A Hefty Bet, Part 3: Reasons and Evidence

Chalmers writes: “Giving in to this temptation...[that is, interactionism]...requires a hefty bet on the future of physics, one that does not currently seem at all promising.”  (Page 154)

Interactionism may be a “hefty bet”, but sometimes physics is about making big bets.  When Einstein proposed the theory of general relativity, there was approximately no evidence for it.  Supposedly, gravitational waves were just verified last week, almost a hundred years after Einstein predicted them.

We don’t have any scientific evidence yet for interactionism, but is the lack of evidence, in this case, evidence of a lack?  Since we can’t yet simulate brains, and we don’t yet know the computer architecture of the brain, it is no surprise that we haven’t yet found the intentyon receptors.

I hope that one day science will answer the question of whether there is psychophysical interaction.  Or maybe it never will.  One thing is clear: we are currently far away from that goal.

We have no evidence of interactionism, but we have reasons -- philosophical reasons -- to believe that it is *very* promising.  Some materialists think that there are no reasons to believe in dualism, but Chalmers is not a materialist.  Chalmers agrees with me that there are reasons to believe in dualism.  Once you accept dualism, your only two choices are epiphenomenalism and interactionism.  And epiphenomenalism, as I hope to show in my next few blog posts, is not coherent.