Philosophical dualism — the darn contradiction
The notion that body and mind are two different substances is an ancient way of thinking that can be found in different cultures and eras.
In ancient Greece, this way of thinking was advocated by Plato. Plato’s theory of ideas states that there are two worlds: the material world and the spiritual world. The material world consists of the things that we can perceive with our senses. The spiritual world is made up of the ideas that we can grasp with our minds.
Plato believed that the soul is an immortal idea that implants itself in the body. The body is only an imperfect image of the soul. Consciousness is an expression of the soul and not of the body.
Plato’s theory of ideas was adopted by many philosophers and theologians in the following period. Even in the Christian Middle Ages, the view was widespread that body and mind are two separate substances.
In the 17th century, this way of thinking was revived by René Descartes. Descartes’ thesis that “I think, therefore I am” is considered the cornerstone of modern dualism. Descartes believed that consciousness is a separate thing that is not reducible to the body.
In the 18th century, dualism was further developed by Immanuel Kant.
“The sensual world is the world as we perceive it with our senses. The intelligible world is the world as it is in itself, independent of our perception.”
This quote shows that Kant distinguishes between the sensible world, which we perceive through our senses, and the intelligible world, which exists independently of our perception. This dualism is based on the assumption that there are two types of reality that are different from each other.
In the 19th century, dualism was increasingly challenged. The discoveries of the natural sciences showed that the body is a complex system that can be explained by the laws of physics. The question of how body and mind are connected to each other became a central conundrum of philosophy.
In the 20th century, various alternative explanatory models for the interaction between body and mind were developed. These include monism, materialism, and interactionism.
Monism states that the body and mind are only two aspects of a single substance. Materialism states that the body and mind are both made of matter. Interactionism states that body and mind are two separate substances, but they can interact with each other.
There are several reasons why dualism cannot be considered meaningful.
Explanatory problems: Dualism cannot explain how the two worlds interact with each other. How can matter affect mind and vice versa?
Reality problems: Dualism leads to a dichotomy of reality, which can be perceived as unnatural and unsatisfying. How can it be that two things as fundamentally different as matter and spirit exist at the same time?
Scientific problems: Dualism is at odds with the findings of modern science. Science has shown that the material world is governed by physical laws. There is no evidence that there is a separate spiritual world subject to these laws.
Dualism can be explained psychologically. One possibility is that dualism is a product of our self-reflection. Self-reflection is the ability to see oneself as an object. It allows us to reflect on our thoughts, feelings and experiences.
Animals are incapable of self-reflection. They cannot regard their own thoughts, feelings, and experiences as objects. Therefore, they are likely to experience the world as a single entity in which body and mind are not separated.
Humans, on the other hand, are capable of self-reflection. This allows us to experience a separation between body and mind. We can think of our thoughts, feelings, and experiences as something separate from the body.
The two thematic fields, the material world and the spiritual world constructed by us, also result in a conceptual system of its own, which cements dualism. As a result, not only correlations are established between the two, but also causalities.
When we look at the material world, our physique and our psyche can be examined at the same time. Both methods of investigation can be related to each other. On the other hand, any causality is excluded. This thought step is hardly comprehensible for most people. We are too caught up in the dualistic conceptual world. We ignore the fact that the so-called spiritual world is nothing more than an objectification resulting from our self-reflection, as if our thoughts had the same status as the material world. Both compete with each other in our minds, even though there is only the material world. It is precisely on this fallacy that all religions, metaphysics, and esoterics are based. Ultimately, it is an ontological self-deception from which those constructs emerge, such as God, cosmic spirit or metaphysical artefacts inherent in matter, for which the term information is often used, for example.
With regard to information, dualism comes into play because it is assumed to be an additional attribute of matter, and not, as originally used, as a structure of matter from which we can deduce its properties. Unfortunately, the difference is too often not understood.
Even hard-boiled physicists, when they venture into the field of philosophy, always fall into the dualism trap. For example, when they claim that there is no consciousness, this is just an illusion. In fact, they are saying nothing other than that physics has no concepts for consciousness and therefore cannot explain it, because it is a concept from philosophy. And it is the task of philosophy to explain this in order to then develop the correlating terms for a physiology.
In doing so, however, they incur the problem of not being able to explain this ‘illusion’ called consciousness, although it can undoubtedly be experienced as a phenomenon omnipresent. They act on the principle that what physics cannot explain does not exist. You don’t see that in this case it’s just a different discipline.
The objectification of our thinking as its own reality actually takes place, namely in our culture in the form of writings, buildings, works of art, etc. This supports the idea of a spiritual world, especially when we encounter it in the form of meanings.
We connect these meanings with our subjective thoughts and feelings, thus connecting the ‘objective’ mind with our subjective mind and thus rounding off the spiritual theatre.
Thus, it is almost logical to want to integrate personal experience into the research process, not as an objective object, but as an experiential process. We are thus dealing with two incompatible objects, as if we wanted to unite physics and philosophy, i.e. to merge two perspectives. That this is not possible is actually already shown by simple logic.
This primary dualism of a material and a spiritual world results in a secondary dualism, in which consciousness is regarded as something representational. And if you have an object, something tangible — but unfortunately you can’t grasp it in this case — then it’s possible to transmit, expand or locate it. This leads to the absurd idea that consciousness could be uploaded, extended to the entire environment or found somewhere in the brain.
And of course, such a consciousness can also be read, you just have to crack the corresponding code.
These are the absurd consequences of a dualism that arises when one understands one’s own experiential theatre as a real world. This is then no longer merely a property of certain biological systems, but rises to an objective world of its own.
It is tremendously difficult to overcome this way of thinking. We are standing in our own way with our consciousness, so to speak.
It is only when we understand that we have to explain physiologically what is called consciousness in philosophy that we overcome the ubiquitous dualism of physiological and mental.
