this post was submitted on 20 Jul 2023
3 points (100.0% liked)
Philosophy
32 readers
1 users here now
Welcome to Kbin's philosophy community! a place where you can share and discuss your thoughts on the big questions of life. Whether you are a professional philosopher, a student, or just a curious person, you can find here a friendly and stimulating community of people who love to explore the mysteries of existence. Feel free to post your own questions, opinions, arguments, memes, or links to interesting philosophical content. Just remember to follow the rules and be respectful of others. Have fun and enjoy the conversation!
founded 1 year ago
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Arguing from a position of physics, like this author is, I didn't think dualism was still a serious theory with modern proponents.
As hinted in the article by mentioning the fundamental particles, there's no room in the known laws of physics to fit interactions between the neurons of the brain and some as yet undiscovered particles making up the substance of the engine driving qualia, whatever it would be besides the brain. Interactions with undiscovered particles would require energy, and, by conversation of energy, we should see energy of the brain disappearing (this is how we posited the existence of neutrinos, which were later discovered), but we don't.
Likewise, if this qualia engine were driving neural activity, even if the qualia engine were non-physical, neurons still are. So at the lowest level of the neurons, the qualia engine would have to trigger electrical activity in the neurons, which would be an unaccounted for source of energy, and we also don't see that.
I mean the following question in good faith because I legitimately did not know serious proponents of dualism still existed, but do dualists have any explanations for these problems?