Dualism says there are two fundamentally different kinds of stuff—physical bodies and non-physical minds—that nonetheless interact. That is a promissory note with no mechanism, no testable consequences, and a long track record of being outperformed by brain-level explanations. Below is a rigorous, organized case against dualism grounded in inference to the best explanation: when you change the brain, you change the mind in law-like, model-predictable ways; when the relevant brain substrate is absent or disrupted, the corresponding mental capacity vanishes; when activity is induced, the corresponding experience appears. No extra “mind-substance” is doing explanatory work.
1. Causal dependence: systematic mind–brain covariance
Claim: Mental states supervene on brain states; no mental difference without an underlying neural difference.
Key observations:
✓ Lesions, strokes, tumors, neurodegeneration, and targeted drug action produce specific, replicable changes in memory, language, affect, impulse control, self-model, and valuation.
✓ Electrical/magnetic stimulation and closed-loop neuromodulation can evoke movements, perceptions, emotions, urges, and sometimes beliefs.
Inference: If an immaterial mind were the primary seat of cognition, gross physical manipulations should not so precisely control contents and capacities. The most economical hypothesis is that cognition is a property of organized neural dynamics.
2. Interaction problem (no coherent coupling story)
Claim: Dualism posits bidirectional causal exchange between the non-physical and the physical.
Problem: There is no mathematically specified interface for how acausal “mind-stuff” injects momentum/energy or informational constraints into biophysics without violating conservation or smuggling in undisclosed physical fields. “It just does” is not a model; it is a gap.
3. Distributed implementation ≠ immateriality
Dualist move: “High-level cognition isn’t localized like basic sensation; therefore it’s not physical.”
Reply: Complex functions (planning, math, long-term memory) are network properties distributed across cortical–subcortical circuits. Distributed implementation is routine in physical systems (immune networks, internets, ecosystems). Non-local ≠ non-physical.
4. Memory is physically compositional
Claim: Episodic memories decompose into visual, auditory, emotional, spatial, and semantic components stored/processed in partially separable circuits.
Prediction (borne out): Focal damage yields selective amnesias (e.g., intact recognition but lost context, or intact semantic knowledge with lost episodic detail).
Inference: This fine-grained dissociability is exactly what a physical, compositional code predicts and is gratuitous on dualism.
5. Split-brain data favors physical unity-through-connectivity
Observation: Severing major interhemispheric tracts yields two semi-independent processing streams with dissociable access to perception, action, and report.
Implication: Cohesive consciousness depends on communication bandwidth among physical processors. When bandwidth is reduced, unity degrades in law-like ways. Invoking a single, indivisible non-physical subject is at odds with the behavioral dissociations.
6. Disorders of consciousness track preserved substrate
Observation: In severely brain-injured patients, task-specific imagery or command-following appears only when the corresponding cortical networks remain structurally and functionally intact; absent substrate → absent responsiveness.
Inference: Residual cognition rides on residual tissue. If a free-standing soul did the work, preserved neural islands wouldn’t be required to “show” it.
7. Readiness, veto, and inhibition are neural computations
Dualist move: “A pre-movement readiness signal without a comparable ‘free-won’t’ signal shows non-physical veto.”
Reply: Inhibition recruits different circuits (right-lateral prefrontal, pre-SMA, basal ganglia). Go and stop are distinct control policies with distinct neural signatures measured via EEG/MEG/fMRI/TMS. The timing fits a physical control loop; no extra substance is needed.
8. “No intellectual seizures” misunderstands seizures
Dualist move: “Seizures don’t make you do calculus, so intellect isn’t brain-based.”
Reply: Seizures are pathological synchrony—they disrupt the fine-grained, asynchronous, sparsely coded coordination high-level reasoning requires. Expecting globally dysregulated bursts to produce structured proof search is like expecting an engine backfire to optimize fuel efficiency.
9. Unbounded thought from finite mechanism is routine
Dualist move: “I can think arbitrarily large numbers; finite neurons can’t encode infinity.”
Reply: Potential unboundedness is generated by finite symbol systems and rules (composition, recursion, iteration, compression). A finite automaton can enumerate unbounded sequences; a cortex can, too. No actual infinitary storage is implied or observed.
10. Predictive success and control beat metaphysical add-ons
Claim: A hypothesis earns its keep by prediction and control.
Track record: Neural models forecast deficits from lesions, predict treatment targets, and allow closed-loop modulation to steer mood, movement, pain, and cravings.
Inference: The physical account is not merely descriptive; it is manipulable. Dualism adds no new predictions, parameters, or levers.
11. Causal closure & parsimony
Causal closure: In the domain of neural events, causes sufficient to explain effects are physical and already accounted for by known interactions.
Parsimony: When a theory explains X with entities {A, B}, and we later find A alone suffices with growing precision, B is excisable as idle metaphysics.
12. The “methodological naturalism is bias” canard
Claim: Science “biases” toward material explanations.
Reply: The rule is operational: prefer models that yield testable, reproducible constraints over those that do not. If a non-physical mind exerted systematic, measurable effects, it would immediately enter the model. Decades of high-resolution measurement have found none that require non-physical posits.
13. Summary argument in compact form
P1: For every class of mental capacity M, there exist specific neural organizations N such that perturbing N predictably perturbs M; removing N removes M; driving N drives M.
P2: If dualism were true, there would exist at least one class of M that (i) resists systematic manipulation by N, (ii) persists without N, or (iii) appears without corresponding N.
P3: No such M has been demonstrated under controlled conditions; purported cases dissolve under finer measurement.
Conclusion: The best explanation is that minds are what suitably organized brains do. Dualist surplus structure is explanatorily redundant.
14. Quick replies to popular dualist gambits
✓ “Qualia are non-physical.” They are how certain neural representational states feel from the inside; their lawful covariation with neural patterns is what needs explaining, and physical models increasingly map those patterns.
✓ “Aboutness/intentionality is immaterial.” It emerges from learned, use-constrained symbol manipulation over sensory-motor and social priors; reference is fixed by networks of interaction, not ghostly hooks.
✓ “Unity of consciousness demands a soul.” Unity scales with integration (connectivity, synchrony, effective information). Degrade integration → degrade unity.
✓ “Freedom requires a non-physical will.” Control is multi-level constraint satisfaction in a hierarchical policy stack; richer prefrontal control expands counterfactual sensitivity without exiting physics.
Conclusion
Dualism promises explanatory depth but delivers none. Wherever we can measure, intervene, predict, and build, mind tracks brain: capacity by capacity, circuit by circuit, timescale by timescale. The supposed “evidence for the soul” evaporates once you understand networks, control, coding, and the difference between unbounded generative power and actual infinity. The physical story is not a philosophical prejudice—it’s the only one that keeps winning predictive bets and yielding new levers over suffering and function. If there is an extra, non-physical ingredient, it has systematically refused to bear measurable weight. Until it does, cutting it from the model is not hostility; it is intellectual hygiene.
Sources:
- “Split-Brain: What We Know Now and Why This Is Important for Neuroscience” – A modern review of callosotomy research showing how splitting hemispheres affects brain integration.
- “Interaction in Isolation: 50 Years of Insights from Split-Brain Research” – An article discussing challenges in interpreting split-brain results and their implications for consciousness.
- “Time of Conscious Intention to Act in Relation to Onset of Cerebral Activity (Readiness-Potential)” – The seminal experiment showing the “readiness potential” arises before subjects report deciding to act.
- “What Is the Readiness Potential?” – A current neuroscience review of the readiness potential and how it relates to volition and decision-making.
- “Readiness Potential and Neuronal Determinism: New Insights on the Brain–Mind Relationship” – Research that re-interprets the RP as part of neural decision preparation rather than conscious initiation.
- “Volition and the Brain – Revisiting a Classic Experimental Study” – A systematic review of the Libet-type studies, readiness potentials, and what they imply for theories of free will.
- “Split-Brain Syndrome: Exploring Consciousness Through Neuroscience” – A popular-science overview that summarises how split-brain surgery affects self, control, and brain unity.
Free of Faith 
Leave a comment