From: jimruttshow8596
Cartesian dualism, as defined by Forrest Landry, pertains to the fundamental “relationship between mind and matter” or the distinction between “substance in the world versus ourselves as beings in the world” [00:58:38]. This philosophical concept has historically explored two main traditions:
- Realism/Materialism One tradition posits that substance is primary, and both bodies and minds are composed of this substance. This perspective aligns with classical physics and what is often labeled as realism [00:58:56].
- Idealism/Mysticism The other, more mystical or religious perspective, suggests a “notion of deity or of of of the totality of consciousness that subdivides itself into the beings that are us” [00:59:02]. In this view, the world around us is projected as an epiphenomenon of this consciousness emanation, as seen in theories like the Kabbalah or the simulation hypothesis [00:59:26].
Landry’s Imminent Philosophy and Dualism
Forrest Landry’s “imminent philosophy” offers a contrasting view to these traditional dualistic interpretations [01:00:41]. Instead of positing either objective existence (realism) or subjective existence (idealism) as unconditional, Landry describes the “relationship between the subjective and the objective as being unconditional” [01:01:14].
This perspective builds upon Descartes’ famous assertion, “I think therefore I am” [01:01:22]. Landry interprets this to mean that the “process of thinking is the basis by which we can establish the process of being” [01:01:32]. Thus, ontology (the study of being) is dependent upon epistemology (the study of knowing or thinking) [01:01:40].
The Primacy of Process
Landry argues that the notion of process itself is fundamental [01:01:52]. Whether a being is objective or subjective, its existence is contingent on process [01:02:00]. Even the act of making a distinction between objective and subjective being is a process [01:02:06].
The philosophical program aims to understand the characteristics inherent in the “nature of process itself” [01:04:31]. Landry considers process to be the “single most primal concept of which it is possible to conceive at all,” given that “conception itself can be regarded as a kind of process” [01:04:43]. Examples of process include:
- Comparison [01:04:58]
- Measurement [01:05:00]
- Signaling [01:05:04]
- Choice, change, and causation [01:05:04]
By characterizing the nature of process, one can understand the intrinsics associated with doubt and the “intrinsically true about the nature of the relationship between the subject of an objective” [01:05:22]. This approach allows for a re-derivation or re-grounding of realism and idealism [01:05:31]. Landry’s work suggests that the relationship between realism and idealism is “considerably more primal than both the notions of realism or our idealism” [01:05:40].
Mind from Brain and Consciousness
The discussion around mind from brain in the context of Cartesian dualism highlights a key divergence between traditional philosophical approaches and modern cognitive science and neuroscience.
Many cognitive scientists and neuroscientists reject Cartesian dualism, asserting that mind is an emergent manifestation of the brain [01:07:53]. While neural correlates provide observed correspondences between subjective experience and brain tissue activity, Landry points out that even “perfected knowledge about neural correlates” would not answer the “hard problem of consciousness” [01:09:54]. The hard problem, he explains, is less about correlation and more about “why is this moment this one” [01:10:09]. It asks how we distinguish between past and future, and why there is a subjective “now” that differs from a third-person perspective [01:10:55].
For Landry, the hard problem persists because purely physicalist models of process do not inherently provide the tools to explain the “selectivity of the notion of locality,” the localization of consciousness to a specific time, space, and possibility [01:22:07]. The transition from a third-person objective understanding to a first-person subjective experience remains an open question, requiring a different conceptual toolset than those provided by physical sciences alone [01:22:54].
Relationship to Theories of Consciousness and Time
Landry emphasizes that the concept of consciousness is deeply intertwined with the concept of time [01:21:01]. It is also linked to the idea of “hard random,” implying a necessity for some “notion of potentiality” or “probability over possibility” [01:21:06]. The existence of a subjective experience is directly connected to this temporality and the fact that other possibilities could have occurred [01:21:27].
Even if consciousness is understood as a dynamic biological process, similar to digestion, as proposed by John Searle [01:12:44], the “underlying hard problem” of the “selectivity of the notion of locality” remains [01:22:02]. Landry suggests that physics, biology, and chemistry, while providing excellent third-person models, do not fully bridge the gap to the first-person perspective [01:22:24].