Psychical and physical realms: SMM/DTT and Neutral monism and Russellian monism

01The question behind the comparison

Psychical and physical can name two kinds of description, two kinds of property, two modes of access, or two distinct realms of being. These are different positions. SMM/DTT’s attraction is the possibility that a single generative source supports both an outwardly measurable world and inwardly meaningful experience. A clear comparison begins by stating what the distinction means. Otherwise a shift from first-person experience to an additional spatial dimension can occur without argument.

An experience of red and a measurement of reflected light are related but answer different questions. The measurement specifies a public procedure and result. The experience concerns how something appears to a subject. A single-source ontology may seek to ground both, yet common dependence does not itself establish an identity between them or a law connecting them. If the psychical is given an autonomous causal role in physical events, the role must be specified. If it is a different aspect of the same events, the task is to explain the correspondence and the limits of each description.

DTT’s six nested inner levels belong to its proposed organization of generation. They should not be assigned one by one to unverified mental dimensions, nor equated with a list of brain networks merely because both lists contain several entries. A bridge to consciousness needs a criterion of subjecthood and a mapping from source states to accessible experience. A bridge to physics needs observables, probabilities and a dynamical law. The two bridges may share structure, but they remain distinct explanatory tasks. This allows the metaphysical programme to stay ambitious while its empirical claims remain precise.

02The single-source and nested-time proposal

SMM begins with one nonspatial generative source. DTT distinguishes its inner production from the outer order in which completed results become accessible. The six inner levels are nested functional dependencies within that production; the seventh denotes outer completion. They are not six independent clocks, six spatial directions, or six simultaneously occupied temporal axes. This distinction makes the framework more specific than a general claim that everything changes: it asks how a world of persistent relations can be generated before its spatial representation is taken for granted. ^[2]

03The comparator’s explanatory structure

Neutral monism seeks a basis that is not intrinsically classified as either mental or physical, allowing those categories to arise through organization or description. Russell’s Analysis of Mind supplies a primary historical account. Contemporary Russellian monism concerns what the intrinsic nature of the properties described by physics might be; it is a family of views and should not be treated as identical with historical neutral monism.

The useful comparison is about explanatory gaps. A table of physical relations can predict behavior while leaving open how those relations are instantiated or why experience occurs. Calling their basis neutral can mark that openness without resolving it. SMM/DTT gives the common basis a more specific generative role: it proposes a source that produces differentiated records. The additional architecture becomes explanatory only if it constrains the relation between the physical description and the psychical perspective. One common label for both is insufficient. Distinctive bridge principles, rather than the mere presence of monism, determine the theory’s content. ^[1]

04The precise agreement and difference

Neutral monism is especially close to SMM’s attempt to avoid treating mind and matter as unrelated ultimate substances. Its basis can be organized into mental and physical descriptions, while DTT adds a proposal about how those organizations are generated. The central difference is whether source production explains the relation or merely supplies a common background for it.

A physical record and a remembered experience can share content without being identical kinds of event. Neutral monism asks how their different roles arise from a common basis. DTT can contribute retained memory, nested transformation and differentiated access, giving a more explicit account of those roles. It still needs an explanation of why one organization has first-person character. A common source is compatible with many theories of consciousness, including theories that disagree about which systems experience anything. The comparison therefore identifies a positive but limited achievement: SMM/DTT can unify the dependence and temporal organization of the two descriptions. The psychophysical bridge remains a distinct principle that should be stated rather than hidden in the word inner. ^[1]

05Worked example: what follows and what does not

A person silently imagines a triangle and later draws it. The imagined triangle is not a small physical object hidden behind the eyes; the drawing is not identical to the act of imagining. Both can be related through a person’s capacities, intentions and bodily actions. An account can treat these as two aspects of one process, as causally interacting states, or as different levels of description. Each interpretation must explain the same ordinary sequence without confusing representation with represented object. SMM/DTT’s source unity can frame the relation, but the transition from imagination to drawing still calls for a specified account of agency and physical action.

06What this comparison contributes

The most productive comparison therefore asks how a theory handles access, identity and causation across the distinction. Does it preserve first-person meaning? Does it explain public agreement? Does it introduce new causal effects or reinterpret familiar ones? Psychical discourse can make a serious philosophical contribution without being labelled a new measured dimension. Conversely, a genuine physical proposal becomes stronger when its additional variables and their observable effects are stated independently of the metaphysical language that motivated them.

THE SAME QUESTION, DIFFERENT STARTING POINTS

The comparison at a glance

Continue on SMONAD

• Physical Time and Spiritual Time →

  Connects this comparison with the author’s discussion of realms.

• Preliminary Outline of Ibn Arabi's Cosmology →

  Connects this comparison with the author’s discussion of realms.

• Observer and record: making observation part of the model →

  Connects this comparison with the author’s discussion of realms.

• Introducing Ibn al-Arabi's View of Time →

  Connects this comparison with the author’s discussion of realms.

• Philosophy of time and creation →

  Connects this comparison with the author’s discussion of realms.