Monist vs. Dualist Experiment?

[Neo-Scholastic]

I'm not sure this helps the dualist case. If the answer to that question is "Dunno, but we can see it's true. Guess it must be considered a brute fact," then matter becomes the magical property-mill, and you are left explaining why such a substance would be limited in the properties it produces-- specifically why not consciousnous?

I see your point. Such a property as consciousness cannot be described mechanically, a problem IMHO that is insurmountable. As such it could be fundamental to matter in the same way as gravity. But that is not the claim made by physical monists. Then again, I not sure even materialists have a very good grasp on what matter really is.

I think it's because scientists DO have some understanding of how matter gives rise to many properties, and how unlike the property of consciousness is to any of the others, that gives it a special status.

And those who study semiotics DO have an understanding of how meaning works, its signs, signifiers, tropes, etc. These things can be studied without reference to physical matter as matter. There is much work to be done in this area if it is to catch up with scientific knowledge.

But these scholars are not running around saying, "how can meaning give rise to physical properties?" or calling physicality an emergent property of experience. The pretense of sciencetism is that it can just assume someday maybe without having its ontological naturalism challenged.

In the meantime, because of this divide I believe that at the very least methodological dualism is justified in trying to resolve the mind-body problem.