Conservation of Energy and Dualism
Not as big a problem as people think.
I mentioned in my last post that I’ve been doing some thinking about Dualism and Conservation of Energy. This was sparked by reading Tommy Blanchard’s post that argues for Physicalism. As we disagreed on Philosophy of mind, we promptly agreed to fight to the death.
Of course, we don’t have guns in the UK, so we’ll just have to take turns using his.
So, what’s the challenge, and why do I reject it? I’ll do the usual and explain the basics as I go along.
What is Dualism?
Dualism is the belief that there’s two categories of stuff in the universe - the physical, and the non-physical. The physical stuff is what you’d expect. It contains all the atoms, waves, and Gary Busey’s massive teeth. The non-physical stuff is consciousness. Dualists think that consciousness is something separate and radically different from the physical stuff (often it’s referred to as “over and above” the physical). Physicalists deny all this and say “no, even consciousness is physical”.
You might think that Dualism is weird, because we now know that consciousness is the result of brain activity - but believing this is not incompatible with Dualism. Dualists don’t deny that consciousness is closely related to the brain, they just deny that consciousness literally is the brain. They think it’s a non physical thing, or property, that the brain has a relation with.
A more comprehensive look at why I’m a Dualist can be found here, but here’s a rough list of my reasons.
It seems obvious that consciousness itself is non-physical. I just find it confusing when people say my subjective experience literally is atoms. It sounds like saying “Bananas are Monday” to me.
I can conceive of someone that shares all the same physical properites as me, but isn’t conscious. If this is conceivable, consciousness must not be a physical.
Mary’s Room thought experiment (described in the article I linked).
So, how does Conservation of Energy tie into all this consciousness talk? Well, as physics tells us, energy cannot be created or destroyed. If consciousness is non physical, yet causes physical events to happen, then it’s violating this rule by creating energy. It seems like Dualists have some ‘splaining to do.
Epiphenomenalism
Firstly, the Dualist could just say that while consciousness is non-physical, it has no effect on the physical. The physical can affect your mental states, but your mental states can’t affect your physical states. Your mental state is just like a passenger along for the ride.
“This ride fucking sucks, can I get off?”
The problem with Epiphenomenalism, is that it’s really implausible. Were Epiphenomenalism true, we’d be acting the same way we are now even if there was no consciousness in the universe and we were all automatons - which would make this article awfully weird. Under Epiphenomenalism, it’s kind of strange that any of us ever talk about being conscious. It’s also strange that our consciousness bears any resemblance to the physical world. It could’ve been white noise in our heads and we’d all be walking around doing the same things. So, while this sidesteps Conservation of Energy, it’s a no from me.
Interactionist Dualism
Interactionist Dualism is just the opposite of Epiphenomenalism. Mental states are non-physical but they do cause changes to the physical universe. Sounds much more reasonable, but now we have to contend with Conservation of Energy again.
So, how do we do that? Well, one way to tackle the argument is to just reject Conservation of Energy in this context. This may sound crazy, but keep in mind that Conservation of Energy is a principle that describes physical interactions. Why would we think it applies to interactions between the physical and non-physical?
You might think “Well it’s awfully convenient for the Dualist that consciousness is the one exception to conservation of energy” - but keep in mind that consciousness is entirely unique. Even Physicalists have to admit that consciousness is very different from everything else in the universe. If there was anything you’d expect to act strangely it would be this totally inexplicable and ineffable thing we have. To conclude that the non-physical must not exist because it would interact with matter differently than matter interacts with itself just seems very confused. It’s like observing how magnets always interact, and concluding wood must not exist because it wouldn’t be magnetic.
Also, it’s worth adding that we can get a bit complacent when referring to physical “laws”. We sometimes imagine that they are these fundamental things that cause nature to be a certain way, and any theory that denies them must be false. However, they’re really just patterns we’ve have spotted. Oftentimes, we’re wrong and the laws need to be revised. The same thing happened with Newton’s laws of motion (his whole life was basically a waste of time tbh. Just saying what we were all thinking).
Quantum Mechanics
I’ll preface this little aside by saying that I am not a physicist. I have an A level in it (or a high school diploma for you yanks), but have forgotten almost all of it. It was hard to pay attention with all the girls it helped me get. Still, it’s totally obvious that Quantum Mechanics undermines the Conservation of Energy argument.
The extent of my research.
I joke, of course, I have no fucking clue what is going on in Quantum Mechanics. From my limited understanding, there are interactions between particles that are bound with one another. However, it’s been shown that these interactions can’t be the result of energy exchange. So, it’s up to the Physicalist to explain why we can accept that interactions without energy exchange are possible in Quantum Mechanics, but can’t accept it in Philosophy of Mind. If you want this explained by someone who knows what they’re talking about, you can read about it here.
“Quantum mechanics, however, does provide a good case of interaction (or at least correlation) without either energy or momentum exchange. In quantum mechanics, there are definitely correlations between attributes of particles– and in many realist interpretations, causal interactions -- without energy exchange.”
The problem with the Conservation of Energy argument is that it’s in direct opposition to two other deeply plausible premises.
Consciousness is non physical.
Mental States can affect physical states.
Compare these two to what the Conservation of Energy argument endorses.
Energy is conserved in all interactions, including between the physical and non physical, and this would be violated were Interactionist Dualism true.
Believing all three of these would be inconsistent. We have to reject one of them. The physicalist rejects (1) - but I think that’s crazy! (3) is definitely the one I am least confident in. Especially considering how seemingly little we understand about physics, and how much disagreement there seems to be on energy conservation always obtaining in all scenarios.
How can someone be wrong about so much but be so likeable? Cut it out Connor, your attempts to bring me to the dark side through your charm aren't going to work.
Seriously though, great article. One minor point I feel compelled to make: "I just find it confusing when people say my subjective experience literally is atoms." -- I don't disagree with this intuition! This is why I find identity theory pretty implausible (not as implausible as dualism, mind you 😉). Under functionalism, it isn't that the atoms/cells themselves constitute consciousness, but the functions they play do--the old "hardware software" distinction.
Anyways, eventually I'll get around to writing about consciousness and completely change your mind, just you wait.
Even Physicalists have to admit that consciousness is very different from everything else in the universe. If there was anything you’d expect to act strangely it would be this totally inexplicable and ineffable thing we have.”
I would go further and say it is the primordial datum upon which science is founded. And yet scientism still reigns, even though it seems obvious that science systematically excludes it in its methodology. And that’s fine for most things, but not so much for understanding its own basis.
Ironically we arrive at the idea that the most certain knowledge is that of my own thinking—consciousness—through Descartes, the one (along with Galileo) who decided to reduce causality to the paltry state it remains in today, the mathematization of everything.
I like what you said about trying to understand wood through the paradigm of magnetism. That’s it!