In his book Consciousness Explained (in my opinion, a better titled for it should be Consciousness Explained Away...), philosopher Daniel Dennett posits what is considered (by him) a fatal flaw of dualism: "A fundamental principle of physics is that any change in the trajectory of any physical entity is an acceleration requiring the expenditure of energy, and where is this energy to come from? It is this principle of the conservation of energy that accounts for the physical impossibility of "perpetual motion machines," and the same principle is apparently violated by dualism. This confrontation between quite standard physics and dualism has been endlessly discussed since Descartes's own day, and is widely regarded as the inescapable and fatal flaw of dualism" (Consciousness Explained, p. 35)
Let's to examine Dennett's argument in detail:
Note that the basic idea of Dennett's argument is a supposed contradiction between dualism and the principle of energy conservation. In other words, dualism violates such principle and, therefore, dualism is impossible. It cannot exist, since it violates a natural physical law.
There are several problems with Dennett's argument:
1)The law of conservation of energy only applies to closed and isolated systems; in other words, the amount of energy of a closed system remains constant. According to wikipedia: "The law of conservation of energy states that the total amount of energy in an isolated system remains constant. A consequence of this law is that energy cannot be created nor destroyed. The only thing that can happen with energy in an isolated system is that it can change form, for instance kinetic energy can become thermal energy. Because energy is associated with mass in the Einstein's theory of relativity, the conservation of energy also implies the conservation of mass in isolated systems (that is, the mass of a system cannot change, so long as energy is not permitted to enter or leave the system)." (emphasis in black of the word "isolated" added by me)
Therefore, if the law of conservation of energy applies (as an objection) to dualism, it has to be proved that the universe is a closed or isolated system; but it is not known to be true. Hence, assuming that the universe is a closed and isolated system begs the question against the dualist.
As has explained philosopher Uwe Meixner: "It is alleged again and again that the nonphysical causation of physical events is bound to violate received physics because it, allegedly, entails the violation of the law of the preservation of energy, or the violation of the law of the preservation ofmomentum. Repetition does not make false allegations any less false. First, in physics, the mentioned preservation laws are always asserted under the condition that the physical system with regard to which they are asserted is a socalled closed system: that no energy or momentum is coming into the system from entities that are outside of it, or is going out of the system to entities outside of it. Now, physics is silent on the question whether the entire physical world is a closed system. Moreover, it does not seem to be an analytic truth that the physical world is such a system. It follows that in order to have the nonphysical causation of physical events conflict with the preservation laws, it is necessary to go beyond physics and to assume the metaphysical hypothesis that the physical world is a closed system." (New Perspectives for a Dualistic Conception of Mental Causation. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 15, No. 1, 2008, pp. 18–19)
Such assumption (that the universe is a closed system) exist in physicalism and materialism, not in dualism. Therefore, if the materialist assumes such idea, he's begging the question against the dualist because he's assuming the truth of his own materialistic metaphysical position (and the impossibility of dualism).
As has been argued by materialist philosopher William Lycan : "But it has been argued by E. Averill and B. Keating [1981] that the conservation laws regarding linear momentum and matter-energy come in weak versions and stronger versions.24 The weak versions are what actually figure in physics. But they are logically compatible with Cartesian causation. The stronger versions have been adumbrated by some philosophers, but are not required for physics and also would beg the question against the dualist."
2)But contrary to the above arguments, let's to suppose (for the sake of the argument) that dualism actually violates the law of conservation of energy. Does it entails that dualism is impossible?
It's important to know that the violation of the law of conservation of energy has been empirically established. According to this scientific website "To sum it up, yes, conservation of energy can be violated, but nature makes sure it is always within the limits of uncertainty. In other words, the energy must be returned, and the books set straight pretty quickly. But, the fact that it can be violated is important, and although it can never be observed directly, it does have important consequences"
If the above article is correct, then in quantum mechanics, the law of conservation of energy has been violated and it entails that such law can't be used as an impossible barrer anymore; Thus, even if we accept that dualism violates such law, it doesn't entail that dualism is impossible; it only would show that dualism is one of the instances where such law can be violated (and this would support that idea that consciousness and its relationship with the brain has something to do with quantum effects; it doesn't mean that the origin of consciousness can be explained by quantum mechanics; the point is that the relationship between consciousness and the brain could be explained in terms of quantum mechanics, as has argued some physicists like Henry Stapp).
3)Dennett's argument is based on the principles of classical physics, not in contemporary quantum mechanics. Regarding Dennett's argument, quantum physicist Henry Stapp wrote: "This argument depends on identifying ‘standard physics’ with classical physics. The argument collapses when one goes over to contemporary physics, in which, due to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, trajectories of particles are replaced by cloud-like structures, and in which conscious choices can influence physically described activity without violating the conservation laws or any other laws of quantum physics. Contemporary physical theory allows, and its orthodox von Neumann form entails, an interactive dualism that is fully in accord with all the laws of physics. Any perception merely reduces the possibilities." (Mindful Universe, p. 81)
Finally, there is evidence that consciousness is causally efficacious (see my post on it), and some parapsycholocal effects confirme it too.
Dennett's argument is not only unconvincing; it's irrelevant as a serious objection against dualism.
Links of interest:
-Julio Siqueira's review of Consciousness Explained.
-My review of Henry Stapp's book Mindful Universe.
-Bruce Rosemblum's book Quantum Enigma.
-My post on the causal efficacy of consciousness.
-Dean Radin's scientific replication of some of Masaru Emoto's findings
Let's to examine Dennett's argument in detail:
Note that the basic idea of Dennett's argument is a supposed contradiction between dualism and the principle of energy conservation. In other words, dualism violates such principle and, therefore, dualism is impossible. It cannot exist, since it violates a natural physical law.
There are several problems with Dennett's argument:
1)The law of conservation of energy only applies to closed and isolated systems; in other words, the amount of energy of a closed system remains constant. According to wikipedia: "The law of conservation of energy states that the total amount of energy in an isolated system remains constant. A consequence of this law is that energy cannot be created nor destroyed. The only thing that can happen with energy in an isolated system is that it can change form, for instance kinetic energy can become thermal energy. Because energy is associated with mass in the Einstein's theory of relativity, the conservation of energy also implies the conservation of mass in isolated systems (that is, the mass of a system cannot change, so long as energy is not permitted to enter or leave the system)." (emphasis in black of the word "isolated" added by me)
Therefore, if the law of conservation of energy applies (as an objection) to dualism, it has to be proved that the universe is a closed or isolated system; but it is not known to be true. Hence, assuming that the universe is a closed and isolated system begs the question against the dualist.
As has explained philosopher Uwe Meixner: "It is alleged again and again that the nonphysical causation of physical events is bound to violate received physics because it, allegedly, entails the violation of the law of the preservation of energy, or the violation of the law of the preservation ofmomentum. Repetition does not make false allegations any less false. First, in physics, the mentioned preservation laws are always asserted under the condition that the physical system with regard to which they are asserted is a socalled closed system: that no energy or momentum is coming into the system from entities that are outside of it, or is going out of the system to entities outside of it. Now, physics is silent on the question whether the entire physical world is a closed system. Moreover, it does not seem to be an analytic truth that the physical world is such a system. It follows that in order to have the nonphysical causation of physical events conflict with the preservation laws, it is necessary to go beyond physics and to assume the metaphysical hypothesis that the physical world is a closed system." (New Perspectives for a Dualistic Conception of Mental Causation. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 15, No. 1, 2008, pp. 18–19)
Such assumption (that the universe is a closed system) exist in physicalism and materialism, not in dualism. Therefore, if the materialist assumes such idea, he's begging the question against the dualist because he's assuming the truth of his own materialistic metaphysical position (and the impossibility of dualism).
As has been argued by materialist philosopher William Lycan : "But it has been argued by E. Averill and B. Keating [1981] that the conservation laws regarding linear momentum and matter-energy come in weak versions and stronger versions.24 The weak versions are what actually figure in physics. But they are logically compatible with Cartesian causation. The stronger versions have been adumbrated by some philosophers, but are not required for physics and also would beg the question against the dualist."
2)But contrary to the above arguments, let's to suppose (for the sake of the argument) that dualism actually violates the law of conservation of energy. Does it entails that dualism is impossible?
It's important to know that the violation of the law of conservation of energy has been empirically established. According to this scientific website "To sum it up, yes, conservation of energy can be violated, but nature makes sure it is always within the limits of uncertainty. In other words, the energy must be returned, and the books set straight pretty quickly. But, the fact that it can be violated is important, and although it can never be observed directly, it does have important consequences"
If the above article is correct, then in quantum mechanics, the law of conservation of energy has been violated and it entails that such law can't be used as an impossible barrer anymore; Thus, even if we accept that dualism violates such law, it doesn't entail that dualism is impossible; it only would show that dualism is one of the instances where such law can be violated (and this would support that idea that consciousness and its relationship with the brain has something to do with quantum effects; it doesn't mean that the origin of consciousness can be explained by quantum mechanics; the point is that the relationship between consciousness and the brain could be explained in terms of quantum mechanics, as has argued some physicists like Henry Stapp).
3)Dennett's argument is based on the principles of classical physics, not in contemporary quantum mechanics. Regarding Dennett's argument, quantum physicist Henry Stapp wrote: "This argument depends on identifying ‘standard physics’ with classical physics. The argument collapses when one goes over to contemporary physics, in which, due to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, trajectories of particles are replaced by cloud-like structures, and in which conscious choices can influence physically described activity without violating the conservation laws or any other laws of quantum physics. Contemporary physical theory allows, and its orthodox von Neumann form entails, an interactive dualism that is fully in accord with all the laws of physics. Any perception merely reduces the possibilities." (Mindful Universe, p. 81)
Finally, there is evidence that consciousness is causally efficacious (see my post on it), and some parapsycholocal effects confirme it too.
Dennett's argument is not only unconvincing; it's irrelevant as a serious objection against dualism.
Links of interest:
-Julio Siqueira's review of Consciousness Explained.
-My review of Henry Stapp's book Mindful Universe.
-Bruce Rosemblum's book Quantum Enigma.
-My post on the causal efficacy of consciousness.
-Dean Radin's scientific replication of some of Masaru Emoto's findings
