Alin C. Cucu

The principle of the causal closure of the physical world (CCP) is a main rationale for physicalism. This article examines whether the justifications given for this principle are successful. I start by specifying the principle as claiming that every physical effect has a necessary and sufficient physical cause, thereby ruling out mental causes as well as causal overdetermination. I then proceed to the first justification, the argument from basic forces. It inductively extrapolates from our knowledge of known physical (conservative) forces to the conclusion that all forces must be of that nature, hence ruling out mental forces. However, the argument overlooks the fact that mental forces could be in principle conservative, and that even non-conservative forces are perfectly acceptable according to the Noether theorem. The second justification is the argument from the in-principle completeness of physics, whose success depends on insisting that physical causes be necessary and sufficient for their effects, which is just a restatement of CCP. Thirdly, the empirical argument has it that we have enough empirical knowledge of bodies to safely conclude that no nonphysical forces are at work in them. The problem with this is that the relevant empirical data (neuroscience of volitional actions) are not taken into account. Finally, the argument from scientific realism founders on the lack of a relevant metaphysical necessity, a necessity whose introduction would render CCP true by fiat. All in all, CCP lacks justification and comes out as a mere metaphysical doctrine begging the question against nonphysical interaction.

Physicalists typically believe that neurophysiology has refuted the thesis that non-physical minds can interact with the brain. In this paper, I argue that it is precisely a closer look at the neurophysiology of volitional actions that suggests otherwise. I start with a clarification of how the present inquiry relates to the main argument for physicalism, and how the most common alternative views relate to the findings of my study. I then give a brief overview of the neurophysiological research about volitional actions, finding that there is no research specifically directed at the pertinent question. I proceed by pointing out what it would take for a complete physical explanation of volitional actions to be true: namely a complete physical explanation of the increase in the firing rate of the neurons with which the sequence leading up to volitional actions starts. Since no dedicated research about this question is available, I offer a study of the known mechanisms of neuronal excitation as a substitute, finding that there is no plausible biochemical or physical mechanism that could explain the causal initiation of volitional actions – at least none that upholds energy conservation. But non-conservation is precisely what interactive dualism, in its most plausible version, predicts. Thus, rather than buttressing physicalism, our empirical knowledge of volitional actions points toward interactive dualism.

One of the most serious challenges (if not the most serious challenge) for interactive psycho-physical dualism (henceforth interactive dualism or ID) is the so-called ‘interaction problem’. It has two facets, one of which this article focuses on, namely the apparent tension between interactions of non-physical minds in the physical world and physical laws of nature. One family of approaches to alleviate or even dissolve this tension is based on a collapse solution (‘consciousness collapse/CC) of the measurement problem in quantum mechanics (QM). The idea is that the mind brings about the collapse of a superposed wave function onto one of its eigenstates. Thus, it is claimed, can the mind change the course of things without violating any law figuring in physical theory. I will first show that this hope is premature because energy and momentum are probably not conserved in collapse processes, and that even if this can be dealt with, the violations are either severe or produce further ontological problems. Second, I point out several conceptual difficulties for interactionist CC. I will also present solutions for those problems, but it will become clear that those solutions come at a high cost. Third, I shall briefly list some empirical problems which make life even harder for interactionist CC. I conclude with remarks about why no- collapse interpretations of QM don’t help either and what the present study has shown is the real issue for ID: namely to find a plausible integrative view of dualistic mental causation and laws of nature.

The principle of energy conservation is widely taken to be a se- rious difficulty for interactionist dualism (whether property or sub- stance). Interactionists often have therefore tried to make it satisfy energy conservation. This paper examines several such attempts, especially including E. J. Lowe’s varying constants proposal, show- ing how they all miss their goal due to lack of engagement with the physico-mathematical roots of energy conservation physics: the first Noether theorem (that symmetries imply conservation laws), its converse (that conservation laws imply symmetries), and the locality of continuum/field physics. Thus the “conditionality re- sponse”, which sees conservation as (bi)conditional upon symme- tries and simply accepts energy non-conservation as an aspect of interactionist dualism, is seen to be, perhaps surprisingly, the one most in accord with contemporary physics (apart from quantum mechanics) by not conflicting with mathematical theorems basic to physics. A decent objection to interactionism should be a posteri- ori, based on empirically studying the brain.