Forms of life, forms of mind

Dr. Michael Levin

, ,

Resources on interactionist models of the mind-brain relation

Published by

Mike Levin

on

One (currently un-popular) view in philosophy of mind and cognitive science is that of interactionist dualism: the proposal that the mind is a radically different thing than physical objects and forces, but that it interacts with the physical brain and body to make a functional, causal difference in behavior. I will comment on mind-brain issues more in forthcoming work (for now, the closest is the latter part of this talk), but meanwhile I wanted to provide some resources for a specific aspect of this set of ideas: the argument that interaction is impossible because it would violate energy conservation. In other words, if physics describes all of the interactions between particles in the brain, how can an immaterial mind make a difference to what happens in the biochemistry of the brain without running afoul of the energy accounting at the microscale? I mention this now because a set of fascinating papers by Tom Froese on Irruption Theory is bringing up relevant questions and it may be useful for people to see the thought that has, over the last few decades, attempted to deal with the problem of interactionism (and specifically, of energy conservation).

There is of course this classic, by Popper and Eccles (text here), and its review by Norman Geschwind, as well as a couple of other good books here and here. More resources here. But, since these papers are much harder to find, here is a list of papers on this topic: (scroll down for downloadable list)

1.         Seager, W., Panpsychism and Energy Conservation Mind and Matter, 2022. 20(1): p. 17-34.

2.         White, B., Conservation Laws and Interactionist Dualism. The Philosophical Quarterly, 2016. 67(267): p. 387-405.

3.         Helfrich, W., Is the psychokinetic effect as found with random noise generators suitable to account for mind-brain interaction? Journal of Scientific Exploration, 2007. 21(4): p. 689-705.

4.         Montero, B., What does the conservation of energy have to do with physicalism? Dialectica, 2006. 60(4): p. 383-96.

5.         Libet, B., Reflections on the interaction of the mind and brain. Prog Neurobiol, 2006. 78(3-5): p. 322-6.

6.         Burns, J.E., The Arrow of Time and the Action of the Mind at the Molecular Level, in Frontiers of Time, D.P. Sheehan, Editor. 2006, Melville: New York. p. 75-88.

7.         Bosch, H., F. Steinkamp, and E. Boller, Examining Psychokinesis: The Interaction of Human Intention With Random Number Generators- A Meta-Analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 2006. 132(4): p. 497-523.

8.         Schwartz, J.M., H.P. Stapp, and M. Beauregard, Quantum physics in neuroscience and psychology: a neurophysical model of mind-brain interaction. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci, 2005. 360(1458): p. 1309-27.

9.         Thaheld, F., Biological nonlocality and the mind-brain interaction problem: comments on a new empirical approach. Biosystems, 2003. 70(1): p. 35-41.

10.       Burns, J.E., Quantum fluctuations and the action of the mind. Noetic Journal, 2002. 3(4): p. 312-17.

11.       Burns, J.E., The effect of ordered air molecules on a tumbling cube. Noetic Journal, 2002. 3(4): p. 330-9.

12.       Burns, J.E., The tumbling cube and the action of the mind. Noetic Journal, 2002. 3(4): p. 318-29.

13.       Wilson, D.L., Mind-brain interaction and violation of physical laws. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 1999. 6(8-9): p. 185-200.

14.       Stapp, H.P., Attention, intention, and will in quantum physics. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 1999. 6(8-9): p. 143-164.

15.       Mohrhoff, U., The physics of interactionism. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 1999. 6(8-9): p. 165-184.

16.       Burns, J.E., Volition and physical laws. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 1999. 6(10): p. 27-47.

17.       Arnette, J.K., The Theory of Essence. III: Neuroanatomical and Neurophysiological Aspects of Interactionism. Journal of Near-Death Studies, 1999. 18(2): p. 73-.

18.       Mohrhoff, U., Interactionism, energy conservation, and the violation of physical laws. Physics Essays, 1997. 10(4): p. 651–665.

19.       Beck, F., Mind-brain interaction: comments on an article by B.I.B. Lindahl & P. Arhem. J Theor Biol, 1996. 180(1): p. 87-9.

20.       Lindahl, B.I. and P. Arhem, Mind as a force field: comments on a new interactionistic hypothesis. J Theor Biol, 1994. 171(1): p. 111-22.

21.       Libet, B., A testable field theory of mind-brain interaction. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 1994. 1: p. 119-126.

22.       Stokes, D., Mind, matter, and death. Journal of the American Society for Psychical research, 1993. 87: p. 41-84.

23.       Stapp, H.P., Mind, matter, and quantum mechanics. 1993, New York: Springer-Verlag.

24.       Larmer, R., Mind-body interaction and the conservation of energy. International Philosophical Quarterly, 1986. 26: p. 277-285.

25.       Stapp, H., Mind, Matter, and Quantum Mechanics. Foundations of Physics, 1982. 12(4): p. 363-399.

26.       Mattuck, R., A crude model of the mind-matter interaction using Bohm-Bub hidden variables. Journal of the Society for Psychical Research, 1982. 51(790): p. 238-245.

27.       Averill, E. and B.F. Keating, Does interactionism violate a law of classical physics? Mind, 1981. XC: p. 102-107.

28.       Bass, L., A quantum mechanical mind-body interaction. Foundations of Physics, 1975. 5(1): p. 159-172.

29.       Ullman, M., Mind over Matter – Psychokinesis – book review. American Journal of Psychiatry, 1971. 127(8): p. 1109-1110.

And here is the list of papers in a RIS format suitable for import into many reference manager programs:

Interactionism referencesDownload

Images by Midjourney.

, , , , , ,
Previous Post
Next Post

14 responses to “Resources on interactionist models of the mind-brain relation”

  1. Bill Potter Avatar
    Bill Potter

    Interesting, like resonances of vacuums…

    Reply
  2. Teemu Kupiainen Avatar
    Teemu Kupiainen

    Extremely fascinating: the activation of auditory genes in xenobots.
    I would be very interested to know how they respond to different intervals—or if they respond at all.
    Particularly: a pure fifth vs. an equal-tempered fifth.
    And a fifth vs. a major third/minor third/tritone.
    Additionally, the major seventh, gradually tuned toward the octave, would be especially intriguing.

    And, of course: do the auditory genes of anthropobots activate in the same way?

    Reply
    1. Mike Levin Avatar
      Mike Levin

      All great questions!! We are currently investigating. Can you tell me more about those specific tones you’re talking about – why those in particular?

      Reply
      1. Teemu Kupiainen Avatar
        Teemu Kupiainen

        “All nature consists of the harmony of numbers.”

        The Pythagorean comma is a kind of mathematical blemish. No mathematician or philosopher of science has been able to explain the reasons for its existence. Perhaps without it, the universe would vibrate in static self-sufficiency, and matter would never have begun to accumulate.

        How would xenobits and especially antrobots react to a pure fifth, which is itself static, and to well temperament, which has been adjusted to fit into the world of octaves, like Bach’s well-tempered system that we use today?

        Unlike octaves and fifths, thirds are dynamic intervals and cause more beating. Even Plato had a clear understanding of the effects of different thirds on the human mind.

        The major seventh is already very beating in itself and strongly strives towards the octave. If it is slowly expanded, it causes a compulsive and tearing need for release in humans. The tritone is similar but not as strong.

        Reply
        1. Teemu Kupiainen Avatar
          Teemu Kupiainen

          Btw, you are searching for the simplest learning algorithm, the one that lies at the foundation of everything. Curiosity, doesn’t it come before learning?

          Reply
  3. Heather Chapin Avatar
    Heather Chapin

    Fantastic list! Thank you!

    Reply
  4. Michel-Marie SOLITO de Solis Avatar
    Michel-Marie SOLITO de Solis

    That’s great. Merci beaucoup. Hope that will be the same interractionist vision in the future, between mind and spirit.

    Reply
  5. Shang, Charles Avatar
    Shang, Charles

    Thanks. very helpful!

    Reply
  6. Pier Luigi Gentili Avatar
    Pier Luigi Gentili

    It is an intriguing subject. Thanks for sharing the references.

    Reply
  7. Martin Schwalm Avatar
    Martin Schwalm

    Thanks for sharing!

    If you haven’t seen the Telepathy Tapes Documentary on non-verbal autism and telepathy, this link seems to help solidify that there is a real life example of areas worth exploring around the discussion you’ve raised here. Interesting work….

    YouTube Link: https://youtu.be/0qlppHc3-gg?si=4j16EfeaBt2HsBSQ

    Reply
  8. Filip Avatar
    Filip

    I noticed that you have added “ingressing patterns” into your tree of endless forms, the ethical sythbiosis diagram.
    In what publications do you talk about these so that we can get a sense of what you are talking about? I follow your talks and I infer that what you mean are pointers to the “kinds of minds” from the Platonic space (I call them “high-dimensional Platonic forms” for some reason, but I am not sure what a dimension would in this case be).

    On the same note (pure speculation), if the Platonic pointer theory is real for kinds of behaviour, why can’t it be also real for consciousness per se, as in human mind perceiving Forms more or less directly? I recall that Jean Gebser in his “Ever-Present Origin” talks about the concept of “diaphaneity”, that is, a sort of transparency where the material world becomes a gateway to the spiritual or eternal. One could also go even more on this tangent and say that the body is both a participant in and a manifestation of that Platonic space. (this is my interpretation here, all mistakes are mine)

    I am also worried that this pointer theory of a body pointing to a certain region of Platonic space will lead to new pseudoscience of physiognomy, if not well defined and understood.

    Last point – I tried to find the updated illustration in HD on your website so that I can show and discuss it with others; unfortunately, to no avail.

    Thanks for the references, much to digest there.

    Reply
    1. Mike Levin Avatar
      Mike Levin

      I’ve not published anything on the ingressing patterns yet (I’m writing it now, it’s due soon), but I discuss it in this talk: https://youtu.be/HUto7zvCXqc?si=9D5w7SwjCpgKVrrB . The high res illustration is not available yet but it will be in a few weeks.

      Yes, I do think consciousness is part of this. I am not sure what physiognomy has to do with it or why our work would lead to that, but it’s true that any theory about these deep issues will be misinterpreted by some in weird ways that we cannot predict or prevent. My job is to find new science and try to show how it can be useful for everyone. If we wanted to hold back important ideas because someone somewhere will misinterpret it, I guess we’d not have any new discoveries at all.

      Reply
  9. Forms of life, forms of mind | Dr. Michael Levin | Platonic space: where cognitive and morphological patterns come from (besides genetics and environment)

    […] experimental attempt to understand the content and dynamics of such systems. Parenthetically, here are some resources on one modern set of ideas about the interaction between mind and matter – […]

    Reply
  10. Kaiser Basileus Avatar
    Kaiser Basileus

    mind/brain is dead simple.
    mind is a metaphor for the patterns in the brain.
    connectome is the physical equivalent.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Proudly powered by WordPress | Privacy | © Dr. Michael Levin 2026