That said, cartesian dualism’s main problem is the “mystery of interaction;” which is to say, how does an entirely nonphysical entity causally interact with material bodies (e.g. the brain). Also, if the mind is entirely nonphysical (as cartesian dualism claims), then why is the brain so closely entwined with it? These problems are why C.D. is generally not considered a frontrunner as a theory of mind. There are other dualistic theories (like epiphenomenalism and property-dualism) that get around one or both of these strictures, since they posit that the mind is indeed physical in nature, but consciousness is a nonphysical “effect” of those operations. I tend to lean more towards non-reductive materialism (the materialist form of functionalism), since it doesn’t have the explanatory problems of the reductive materialisms, yet doesn’t require the massive (possibly unwarranted) assumption of a nonphysical realm. Dualism should only really be considered if it can provide a good, predictive model of consciousness, or, alternately, if all available materialist lanes of thought have been shown to lead to true dead ends (not just difficulties).

Also, higher dimensions do not count as nonphysical, since they do interact with the material world (indeed are part of it). As a physicist, I have to deal with the effects of higher-dimensional realities all the time

‘Non-physical’ is a meaningless phrase. If there were a non-physical anything that interacted with physical reality in any way, then science would be able to study it and figure it out….

There would be no way for science to “figure it out”. Using an example I’ve grown rather fond of, these higher numbered dimensions that are being mapped out to such spectacularly huge equations now days, what effects do they have on the physical universe? Some might be known but all of them won’t, there are probably many ways that they do that we don’t know about and almost certainly never will.

All of the properties of science and logic and math are known because of their connection to the physical universe as we experience it. There is no way to know if anything outside of that experience is subject to the properties used by us to understand the universe.

I will point out that your assertion that “non-physical” is a meaningless phrase, followed by assertions that “science would be able to study it and figure it out” is illogical. Science can not “figure out” anything that is “meaningless”. I’ve noticed a few of the tactics employed by materialists when these kinds of things are pointed out, the declaration that a term is “meaningless” seems to be a favorite. However, you can not declare something is meaningless and then propose to make it the subject of science. That argument fails the simplest test of coherence.

Polly, if there is a non-physical component of the mind then science wouldn’t be able to find it because science can’t deal with anything except the physical universe.

‘Non-physical’ is a meaningless phrase. If there were a non-physical anything that interacted with physical reality in any way, then science would be able to study it and figure it out – it would therefore be part of physical, observable reality. If your ’soul-a-ma-bob’ doesn’t affect observable reality in any way, it might as well not exist.

Now back to my regularly scheduled task of not taking Olvzl seriously in any way, shape, or form.

Polly, if there is a non-physical component of the mind then science wouldn’t be able to find it because science can’t deal with anything except the physical universe.

Agreed. BUT, if science can “map” the mind to the underlying brain functions exhaustively, then there will be nothing left for an immaterial entity to do. Even if it exists, it will be as useful as an indifferent-deity concept. OTOH, if it’s functionally redundant AND persists beyond death, then yes, that is one source of “mystery” that is probably closed off from investigation of any sort…heh, until it’s a posteriori.

Higher dimensions would still qualify as phyiscal, though an aspect of the material universe we are unable to interact with directly. The difference being it would not be a minded mechanism at work and that universe would still have governing physical laws. Again, speculation on my part.

I draw no serious consclusions at this point, only my own wagers. The study of the mind is still in its infancy from the perspective of neurobiology. I await interesting and “fun” things, too.

Re: Cartesian dualism, it seems to be an illusion. I say this based on the multiple layers of parallel processing of the brain. But it certainly FEELS like a theater with an audience of one. I, childishly, hold out hope that I haven’t been decieved by my neurons and future research will vindicate a materialist version of such a view.

I’m reading a book by Chalmers right now. Though he seems to reject materialism (heresy!) I hope to gain a better perspective. Susan Blackmore seemd to draw extreme conclusions from paltry and, as of yet, not fully understood experiments.

I still have my own superstitious beliefs:
Love
Free Will (maybe)
Consciousness
A persisting Self (at least while I’m awake).

By the way, the Cartesian dualism question hasn’t been answered, either. It might be in disfavor right now but that doesn’t mean it won’t be revived. I’m holding out for more than two alternatives or components. I’ve got a childlike hunch that as more research is done into higher dimensions, such as the E 8 work done at MIT and elsewhere, it might have some impact on such questions. But probably as suggestion and not as settled science. I think it would be a lot of fun. And fun is good.

btw-I’m not sure if my “self” survives a nap.

that the United States impeded stem-cell research because some imagined that microscopic cells had human souls.

Souls? No.
Ethics of exploting POCs? dubious, not necessarily wrong, but highly dubious.

Ya, well, comments about the demise of religion have been made since we first walked out of the forest.

One can only hope. Of course, some of us are already there.

Stogoe, let me make your day by pointing out that in forty years I’ll be well over a hundred years old, though we do tend to have very long lifespans in my family and none of us has lost their marbles in the process.