(6) Explain the difference between interactionist dualism, epiphenomenalism and parallelism. Discuss the costs and benefits of each of these theories.
If thoughts and bodies are different fields, whether it is property or the way that material dualism requires, then how they relate to each other, they interact in life: thoughts and feelings; sometimes they cause physical reactions, sometimes caused by physical events. I will now briefly discuss the issue of interactionist dualism, epiphenomenalism and parallelism. All three are attempts to resolve the relationship between thought and body.
It is one of our common sense beliefs that interactionist dualism is the view that the mind and the physical or psychological events and physical events interact due to a feature of everyday experience. I often respond to these experiences which is the material world through my senses. The thoughts also affected words and actions. Therefore, there is a potent natural bias that supports interactionism. However, some claim that it faces serious problems.
The most straightforward objection to interaction is that states or substances lack the commonality necessary for communication which is distinct from each other in terms of psychological attributes. It is widely believed that this opposition to interactionism in the most original form relies on a causal map: if all causal relationships are affected, how do materials and immaterial interact? However, if the causal relationship is either an endless combination of problems or a more illusory power or energy, then in principle there is no concept of interaction between mind and body.
Even if there is no conflict in principle, there seems to be disagreement between the interactive dualism and some basic principles of physical science. For example, if causal forces flow into and out of the physical system, energy is not saved, and the conservation of energy is a fundamental scientific law. Various responses have been made to this. One suggestion is that the mind may affect the distribution of energy without changing its number. (See Averill and Keating 1981).
Robins Collins (2011) claims that protection against interaction is a particular case because the principle of protection is not universal in physics. He believes that energy is not conserved in general relativity, quantum theory or the entire universe. So why should we stick to it in interactionist dualism?
If the laws of physics are uncertain, the problem of physics closure may change radically, as quantum theory seems to assert. If the laws of physics are deterministic, any interference from the outside can lead to violations of these laws. However, if they are uncertain, then the interference may not produce a result with a probability greater than zero, then is it in compliance with the law? Thus, under the premise of obeying the law, people may interact and retain a closed meaning. Because it involves assessing the meaning and consequences of quantum...