tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1780806945960886534.post5538761546287480576..comments2024-03-28T05:47:54.177+00:00Comments on Philosophical Disquisitions: Substance Dualism (Part Four): The Problem of InteractionJohn Danaherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06761686258507859309noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1780806945960886534.post-9197201915681923942011-06-04T12:04:52.909+01:002011-06-04T12:04:52.909+01:00Jayman,
As far as I'm aware, Robert is a trai...Jayman,<br /><br />As far as I'm aware, Robert is a trained physicist. So I'm guessing your stuck with some physicists who think it is incompatible and some who don't.<br /><br />Jeff,<br /><br />I see what you're saying. I'm not sure what occasionalists like Malebranche would argue in response. My guess is that it would be a kind of "God can do anything" position. It looks like there's a good article on occasionalism in the Stanford Encyclopedia. But a quick scan suggests it doesn't address your point. I find a lot of this early modern philosophy is wedded to a slightly alien (to me at any rate) metaphysics. It takes a while to wrap your head around it. The Cartesian view is that our world is divided into two ontologically distinct substances: res cogitans and res extensa. But I'm not sure whether it is committed to the view that God is made up of one or other of those substances. He might be - forgive me for this terminology - an ontologically prior unity of both substances. <br /><br />Robert,<br /><br />In retrospect, the feasibility of detection should have been mentioned in this post. I think that argument is better understood as claiming that explanatory laws are inconsistent with substance dualism, and not that empirical observations are inconsistent with it. That's the argument, whether or not it is successful is a separate issue.John Danaherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06761686258507859309noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1780806945960886534.post-22948076106494104172011-06-03T23:33:15.943+01:002011-06-03T23:33:15.943+01:00Robert:
The quantum explanation might save the co...Robert:<br /><br /><b>The quantum explanation might save the conservation of energy, but it would require a violation of the laws of quantum mechanics.</b><br /><br />Again, I have to doubt it's that simple since I have seen trained, professional quantum physicists assert that dualism is not incompatible with physics in any way.Jaymanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06413844619464733681noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1780806945960886534.post-31101261445803391642011-06-03T20:54:41.544+01:002011-06-03T20:54:41.544+01:00Isn't there an easier way to reject the occasi...Isn't there an easier way to reject the occasionalist viewpoint, on the basis that it doesn't actually resolve the problem? The question is about how minds could have physical effects on bodies. But God, by most definitions, is an entity made up solely of "mind-stuff" and not possessing a physical body. So how would positing God as the mover of bodies be any better than positing minds as the movers of bodies? What advantage does that explanation have?<br /><br />I mean, I agree that the other criticisms (God as only agent, and ad-hocness) of the viewpoint are valid, but it just seems to me that my criticism is much more readily apparent.Jeffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07878734919633437792noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1780806945960886534.post-1993686920170876802011-06-03T14:55:53.300+01:002011-06-03T14:55:53.300+01:00The quantum explanation might save the conservatio...The quantum explanation might save the conservation of energy, but it would require a violation of the laws of quantum mechanics. That is, if an act of conscious will is able to collapse the wavefunction in a particular manner, then a sequence of such acts could violate the probability distribution implied by the wavefunction. <br /><br />Such a violation of quantum mechanics would be essentially impossible to detect in practice. But so would a violation of conservation of energy. (Has anyone tallied the total energy in human brain before and after an act of conscious willing? Does anyone want to volunteer to be the experimental subject?)Robert Oerterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09708981993708509662noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1780806945960886534.post-58216212150697319782011-06-03T01:33:35.246+01:002011-06-03T01:33:35.246+01:00(6) According to substance dualism, persons have n...<b>(6) According to substance dualism, persons have neither spatial locations nor the ability to transfer energy.</b><br /><br />Is this necessarily the case? Could a substance dualist believe (1) that the mind is located in space and (2) that it does transfer energy but that <i>currently</i> we cannot detect this?<br /><br /><b>If mental entities were causing physical events then we would expect energy to be added to the relevant system (in this case the human body and its surrounding environment) from outside. This would require a violation of the conservation law that does not appear to take place.</b><br /><br />As far as I can tell, this statement is not true. Here's a relevant quote:<br /><br /><i>Some theorists deny the possibility of duality by arguing that a signal from a non-material mind could not carry energy and thus could not influence material brain cells. Because of this inability of a mind to supply energy to influence the neurons of the brain, it is claimed that physics demonstrates an inescapable flaw of dualism. <b>However, no energy need be involved in determining to which particular situation a wave function collapses. Thus the determination of which of the physically possible conscious experiences becomes the actual experience is a process that need not involve energy transfer.</b> Quantum mechanics therefore allows an escape from the supposed fatal flaw of dualism. It is a mistake to think that dualism can be ruled out on the basis of physics.</i> (Chris Carter, Science and the Near-Death Experience, 78, citing Rosenblum and Kuttner, “Consciousness and Quantum Mechanics: The Connection and Analogies,” 248).<br /><br />I admit that quantum mechanics is beyond me, but I find it hard to believe trained physicists would entertain dualism if it blatantly contradicted the laws of physics.Jaymanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06413844619464733681noreply@blogger.com