The interaction problem in dualism

[Czinczar]

Hello,
Those who are dualists postulate that there are 2 separate fundamental substances in the universe: matter and mind, the material realm and the mental realm. But this leads to what is called the interaction problem: if these 2 substances are fundamentally separate, how do they even interact? Furthermore, what's the point of postulating 2 separate substances if they can interact? In that case, doesn't it make more sense to postulate the existence of just one fundamental substance and conclude that the fact that we seem to perceive 2 separate substances is just an appearance?

If you postulate the existence of 2 separate substances, they should not interact in any way. Otherwise, if they are connected in any way, then they are not really separate.

The beings that we are can be sure of at least one thing: the realm of consciousness is real, it exists, and we experiment it every second of our life. If a second substance exists and if it is fundamentally and totally separate from the world of consciousness that we know, then we should not even waste time talking about it because we will never be able to interact with it. There is no point.

Which leaves only one conclusion: idealism is the only logical explanation. Do you disagree?

[Ben Iscatus]

Czincar,
I agree. With two separate substances, you have the strong interaction problem - and that's an appeal to magic. Weak interaction occurs within the same substance: thus thoughts and feelings can interact because they are both aspects of Mind. Someone asked BK how you could deduce the wetness of water from the interaction of hydrogen and oxygen - apparently, you can from the properties of each atom. Of course, under Idealism, hydrogen, oxygen and water are representations of ideas - not actual substances. I think you might say that different ideas are, in effect, separate properties. Property dualism is common in nature - there are billions of interacting ideas.

[Jim Cross]

Hello,
Those who are dualists postulate that there are 2 separate fundamental substances in the universe: matter and mind, the material realm and the mental realm. But this leads to what is called the interaction problem: if these 2 substances are fundamentally separate, how do they even interact? Furthermore, what's the point of postulating 2 separate substances if they can interact? In that case, doesn't it make more sense to postulate the existence of just one fundamental substance and conclude that the fact that we seem to perceive 2 separate substances is just an appearance?

If you postulate the existence of 2 separate substances, they should not interact in any way. Otherwise, if they are connected in any way, then they are not really separate.

The beings that we are can be sure of at least one thing: the realm of consciousness is real, it exists, and we experiment it every second of our life. If a second substance exists and if it is fundamentally and totally separate from the world of consciousness that we know, then we should not even waste time talking about it because we will never be able to interact with it. There is no point.

Which leaves only one conclusion: idealism is the only logical explanation. Do you disagree?

I think it is thousands and thousands of things, not one or two. I'm not conscious every second of my life. I sleep seven or eight hours a night.

[Czinczar]

I think it is a thousands and thousands of things, not one or two. I'm not conscious every second of my life. I sleep seven or eight hours a night.

Are thousands and thousands of waves really different from the ocean made of water? Is each little wave and ripple its own fundamentally separate thing, a strictly different nature?

Why do you assume that because you sleep there is no consciousness?

[Soul_of_Shu]

Why do you assume that because you sleep there is no consciousness?

Czinczar ... Not sure how much you're aware of the long history of similar topics and subsequent commentary, in this forum and its predecessor, that have involved this wrestling match with Jim, which you're about to be lured into as someone perhaps not familiar with the pattern, but you might want to give the bait a good look over for the attached hooks, and save some painful lesson

[Jim Cross]

I think it is a thousands and thousands of things, not one or two. I'm not conscious every second of my life. I sleep seven or eight hours a night.

Are thousands and thousands of waves really different from the ocean made of water? Is each little wave and ripple its own fundamentally separate thing, a strictly different nature?

Why do you assume that because you sleep there is no consciousness?

You're trying to explain galaxies, stars, planets, mountains, and more with one type of stuff, water. The analogy doesn't work. If mountains were really water, then it might.

We need more than one substance to generate a dynamic. In many Indian thought systems, the gunas compose things in different proportions to create the diversity of objects. Yin/yang is similar. Without multiple things interacting, you can't derive anything. You can only have a consciousness blob or an ocean in your analogy.

I don't remember much from my sleep, an occasional dream is about all.

[Jim Cross]

Why do you assume that because you sleep there is no consciousness?

Czinczar ... Not sure how much you're aware of the long history of similar topics and subsequent commentary, in this forum and its predecessor, that have involved this wrestling match with Jim, which you're about to be lured into as someone perhaps not familiar with the pattern, but you might want to give the bait a good look over for the attached hooks, and save some painful lesson

Czinczar,

Yes, this identical argument in one form or another is posted about once every other week on this forum.

Feel free to not respond to any of my comments or questions you don't want to answer.

[Soul_of_Shu]

Feel free to not respond to any of my comments or questions you don't want to answer.

Of course, Czinczar, feel free to resurrect it all yet again, if that feels meaningful to you do go through that process, for even though after countless pages of discussion it has evaded resolution, I suppose there's some lesson to be learned from that too.

[Czinczar]

I don't remember much from my sleep, an occasional dream is about all.

Why do you assume you should remember any of it?

If someone comes to your ear and screams very loudly to wake you up: who or what was there to hear the screaming?

[Jim Cross]

I don't remember much from my sleep, an occasional dream is about all.

Why do you assume you should remember any of it?

If someone comes to your ear and screams very loudly to wake you up: who or what was there to hear the screaming?

Basically I believe consciousness is all about memory.

Even raw perception has a memory element to it. We do not perceive in real time. We perceive milliseconds later. Our perception is a record of something that happened before, now exactly what is happening now.

Many of the same neural circuits fire when we remember something that fired when we first experienced it. The brain isn't organized like a computer with a dedicated part for memory. There seem to be sections of the brain more related to memory but increasingly we are discovering those parts of the brain do more than just memory.

When we are conscious, we are capable of remembering, even though our memories are constantly being pruned to what seems to be more important things.

Memory is what enables learning. In a sense, it is learning.

Reaction to loud noise is a reflex. It's the startle reflex. During sleep, consciousness isn't involved in the reflex that triggers us to become awake.

Of course, we drift in and out of consciousness when we sleep so we can have memories of various periods during sleep, but during the periods when we are in deep sleep we do not remember.