The genius of Descartes was the recognition that the Aristotelian indiscriminate homogeonous mix of mind+matter could be decomposed into a "naturalistic order" governed by "laws" which would include also the two realms formerly sacrosanct, the operation of human brains and of the universe as a whole + the realm of mind, which was not needed for the former and which could not interact with the former according to its type of laws. He then briliantly crafted theories of the 'natural universe' including cosmology to illustrate his point.
This decomposition was incredibly successful, and led to the wealth of physics as we know it, as well as to mechanistic biology (and of course chemistry), and of course to highly successful modern origin-theories such as inflation/big bang and evolution (and more recently to advances in brain-research).
However this Cartesian revolution was later extended by the mindless to mind itself, and they gleefully offered theories indicating - to their satisfaction - that mind too was a part of the "naturalistic order".
Of course the Minded understand the basic flaw in this, for after all Mind is known to exist without requiring proof, and it is sui generis (and known to be so 'intrinsically' without need for proof).
The unMinded of course might consider this type of delusion to be an as-yet-undiagnosed form of mental illness (ie corrupted brain-software).
And to the mindless the very claim of the existence of something indetectable to science, which is allegedly known to exist without needing proof, is an affront to science.
Mind is primary: Mind is the means whereby we become aware of the 'physical'. Although the idealist position holds as a belief that there is only mind, anyone understanding mind-body duality agrees that this is possible, and tha tone cannot actually prove that the external universe 'exists' independently of one's mind, so a philosophical disagreement about whether or not the physical universe indeed 'actually exists' is not an esential philosophical distinction. However any self-conscious intelligent being even if not an idealist understands this vital distinction: mind incontrovertibly exists whereas the material universe is only supposed by the mind to exist.
Furthermore: Mind may well have been present always; it is not 'in space and time' as is matter, and could seemingly not have emerged from materialist stuff, so it may well be beyond natural law as presently understood. (eg evolution and cosmology as known so far deals with laws only of ordinary material entities.)
Can we consider mind real if it is not encompassed within science?: Mind exists on a level more like that at which universal emergence arises, and the level of the existence of order and 'laws', not at the 'lower' level of the matter-energy which the laws govern, and so the inability of these laws to explain mind, or the non-existence of laws which govern mind, are not valid reasons to discount mind. Indeed, I know that mind exists far more deeply than I know anything else, including the necessity of laws of nature.
Science and technology have adequately demonstrated (or convinced us) that machines can in theory reproduce all of human action, speech, cogitation; we therefore understand that the 'qualia', the mind-aspect of human experience, is not required to explain any phenomena associated to human activity (ie we understand that even if there is no consciouos feeling of pain there can be a mechanism of damage avoidance which employs the neural pathways which are involved in the processes which give rise to our experience of pai)n. Since mind is not required for the production of any of the neurologial processes we "experience", the existence of mind cannot be explained by evolutionary science - indeed, since Descartes science has indicated that mind is not within the realm of scientific law as we know it.
In addition, one of the most fundamental aspects of our awareness is of the passage of time, and this is not part of physics, as clearly indicated by special relativity. Physics contains only a 'frozen' spacetime of all time-moments rather than any 'flow' of time as we experience it*. Similalry for the insights of quantum physics. And so the most essential fundamental aspects of of our existence - mind, time-passage, and individual-states (rather than quantum superpositions) - are not encompassed within physics!
In sum, these most fundamental aspects of our existence, our awareness and the sense of time-passage (and its inevitability), are not encompassed within physics.
The fact that they are not part of physics of course does not weaken our knowledge that they exist, it only makes clear to us a fundamental limitation of physics.
Physics describes the allegedly-external seemingly-material universe that presents itself to awareness. That which is directly accessible to our awareness, namely the knowledge of our own awareness (ie self-awareness) is not part of physics. It cannot be measured using only elements of the ‘external universe’.
Physics deals with that which is presented to our awareness, not with our awareness itself, nor with that which is known directly to our awareness without actual means of measurmeent ouside it. In the latter category is time-passage. Time-passage is a phenomenon within our awareness, but cannot be captured via measurement. Also, time passes inevitably, we cannot make it stand still. However, time-passage and also its inevitability is not necessary for the physics-based descripton of nature (it is is a phenomenon existing only within our awareness). Measurements made with our brain alone without factoring in awareness do not require time-passage; all physical measurements other than those made by our awareness itself, do not involve time-passage, only time and intervals of time. SR involves worldlines which are space and time frozen…
There is a concept of the light-cone, and events which can influence each other etc, so this gives a form of ordering of time-periods, but not a actual time-passage.
In some sense the measurement problem of qp is the reverse. The universe as perceived by us is in specific states, not superpositions, but physics gives us only the probablilities of any specific state being the one we will perceive after any measurement. Physics does not seem to tell why we perceive only one state, but thatis consistent with physics not dealing with that which is apparent only to awareness.
Given our understanding that physics is limited in the above sense, we might have more confidence in identifying other aspects which we know of to be true (“we hold these truths to be self-evident”) and can claim to be valid without expecting - or feeling the need to find - validation from physics.
As a creation of the human mind, a mind, physics cannot describe mind itself. And as a tool of the mind in determining certain types of truth – those which are measurable in the ‘external material universe’ - physics will not be considered by mind to be the ultimate arbiter of what is true in general.
…......
An Exception to Cartesian dualism: Though it may sound paradoxical, I consider correct both materialists who deny the reality of conscious awareness and Descartes who knew it does exist. I believe they are simply both reporting on the realities of their own existence, one without mind, the other with. So the Cartesian tells me “I think Descartes was right therefore I am self-aware” and what the materialist effectively tells me is: “I think materialism is correct therefore I am un-aware”.
Given the Cartesian dualistic disconnect between mind and body, a person without awareness will act and speak in the same way as one with awareness, This presents the dilemma of how to detect awareness. My proposal is to utilize an aspect of awareness - indeed of self-awareness, (basically a form of introspection). Since anyone who is aware will understand the Cartesian proposal, anyone who insists on materialism may well be unaware.
If an aware being can feel their awareness and remark on it, then this is itself an effect of the Mind on the realm of the body! However, if Cartesian dualism insists that the effect of consciousness is not possible in the realm of body, the very utterance of the phrase “I am aware” cannot be due to Mind! If it is nevertheless due to the existence of the mind of the one speaking, then this is itself a weakening of the Cartesian dualism for the case of self-reference.
How did awareness arise in an otherwise-material universe? If evolution can proceed without the existence of mind, there is no guarantee that mind would arise in all genetically-identical beings, ie not all humans need be aware simply because some are. And so it is not unreasonable for the mindful to suppose that if there are some humans who are not mindful, among them are those highly-intelligent philosophers who disbelieve in the existence of mind.
Eccles
......…...
It is difficult for us today to pull ourselves out of the context into which we are deeply embedded, a mechanistic physics and biology, where Mind has to fight for a place, and is rejected as an 'illusion'. The ancients lived in the oppositew conceptual environment: they thought in terms of stone 'wanting to return to its original place, the Earth" as explanation for falling.***
The great discovery upon which science is built is that one does not need mind at all "we have no need of that hypothesis" for most phenomena! And so it became possible for materialists to fully take part in scientific discovery. However, the minded understand that there is a natural realm where all is mechanistic (including the randomness of quantum effects).. and there is ALSO another realm, of mind, but the former does NOT need mind as explanation.
Of course it may be that only a universe undelayed by Mind could have 'laws' (apologies to Hume) and therefore seem as though it can exist independenlty of Mind!
In Aristotelian times the nonminded used mind-terms to describe what even we minded folk would consider to be 'phenomena which do not require mind'; the nonminded used mindlike terms since they did not recognize what it meant. It was only after Descartes etc separated them and showed how one could describe phenomna without mind-like notions, that the non-minded then decided "oh that's what you mean by mind, ok, well it doesn't even exist at all" !! Thus until the Cartesian split, there was no way for the Minded and nonMonided to even discover that they were different!
...
Given that Mind is not physical, it cannot arise via evolutionary processes (as pointed out by Eccles), and so my conclusion is that it is not necessarily universally present in all biological humans. And so it is understandable that those who do not possess Mind are sceptical about it, indeed don't even understand what those who possess Mind are talking about, and think that they can disprove the existence of that which is uniquely self-evidently-existent. And indignantly deny the possibility of anything being self-evidently existent.
There is only mind, but any self-conscious intelligent being even if not an idealist understands this vital distinction: mind incontrovertibly exists whereas the material universe is only supposed by the mind to exist. Mind may well have been present always; it is not 'in space and time' as is matter, and could seemingly not have emerged from materialist stuff, so it may well be beyond natural law as presently understood. Evolution as known so far deals with laws of ordinary material entities.
...
It is difficult for us today to pull ourselves out of the contect into which we are deeply embedded, a mechanistic physics and biology, where Mind has to fight for a place, and is rejected as an 'illusion'. The ancients lived in the oppositew conceptual environment: they thought in terms of stone 'wanting to return to its original place, the Earth" as explanation for falling. However this does NOT mean the ancients necessarily possessed mind! Even the mindless describe "wanting to do this or that" evne though we minded know that via a vis a mindless entity there is no actual sentience wanting anything.
So it isnot correct to assume that all were minded or that mind was the basis of Arsitotelian physics 9thoug the mindless will perhaps say it is, but only because they have no idea what mind is!). So the great discovery upon which science is built is tha ton e does not need mind at all "we have no need of that hypothesis" for most phenomena! And so materialists could fully take part in scientific discovery.
however, the minded understand that there is a natural realm where all is mechanistic/q.. and there is ALSO anothe realm, or mind, but the former does NOT need mind as epxlaation.
So in Aristotelian times the nonminded used mind terms to describe what even we minded folk would consider mind to be not needed for, and the nonminded used modlike terms since they did not recognize wha tit meant. it wa sonly after Descartes etc separated them and showed how one could describe phenomna wiotout mind like notions, tha tthe nonminde then decided oh that;s what you mean by mind, ok, well it dosnt even exist at all!!!
........
**Not only the sense of the passage of time, but also the inevitability of time-passage (ie that we cannot make time stand still) is not encompassed within physics, which deals only with time intervals and a frozen spaceitme worldline rather than ‘time passing’. Of course physics can talk of causality and the past present and future of any spacetime point, but it does not speak of the actual ‘flow’ of time. Although physics of course stresses dynamics, this is due to our own preoccupation with time passage. And physics of course can parametrize a worldline, and create functions of time, however this simply labels the phenomena occurring as time passes in our awareness, whereas time-passage itself is not considered a physical phenomenon, and the flow of time or the change in phenomena as a function of the flow of time is never indicated in a physics formula.
*** However this does NOT mean the ancients necessarily possessed mind! Even the mindless describe "wanting to do this or that" evne though we minded know that via a vis a mindless entity there is no actual sentience wanting anything.
So it is not correct to assume that all were minded [of course one is reminded in this context of the thesis of The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind by Julian Jaynes] nor tcan we assume that Mind in the sense we mean it was the basis of Arsitotelian physics (though the mindless will perhaps say it is, but only because they have no idea what mind is!).
...
See also site-pages "survey", ethical & religious aspects, and My Own Journey (all on the menu)