Interaction Problem Involving the Soul and Body

[JimL]

The brain is the mind/body interface.

That is not even an answer, it's just the assertion of the belief that's in dispute here.

[JonathanL]

Why should the brain be the only complex physical object in the universe to have an interface with another realm of being? The mind and consciousness can be reduced to the neurological function of the brain and nervous system.

Nothing of the sort has been shown to be the case yet.

[Tassman]

The brain is the mind/body interface.

Why should the brain be the only complex physical object in the universe to have an interface with another realm of being? The mind and consciousness can be reduced to the neurological function of the brain and nervous system.

[JonathanL]

Those who are against substance dualism claim that there are conceptual difficulties with the idea that an immaterial mind can interact with a physical body.

The following is a quote from the IEP about dualism:
"Since the mind is, on the Cartesian model, immaterial and unextended, it can have no size, shape, location, mass, motion or solidity. How then can minds act on bodies? What sort of mechanism could convey information of the sort bodily movement requires, between ontologically autonomous realms? To suppose that non-physical minds can move bodies is like supposing that imaginary locomotives can pull real boxcars."

The article is located here: https://www.iep.utm.edu/dualism/#SH7c

How do you respond that to this claim?

I would respond that even if I don't understand the "mechanism" that allows a soul to control a physical body I would still be justified in believing in the existence of immaterial minds. It simply isn't a problem that's serious enough that it would warrant questioning my belief in mind-body dualism.

[seer]

Those who are against substance dualism claim that there are conceptual difficulties with the idea that an immaterial mind can interact with a physical body.

The following is a quote from the IEP about dualism:
"Since the mind is, on the Cartesian model, immaterial and unextended, it can have no size, shape, location, mass, motion or solidity. How then can minds act on bodies? What sort of mechanism could convey information of the sort bodily movement requires, between ontologically autonomous realms? To suppose that non-physical minds can move bodies is like supposing that imaginary locomotives can pull real boxcars."

The article is located here: https://www.iep.utm.edu/dualism/#SH7c

How do you respond that to this claim?

A couple of things, I think John Carew Eccles did some good work on dualist-interactionism. Though it has been a while since I looked into this. William Hasker suggested emergent dualism where the mind is an emergent property of the physical brain and has a looping effect on the brain. More over it is not important to answer this question, why should we look to science to answer such a thing? Then there is the question of definitions - what is material? Immaterial? Perhaps immaterial is physical in a way we do not understand or never will.

[Sparko]

The brain is the mind/body interface.

[Hornet]

Those who are against substance dualism claim that there are conceptual difficulties with the idea that an immaterial mind can interact with a physical body.

The following is a quote from the IEP about dualism:
"Since the mind is, on the Cartesian model, immaterial and unextended, it can have no size, shape, location, mass, motion or solidity. How then can minds act on bodies? What sort of mechanism could convey information of the sort bodily movement requires, between ontologically autonomous realms? To suppose that non-physical minds can move bodies is like supposing that imaginary locomotives can pull real boxcars."

The article is located here: https://www.iep.utm.edu/dualism/#SH7c

How do you respond that to this claim?