Can we have a science of the non-material

[David Bailey]

In another thread, Paul and I got round to the question of how we could have a science of non-material (better, non-mechanistic) entities - which of course, you need for a dualist description of the world. We more or less agreed that it is possible to see how these could interact with the physical world, but how could we study them.

Paul said: "Let's start by describing how we can have an immaterial thing that is neither locatable nor mechanistic, yet somehow can be studied by science."

The curious thing is that we do already. Maths itself is a candidate, as are musical compositions etc. I mean, each of these can be written down, or represented in other ways, but these are not the essence of the thing.

Obviously these non-material 'things' are passive, but at least it is a start.

David

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by David

In another thread, Paul and I got round to the question of how we could have a science of non-material (better, non-mechanistic) entities - which of course, you need for a dualist description of the world. We more or less agreed that it is possible to see how these could interact with the physical world, but how could we study them.

No, I don't how the immaterial would interact with the material. There has to be an interface, a nexus, which requires the immaterial to share with the material at least some interaction laws and their material basis. Otherwise you are saying that the interaction is magical.

The curious thing is that we do already. Maths itself is a candidate, as are musical compositions etc. I mean, each of these can be written down, or represented in other ways, but these are not the essence of the thing.

I don't know what you mean by the "essence" of math. The essence of music is sound, which is a physical thing. There is no point in listing behaviors of humans as if they are somehow immaterial.

~~ Paul

[David Bailey]

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

No, I don't how the immaterial would interact with the material. There has to be an interface, a nexus, which requires the immaterial to share with the material at least some interaction laws and their material basis. Otherwise you are saying that the interaction is magical.


I don't know what you mean by the "essence" of math. The essence of music is sound, which is a physical thing. There is no point in listing behaviors of humans as if they are somehow immaterial.

~~ Paul

Well math is not the set of squiggles on a page, any more than the Moonlight Sonata is a set of black blobs on a page - or a waveform emerging from a CD player. These things have an essence that seems to transcend any physical representation. These things are passive, but they sure seem to exist.

Stapp has a scheme that I assumed you knew about, whereby a conscious entity interacts with a physical system merely by observing it or not. If you have a system in an eigenstate, but with gentle perturbations, repeated observations lock it in the initial state. Stapp thinks this mechanism alone might be enough to let the immaterial control the physical.

David

[Interesting Ian]

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

No, I don't how the immaterial would interact with the material. There has to be an interface, a nexus, which requires the immaterial to share with the material at least some interaction laws and their material basis. Otherwise you are saying that the interaction is magical.

It would be magical, meaning what? Against physical laws? How do we know that? We don't. But maybe magic contravenes our suppositions about how reality works.

Yes that's it! But that of course is nothing but the mechanistic philosophy.

As I told you in the other thread, we need to introduce other types of causes as explained by Aristotle and elaborated upon by Aquinas. In particular end causes or teleology. In short we need to abandon the mechanistic picture of the world.

[David Bailey]

Originally Posted by Interesting Ian

It would be magical, meaning what? Against physical laws? How do we know that? We don't. But maybe magic contravenes our suppositions about how reality works.

Yes that's it! But that of course is nothing but the mechanistic philosophy.

As I told you in the other thread, we need to introduce other types of causes as explained by Aristotle and elaborated upon by Aquinas. In particular end causes or teleology. In short we need to abandon the mechanistic picture of the world.

I seem to have something of an aversion to philosophy, because I feel it often obscures rather than enlightens - call a process "transubstantiation" and it sounds a bit more plausible than literally converting bread into flesh!.

I agree we need to abandon pure mechanism (that is what this thread is about) - but lets think of a world containing physical mechanism and conscious entities that interact with the physical via Stapp's mechanism, or something else related to quantum mechanics.

Paul, I think it would be better to assume dualism for the purpose of this thread. It is an exploration of what may follow IF THE WORLD IS DUALIST.

David

[Interesting Ian]

Originally Posted by David Bailey

I agree we need to abandon pure mechanism (that is what this thread is about) - but lets think of a world containing physical mechanism and conscious entities that interact with the physical via Stapp's mechanism, or something else related to quantum mechanics.


David

It seems plausible to me that conscious entities interact with the physical without this contravening physical laws and indeed fitting into a broader science. I have no idea whether Stapps "mechanism" fits the bill. I do suspect that QM somehow allows an influence by conciousness on the physical world.

Let's consider something like entanglement. Paul would consider this magical because there is no mechanism. A mechanism meaning some sort of influence which we can trace out.

The problem is that people tend to use the word "mechanism" in a very loose sense.

I have to disagree with you about philosophy. Don't think you'll get anywhere at all in discussing such issues without talking about philosophy!

But it's your thread.

[Miguel]

Originally Posted by David Bailey

I seem to have something of an aversion to philosophy, because I feel it often obscures rather than enlightens - call a process "transubstantiation" and it sounds a bit more plausible than literally converting bread into flesh!.

It's not a literal conversion. It's only the immaterial component, its substance, that is transformed.

Originally Posted by David Bailey

Paul, I think it would be better to assume dualism for the purpose of this thread. It is an exploration of what may follow IF THE WORLD IS DUALIST.

One thing that may follow is that transubstantiation is not as silly as it seems. That really depends on which version of dualism is true.
How would one find out?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally Posted by Miguel

It's not a literal conversion. It's only the immaterial component, its substance, that is transformed.


One thing that may follow is that transubstantiation is not as silly as it seems. That really depends on which version of dualism is true.
How would one find out?

Transubstantiation? What's that??

[Miguel]

Originally Posted by Interesting Ian

Transubstantiation? What's that??

Transubstantiation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[David Bailey]

Oh heck I just used "Transubstantiation" as an example. The Catholic church has a doctrine that the communion wafer actually becomes a piece of Christ's flesh. To make the idea seem less silly, they give it a fancy name! I would argue that some words in the philosophy of consciousness - such as epiphenomenalism serve a similar role!

Miguel - tell me you are not a Catholic!

Let's not sidetrack this thread on the very first page - because I think the question of how science could explore the non-physical is important!

David