. As in, classically, let there be light. For, we also have abundant evidence of a physical world. Where, once we have mind at root of reality, it should not be astonishing that the mental and material can interact, with information as a key bridge. I have already pointed to the Smith cybernetic loop model and to the possibility of quantum level influences on neurons and networks, just for discussion. KF

"Let there be light" is meaningless without anyone or anything around to experience the light, because e-m radiation is not "light" unless something can see (experience) it. If God is efficient, there's no reason to actually create a physical world AND the experience of it. There is only the need to create the experience. IOW, there is no physical world to experience; there is only information potential that can be interpreted and experienced AS a physical world by a particular, individual mind - or a group of them. That's my view, anyway :) IMO, this has already been solved - mind is the root of experience. There is no physical world, per se. The problem is that mind is incredibly ill-defined and largely ignored in science. William J Murray

jdk said:

I don’t think dreaming is a compelling argument to posit mind as the root substance, and, as I have repeatedly said, although you haven’t responded, I don’t think the QM interpretations that claim mind as the root substance are compelling, and certainly not a consensual perspective on QM.

Whether or not such interpretations of QM are compelling or consensual doesn't change the fact such interpretations are entirely consistent with the experimental evidence. Also, we already have an example of mind entirely creating the experience of a "material world" in which the mind is operating - dreams. The mind can even do this while we are awake in many cases. It seems to me the starting point of monism should that "matter" is an experiential quality of the mind. No need to point to some "unknown substance" when mind is already known to be capable, at least by example and in principle, of handling the generation of a "matter" category of experience. William J Murray

In another article Egnor argues…

that, contrary to the hyperbolic claims of materialists, modern neuroscience accords quite well with dualist (and hylomorphic) understandings of the mind-brain relationship. The pioneer in the scientific study of the relationship between the brain and the mind was UCSF neurophysiologist Benjamin Libet, who described his own understanding of the mind-brain relationship as essentially property dualism. Other leaders in neuroscience, such as neurosurgeon Wilder Penfield (the father of epilepsy surgery), Sir John Eccles (Nobel Laurate in medicine for his pioneering work on neuronal synapses) and Charles Sherrington (the father of modern neuroscience) were explicit dualists. The inference to dualism in neuroscience has been emphasized by UCLA neurologist and neuroscientist Jeffery Schwartz, who has documented the substantial evidence that mental changes can induce measurable changes in brain function. Obviously these observations aren’t decisive; a materialist could assert that the brain changes were induced by other brain changes, and that the mental states were epiphenomenal, but the salient point is that advances in neuroscience admit dualist as well as materialist interpretations.

https://evolutionnews.org/2009/01/daniel_dennett_call_your_offic/ In the case of Wilder Penfield he arrived at his belief in dualism as a result of his pioneering work in neuro-surgery. Similarly, Jeffery Schwartz’s work with OCD patients led him to reject the materialistic presuppositions that formed the so-called scientific consensus at the time. He found that the therapies based on behavioral (materialistic) psychology to be dehumanizing to those afflicted with obsessive-compulsive disorders. He pioneered his own therapy which emphasized the patients will power. He came to the conclusion that human mind and volition are not the same as brain function. In other words, I am not my brain. Human personality, mind and volition stand over and above the brain. That sounds like a form of dualism to me. john_a_designer

Norbert Weiner- who was an authority on information said:

“Information is information, neither matter nor energy. Any materialism which disregards this, will not survive one day.”

ET

jdk:

But I do think that the idea of a monistic substance has some merit, and in my quite agnostic opinion is more likely than dualism.

Except there isn't any substance to it and there isn't any reality in which monism is more likely than what we have- Intelligent Designed, connected but sperate minds and bodies. ET

wjm writes,

You said that you think the monistic “substance” is something other than either mind or matter, but produces both mind and matter (and their connectivity with each other).

Actually, I didn't say I think that is true: What I said, and am arguing, is that it is possibly true, and therefore the existence of consciousness doesn't necessarily imply strict substance dualism. But I do think that the idea of a monistic substance has some merit, and in my quite agnostic opinion is more likely than dualism. You write,

My question is, why posit a root kind of substance (in the same sense that one might postulate liquid water as the root substance that can form both ice and vapor) – when a far more elegant and experience-based option is available? We already know mind can entirely produce the appearance and experience of dualistic “mind & matter” when we dream. There’s no need to introduce another substance.

I don't think dreaming is a compelling argument to posit mind as the root substance, and, as I have repeatedly said, although you haven't responded, I don't think the QM interpretations that claim mind as the root substance are compelling, and certainly not a consensual perspective on QM. jdk

It is a mistake for the anti-dualist to argue that Cartesian substance dualism is the only kind of dualism. For example, neurosurgeon Michael Egnor embraces a Thomist-Aristotelian view known as hylemorphism which basically sees mind and body, consciousness and matter as two sides of the same coin.

The scholastic philosophers, following Aristotle and Aquinas, understood the soul as the animating principle of the body… Human beings are composites of soul and body, integrated form and matter, like (in Aristotle’s phrase) the shape of wax and the matter of the wax are just different aspects of one thing — the wax itself. The scholastics didn’t believe there was a Hard Problem.

https://evolutionnews.org/2016/07/what_is_conscio/ In fact Egnor sees Descarte’s substance dualism as problematic and misleading (as I do, though I’m no expert.)

René Descartes in the 17th century created the Hard Problem, out of whole cloth. Descartes cast aside the hylemorphic (matter-form) metaphysics of the scholastics, and replaced it, in his psychology, with substance dualism. Descartes proposed that the mind and the body were separate substances, rather than just two principles inherent to one human being. The body (res extensa) and the soul (res cogitans) were joined, in Cartesian metaphysics, to make a whole person, but he identified the person with the res cogitans (the intellectual substance), and depicted the res extensa (the physical substance) as essentially a machine. After Descartes, a human being was a “ghost in a machine.” His new psychology solved no problems, and created many. How do the soul and the body interact, if they are completely different substances? If the soul is separable from the body, how is the soul to be identified as belonging to one body and not another?

Does Egnor’s hylemorphic view explain everything? No, not really. However, anyone who makes a truth claim has the burden of proof. Therefore, a materialist just cannot claim that dualism is false without explaining what consciousness is and how it came into existence from mindless matter. If he can’t answer questions like those he is not justified in making the argument that any form of dualism is false. john_a_designer

There is only ONE reality, though, Jack. With ID the ONE reality includes the fact that mind and body, while connected, are not one in the same. With Christianity, the mind, body and soul are all connected but they are not one in the same. So, no, we are not dual anything. We are one. ET

WJM, I would argue that the mind of God -- think here, en arche en o logos -- is fully capable of creating energy and from energy a material world. As in, classically, let there be light. For, we also have abundant evidence of a physical world. Where, once we have mind at root of reality, it should not be astonishing that the mental and material can interact, with information as a key bridge. I have already pointed to the Smith cybernetic loop model and to the possibility of quantum level influences on neurons and networks, just for discussion. KF kairosfocus

jdk, You said that you think the monistic "substance" is something other than either mind or matter, but produces both mind and matter (and their connectivity with each other). My question is, why posit a root kind of substance (in the same sense that one might postulate liquid water as the root substance that can form both ice and vapor) - when a far more elegant and experience-based option is available? We already know mind can entirely produce the appearance and experience of dualistic "mind & matter" when we dream. There's no need to introduce another substance. William J Murray