For any remaining mind/body dualists out there: neuroscientist Patrick Haggard builds magnetic coils that he can hold close to your head, and use them to control your body via signals to your brain. “Transcranial magnetic stimulation” would be the technical term. (He thinks it means you don’t have free will, because he’s a neuroscientist and not a philosopher.)
The machinery can’t force Prof Haggard to do anything really complicated – “You can’t make me sign my name,” he says, almost ruefully – but at one point, Christina is able to waggle his index finger slightly, like a schoolmaster. It’s very fine control, a part of the brain specifically in command of a part of the body. “There’s quite a detailed map of the brain’s wiring to the body that you can build,” he tells me.
We sometimes say “the Large Hadron Collider is the most complex machine ever built,” but I’m not sure how it would directly compare to a human being. All part of the great bootstrap up to greater complexity, which will continue for a while until it all inevitably deteriorates into empty space.
I get a kick out of the way scientists can so cavalierly dismiss the soul or freewill, and talk as if they’re so cocksure that we’re just machines and that the universe is deterministic. For when they put away their lab toys and go home to their families or out with friends–they live as if determinism is untrue. They live on the basis of conscience, knowing that certain things are truly good and certain things are truly evil. This intuitive knowledge can’t simply be disregarded–unless we purposely wish to destroy civilization.
@ Post #3: “It seems as though these magnetic coils can overwrite what the “soul” tells the body to do.” – Argument by analogy: A television set can be controlled by either pushing a button on the set, or by using a remote control. Pretend your body is the television set. The existence of a remote control that has been programmed to jam your frequency does not invalidate the existence of an independent organizing principle inside your body (call it the “soul,” if you will). Obviously a human body is more complex than a TV set by orders of magnitude so the organizing principle is a little more complicated.
@ 14. ObsessiveMathsFreak: “If people are machines which are not responsible for their actions, and who therefore cannot be held accountable for those actions, then equally people cannot be rewarded for their actions either. Applying the latter logic tends to halt application of the former fairly quick.” – !!! 🙂
@ Post#26: And I’m getting a kick out of the way non-scientist misrepresent scientists in their naive view of the evil scientist’s cold materialistic heart. 🙂
The thing is, whether or not we have a free-will (in whatever ill-defined manner you wish to think of such) has absolutely no bearing on one’s ability to act “based on conscience” (ie. non-sequitur).
Lest you can travel back in time and look whether you could have chosen differently, there is no way to distinguish between a deterministic and non-deterministic mind in any practical way. Since based on everything we know from science there is no reason to assume any kind of non-deterministic behaviour in the macroscopic world it’s only natural to think that behaviour is determined by natural laws. This article is just another example of how changing the chemistry (or in this case magnetic stimulation) of the brain, changes the mind which is exactly what one would expect. Same way as drugs, brain injury or any other kind of meddling with the brain can alter one’s personality.
It would be more correct to say that we are software running ON a machine. And still more correct to say that the “Being” of Human Being is a viewpoint or collection of viewpoints associated with such software. There is a lot of good work investigating all of this in the Cognitive Science and Cognitive Philosophy literature, my favourite being Dennett’s “Consciousness Explained”. The delightful collection “The Mind’s I” is a great introduction to the area. Neuroscientists often look to me like people who apply oscilloscopes to a computer running a large software system and try to explain it as a phenomenon of transistors[neurons]. Yes, Firefox’s execution can be reduced to a phenomenon of transistors (or logic gates[synapses] or even lower-level physics) but low level models explain little of use to software engineers. Exactly how the abstract viewpoint of consciousness emerges from the information processing going on in the brain is a mostly unsolved scientific/philosophical puzzle. Perhaps we’ll have to build a conscious system before we really understand one.
Ah, the prefect reference for this thread:
http://cadmus.eui.eu/bitstream/handle/1814/16895/MWP_LS_2011_01.pdf
“My brain made me do it” (When neuroscientists think they can do philosophy.)
Matt,
Ok, I define free will as the ability to apply conscience on our cognitive processes. You claim that my definition means that free will has nothing to do with conscience. That doesn’t make sense 🙂
You suggest we travel back and view our cognitive processes. As you say, by observing a process we can’t distinguish between determinism and indeterminism. That’s because the question about determinism is metaphysics and not science. The demarcation between metaphysics and science is important, especially on this blog. Scientists do science but they are also free to do metaphysics. A scientist needs to know the difference. Some scientists, like Sean, are involved in a lot of metaphysical problems, and that’s why I love to listen to him (although I rarely agree with him).
The problem of free will is a metaphysical problem. Popper claims that metaphysical beliefs are important in science because that’s what influence the way we construct new hypotheses. The question about free will is a also psychologically important and there’s plenty of evidence for that. But of course, science also influence metaphysical beliefs. For example, I watched Sean show how Newton, Einstein and Schrödingers equations leads to different views about the time. That’s great, but ultimately a statement about the fundamental nature of time is metaphysical (since it can’t be falsified I believe).
If we come up with a scientific theory of everything some people would believe that we don’t need much metaphysics. I think that’s wrong, I think we need more metaphysics and I think it’s evident when you consider everyones scattered and confused viewpoints. It would help if the ones who don’t like metaphysics don’t try and it would help if they were informed they don’t need to bother about those questions.
Machines are made. Humans are grown. KISS!
I love it when a scientist straps a subject in a chair, controls everything about the environment and experience that stimulates the subject, and then concludes that free will is an illusion.
Travis Garrett said:
1) Is it possible, in principle, to fully simulate a human brain inside a sufficiently powerful computer?
A simulated brain is to real brains as simulated weather is to a thunderstorm. The strong AI hypothesis, that consciousness can be reduced to purely syntactic operations, is false because syntax is insufficient for semantics. The cognitive model for consciousness is also probably false. It seems very unlikely that our brains calculate the parabolic arc of a baseball before catching it.
This experiment does not refute dualism. Dualism refutes dualism. It does not have a non question begging account for how souls could causally interact with bodies.
Daniel said:
I define free will as the ability to apply conscience on our cognitive processes.
This is confusing to me since one’s conscience, one’s moral precepts, are themselves cognitive processes.
noen,
It is claimed there are syntactic cognitive processes. If those exists it is not the same as the nonsyntactic mind. That’s what I would like to claim and you seem to agree.
You are a machine? Hmm… says Alan Turing.
COMPUTING MACHINERY AND INTELLIGENCE by A. M. Turing
http://www.loebner.net/Prizef/TuringArticle.html
This has a remarkable passage (written in relation to possible objections, by Turing, as to whether machines will ever pass his “Turing Test”).
“I assume that the reader is familiar with the idea of extrasensory perception, and the meaning of the four items of it, viz., telepathy, clairvoyance, precognition and psychokinesis. These disturbing phenomena seem to deny all our usual scientific ideas. How we should like to discredit them! Unfortunately the statistical evidence, at least for telepathy, is overwhelming. It is very difficult to rearrange one’s ideas so as to fit these new facts in. Once one has accepted them it does not seem a very big step to believe in ghosts and bogies. The idea that our bodies move simply according to the known laws of physics, together with some others not yet discovered but somewhat similar, would be one of the first to go. [NOTE this comment] This argument is to my mind quite a strong one.”
So it looks as though brains/minds don’t function to order as machines (or our bodies?) Turing is seriously doubting this widely held assumption. Why do we cling to it especially as there are other converging lines of evidence that suggest otherwise?
An interesting series of studies in the late 1990’s, well investigated by a team of scientists, (and many well before) confirm this and it looks as though the great Turing was quite prescient in this regard. See The Afterlife Investigations:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qSEi_sfaSU
Now I wonder whether my PC will haunt me when I scrap it! Wooooo…!!!! (actually no fear I’m sorry to say).
@ Alan —- Turing was wrong. There was not good statistical evidence for telepathy, those studies have since been shown to be badly constructed. Rupert Sheldrake is hardly unbiased. His claims have similarly failed to meet scientific standards. Even if a video on YouTube says otherwise. (I know, surprising isn’t it?)
“Why do we cling to it especially as there are other converging lines of evidence that suggest otherwise?”
Because there is in fact no such evidence. Just as there is no evidence for aliens piloting UFOs or for ghosts or for any of a number of other goofy things people believe in. And in the absence of any evidence there is simply no reason any intelligent person should accept psi phenomenon or UFOs or the others.
Turing wrong? Yourself right? I doubt his comments on this issue were lightly made.
And there is some reading you MUST do. Firstly my link above:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qSEi_sfaSU – The Afterlife Investigations, physicists, electrical engineers, psychologists and many others were witnesses –
has Dr. Sheldrake and Dr. Carr as actual witnesses to these phenomena – you just don’t know this. See here BTW for Dr. Carr, a 1 Jan 2012 appraisal of Stephen Hawking:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/jan/01/stephen-hawking-at-70#start-of-comments
and this article by him: http://parapsykologi.se/artiklar/Carr_08.pdf, considered views by him on a subject he has studied over many years.
These phenomena are what some would call “supernatural” but they are not. They are part of this natural universe.
The Belgium Triangle UFOs here also are still unexplained. See here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q4JsPSKYypk
Happy New year.
Daniel wrote: “The problem of free will is a metaphysical problem.”
You’re already assuming your conclusion by defining free will as something “unphysical”. You’re just begging the question without establishing WHY free will is a to be considered such.
Actually, your definition of free will: “I define free will as the ability to apply conscience on our cognitive processes.”
Is not a definition at all, because you fail to define “conscience” or even explain how conscience is something removed from cognitive processes. The definition you put forth does nothing to clarify what you mean.
@Alan: All you’re doing is providing an argument from authority (though, the people you’re quoting, ie. Sheldrake et al, don’t posses any of that anyway). You should realise that, in the comments of science blog, people will demand better sources than youtube videos and newspaper articles. How about scientific papers? Alas, if there were convincing evidence for the existence of such phenomena it would be a mainstream scientific enterprise. It isn’t. Thus, you’d need to provide evidence for a global conspiracy.
@Matt
Just for you: J.Proc.Soc.Psychical Research Vol.58, pt 220 (1999) but it’s been re-issued see here: http://www.spr.ac.uk/main/category/newstags/spr-supported-projects.
Matt, I hope you realise that if you are going to criticize scientific observations made by physicists, some from NASA if you read this study, psychologists, engineers and others with academic training who were witnessess you are going to have to investigate yourself properly the claims of these scientists. I don’t wish to sound overly but your comments are from non-authority. Alas, if you carefully watch the documentary again you will see detailed statements by scientists on these phenomena. Q: Why did you only character attack Dr. Rupert Sheldrake above?
Nobody mentioned conspiracy BTW. Concentrate on the phenomena seen please – in the Report and in the documentary.
(please: NO Brian Dunning!)
Alan, your links don’t work. Besides, if you can’t defend your beliefs on your own and all you can do is point to a UFO video on YouTube then your beliefs aren’t really *yours* are they?
Think for yourself Alan. Don’t just APE people who agree with you. When people challenge you to back up what you say and then all you do is point to UFO videos on YouTube, well….. that’s not really even thinking.
Thinking rationally involves working your way from well founded premises towards a logical, rational conclusion. It isn’t feelings, those are emotions and while important, emotions cannot tell us anything about the real world.
You seem surprised that I said Alan Turing was wrong but you see…. part of being an educated rational person is that we *don’t* worship personalities. Turing was a genius but he got some things wrong. So was Einstein but was also wrong about some things (QM). It’s important to be… you know… right. And there is a way of determining which ideas are most likely to be right or not and to date there is simply no good evidence for psychic phenomenon, or UFOs.
BTW, Brian Dunning should be your role model. He is fantastic and his Skeptoid podcast is filled with valuable facts and research. There are other podcasts on how to think critically. I highly encourage you to check them out.
Addition: Alan has linked twice to copyrighted material. The same video only this time with the FBI warning clearly visible can be seen here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZoMR_Oj6Qrs
Alan should be banned. Those who posted the video on YouTube should be arrested and prosecuted for their criminal activity.
noen etc.
The Afterlife Experiments video above was posted by the distributors. The one you linked directly above is a totally different one. My other links work OK ; – )
FYI I have met Tim Coleman, the documentary director/producer at this event: http://www.spr.ac.uk/main/civicrm/event/info?reset=1&id=30
and I was on good speaking terms at meetings in the late 1990’s with two of the authors of the Scole Report.
As to my beliefs? Well, on speaking to scientists who SAW these phenomena I don’t have beliefs for these. I know non-physical intelligence is real and manifested in these investigations.
Does this then follow that computers can have a consciousness like ours? Probably not, because non-corporeal spirits can exist related to once physical bodies. I said above “it looks as though brains/minds don’t function to order as machines” but this doesn’t preclude complex “thinking” in machines – but these machines won’t have souls, a spirit etc.
So why have WE got them and they never will? Maybe it’s like this – life develops in (and is composed of) the space/quantum “soup” which is fundamental to it, a known fact of physics. So what is ultimately developing is an intelligence constantly forming within and composed of this system, a mix of energy, q-fields, multidimensions and maybe some total unknowns even physics can’t measure.
But a computer is made by US, bit by bit, as hardware/software according to rules totally apart from the process in which we develop in this “system”. So you will never expect it to have soul, spirit etc. – just some ideas.
As to physics, well I have a couple of degrees (while back), know QED works, QCD works, electroweak works, the Higgs exists etc., there’s probably a multiverse, but there’s a whole lot more going on in all this, wayyyyy down in matter/energy/space, that hasn’t been touched yet.
“The Afterlife Experiments video above was posted by the distributors.” — Both had identical footage for the beginning. I didn’t watch it but if you say it was posted by the distributors (didn’t seem to me like it was) then I guess that’s ok for now.
“Well, on speaking to scientists who SAW these phenomena” — Saw what phenomena? I am not going to sit through an hour long conspiracy theory trash “documentary” in order to know what your argument is. If you can’t state your beliefs and defend them then it is simply not worth my time.
“I know non-physical intelligence is real and manifested in these investigations.” — No, you know no such thing. You *believe* in….. what i don’t know…. but you do not have the right to claim it as knowledge until you have proved it is in fact the case. You have not done so.
“but this doesn’t preclude complex “thinking” in machines” — Looks like you’ve set up a heads I win tails you lose situation. You believe non-corporeal spirits exist, in spite of the fact that’s incoherent, but any evidence I come up with to the contrary you can immediately dismiss as machines engaging in complex “thinking”. This is not valid reasoning.
“what is ultimately developing is an intelligence constantly forming within and composed of this system, a mix of energy, q-fields, multidimensions” — Incoherent gobbledeegook. The fact that you can repeat jargon you’ve heard doesn’t mean you actually understand it. Just intoning the magical word “quantum” because you think it bestows you with a patina of intelligence doesn’t constitute a valid rational argument. Which you have yet to give.
“So you will never expect it [computers] to have soul, spirit” — I don’t think that what we call computers will ever become conscious for specific reasons but at the same time I do think brains are entirely physical objects and consciousness is something they do. Just not in the same way that your PC “thinks”. However words like soul or spirit are literally incoherent. They make no sense even in their own terms and are self contradictory.
How can a non-causal entity cause material brains (or anything at all) to act?
How does an immaterial material (what souls are supposed to be composed of) make ANY sense?
“As to physics, well I have a couple of degrees” — Argument from authority fallacy. The fact that you have completed a university degree program doesn’t ensure that you know what you’re talking about or that you are right. You have yet to present an actual argument to which I can reply. All you’ve done is to point to hour long pseudoscience documentaries in a failed attempt to back up your claims. That doesn’t cut it.
The Afterlife Experiments [Investigations]…
“I didn’t watch it…I am not going to sit through an hour long conspiracy theory trash “documentary”…it is simply not worth my time.” [BTW you can see it was posted by the distributors, the link is there – I’m just telling you!]
So these scientists, many, have seen non-physical intelligence with their own eyes and some make comments about this in the documentary but you will not even watch them speak? The light phenomena were recorded as well.
Hmm…Come on noen, make the leap!
I’m going to post a link here which shows these have been seen historically, so the phenomena satisfy “reproducibility” (that’s science although one must accept something extra, the possibility of “light” intelligence, or you risk outright dismissal of the phenomena). The great Sir William Crookes, wrote here:
https://webspace.yale.edu/chem125/125/history99/8Occult/CrookesPsychic.pdf
Look under “CLASS VIII Luminous Appearances”. You’ll see the lights are the same as seen in the documentary and show again the existence of non-physical intelligence – they have also been seen on many occasions over the last century. I know it’s difficult for you and I can understand your cognitive dissonance.
“How can a non-causal entity cause material brains (or anything at all) to act?
How does an immaterial material (what souls are supposed to be composed of) make ANY sense?”
You are defining yourself into trouble, I hope you can see this – it’s classic “cart before the horse thinking”. By saying “how can a non-causal entity cause material brains” your “definition” limits possibilities. It’s the phenomena first noen – then devise your theory – that’s also science, but with my qualification above as well – otherwise again one is only left with outright dismissal. And there’s this, if you were there you too would have seen all this, so what to do?
My idea on life developing in relation to and within the space/energy of which it is composed (I hope you know that space is fundamental) is an attempt to totally distinguish it from the rules by which we construct mere computers as objects, but which *only* run and “think” (??) by software programs and Intel chips. So this connects us, I believe, fundamentally with space, differently from mere computers. As I said, just an idea, start with the properties of space and go from there, maybe information and space are important? Try to calm down.
“So these scientists, many, have seen non-physical intelligence with their own eyes” — I am curious how one sees something that one cannot see. The closest real example would be neutrinos. We can know they exist because they are predicted by theory and because we *can* detect them with great difficulty.
How do you detect something which cannot be detected? Please explain.
“I’m going to post a link here which shows these have been seen historically, so the phenomena satisfy “reproducibility” (that’s science although one must accept something extra, the possibility of “light” intelligence, or you risk outright dismissal of the phenomena).”
Sorry but… (1) 19th century spiritualism is NOT reproducible and the mediums of the day were exposed as frauds. (2) The idea that light is intelligent is incoherent and at varience with observation. I’m pretty sure my table lamp is not that “bright”. It won’t even fetch me my coffee in the morning. (3) Citing Sir William Crookes is yet again argument from authority fallacy. The fact that a great 19th century scientist believed in spiritualism doesn’t make it true.
“You’ll see the lights are the same as seen in the documentary and show again the existence of non-physical intelligence”
I see no such thing. I see William Crookes’ *claim* that HE saw them and I recall (1) how easy it is to fool scientists, as Uri Gheller did, (2) that many spiritualist mediums were exposed and their methods used to deceive their clients revealed (3) how susceptible someone grieving over the death of a loved one can be and finally (4) his results of these investigations, unlike his scientific discoveries, have NOT been reproduced.
“You are defining yourself into trouble” (immaterial material, non-causal causality) — No, it’s really very simple. If my brain is not where consciousness resides and my soul or spirit is the entity that decides to raise my arm and not my brain then how is this done? Souls and spirits are supposed to be immaterial and exist outside of our causal universe. How then can a non-causal entity cause me to raise my arm? How can souls be immaterial? Are they made of something? If they are then they are material because the word material simply means to have component parts. They can’t be made of energy because we know that energy IS matter and matter IS energy so souls must be…. what? There is nothing else.
“It’s the phenomena first noen – then devise your theory” — But there is no phenomenon to investigate. All investigations have exposed spiritual mediums as frauds. All claims of para phenomenae have ordinary physical accounts that better explain anomalous data.
“And there’s this, if you were there you too would have seen all this, so what to do?” (1) This is not an argument and (2) Maybe, but that only means I could be duped by frauds like anyone else. Psychic mediums *have* been caught red handed and (3) I think that if I have been there I could have exposed the mediums defrauding William Crookes because I would not desperately want to contact my deceased loved one.
“My idea on life developing in relation to and within the space/energy of which it is composed […] is an attempt to totally distinguish it from the rules by which we construct mere computers as objects, but which *only* run and “think” ”
This is incoherent and/or trivial. Yes all life has developed in relation to space and energy which are basic components of the universe. But there is no reason to distinguish life from everything else because we can fully account for how life evolves without positing “spirits”. We do not need the idea of an Élan Vitale to animate dead matter. Organic chemistry fully accounts for how we live, consume food and have the energy to move around.
“Try to calm down.” — I am calm. Your claims are easily addressed and refuted and I am not upset in the least. You have not posed any real difficulty to me at all as anyone with even a high school understanding of science can easily refute your claims.
Have a nice day.
Noen
Scole experiment (multiple witnesses, noen)/Sir William Crookes (and colleagues, noen) obs./other similar light obs. over at least 100 years (see SPR Library records). Most readers here and yourself would probably agree your disagreement comments above fall into four statements:
Possibilities:
1. Fake (inc. mass and or individual conspiracy, holographic projection/tactile prod. equip. – Scole) – none suggested/found over 3 years. Also see expert magicians (2) comments on “irreproducibilty” of phenomena.
2. Mistake (inc. mass delusion, hallucination…) – none suggested over 3 years.
3. Poor control (external influence, e.g. external, to cellar, holographic projection/tactile prod. equip. etc. – Scole) – not detected/seen over 3 years.
4. Other – I’m open to suggestions… ; – )
Example (multiple witnesses, note): One obs. (Prof. David Fontana): stated a moving light entered one part of his body, exited the palm of his hand which he actually felt exit. Another investigator was ill in another session in the cellar, which he stated, whereupon the light entered his chest and exited another part of his body.
Report comment: “Settle on and apparently enter the chests of investigators, who reported internal sensations immediately thereafter, then leaving from a different part of the body.”
Hypothesis H: H(n) = (1,2,3,4…) = True: 1 (fake), 2 (mistake), 3 (poor control), 4 (other), single/combination of the above, n = noen.
But Obs = P, P = independently/multiply witnessed phenomena; proviso 3 years “clean” obs. (crucial): accepted these cases by many.
But Obs —> H(n) = not True.
Thus H(n) has been falsified.
H(n) = not True is sufficiently correct, all Scole/Crookes/other “clean” investigations for other Obs.
Note: (1,2,3) seem to be only routes available for observers who find Scole/Crookes/other unpalatable.
Thus H(n) = not True —> non-physical intelligence, human interference ruled out.
QED.
The Scole experiment: “Unfortunately, the Scole Experiment was tainted by profound investigative failings. In short, the investigators imposed little or no controls or restrictions upon the mediums, and at the same time, agreed to all of the restrictions imposed by the mediums. The mediums were in control of the seances, not the investigators. What the Scole Report authors describe as a scientific investigation of the phenomena, was in fact (by any reasonable interpretation of the scientific method) hampered by a set of rules which explicitly prevented any scientific investigation of the phenomena.”
And: “Believers in the Scole Experiment are likely to point to specifics in the Scole Report and say something like “But according to the detailed notes, the medium never moved his hands,” or something like that. But we have to remember that, assuming the Scole mediums were using trickery, the authors of the Scole Report were merely witnesses who were taken in by the tricks.”
Skeptoid: http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4179
THE MEDIUMS BANNED VIDEO CAMERAS!
Ok, that took me all of 30 seconds to refute. I imagine we will spend the next several paragraphs with you trying to BS your way our of that but the conclusion is set in stone. The Scole experiment was unscientific and the mediums could have easily tricked those involved.
Noen
You missed Tim Coleman’s (who directed the documentary) comments on the Dunning remarks, also at:
http://skeptoid.com/episode.php?id=4179&comments=all#discuss
see this comments section. I met him a short while back in London and he certainly emphasized to me the reality and credibility of everything and everyone.
“This skeptical analysis is well intentioned, but so full of inaccuracies it completely discredits itself. I produced and directed the documentary – The Afterlife Investigations – in which I thoroughly examine all the evidence for the Scole Experiment. I spent several years interviewing all the leading participants and I got to know them all well. As unbelievable as the activities at Scole are I found no evidence of fraud. The authors [Brian Dunning] arguments like – I consulted with a colleague who told me its possible to remove a luminous arm, therefore all experiments which used this control at Scole are fraudulent – are childish in their logic. Given the space I could demolish this entire analysis – but its easier if you watch the documentary http://www.theafterlifeinvestigations.com”
I honestly ask you how to reproduce ALL what was seen – none given yet by *anyone* over 13 years later. Actually the Scole cellar was “set in stone” BTW (not your conclusion), locked from the inside and under a house in Scole, Norfolk, UK!
http://www.theafterlifeinvestigations.com/
On scrutiny, your comments above (camera ban = insufficient) deny:
Obs = P, P = independently/multiply witnessed phenomena; proviso 3 years “clean” obs. (crucial): accepted these cases by many.
Addendum: Obs witnessed UK, Europe, California (twice – with NASA scientists) + historical Obs. (similar Obs.)
Thus Obs —> H(n) = not True, n = noen.
A non-Cartesian mund/body duality can be demonstrated in a theoretical account that also explains – along with much else – quantum wave/paricle duality in terms of a cause and its effects upon objects in motion.