Mind and cosmology: SMM/DTT and dual-aspect monism

01One event, two descriptions

A dual-aspect view treats mental and physical descriptions as revealing different aspects of a common underlying reality. It differs from two-substance interactionism, where one kind of entity acts on another. Spinoza provides a major historical comparison, while neutral-monist approaches offer other ways to articulate a common basis. SMM’s source unity can support a related interpretation, but it does not select a particular account of the aspects without additional argument. ^{[1] [2]}

02What the SMM/DTT distinction contributes

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.

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. ^[3]

03Identity and causation

Suppose a person’s intention to raise a hand and the relevant bodily process are two descriptions of one organized event. Asking which description pushes the other may misstate the relation, just as asking whether a melody’s key signature physically pushes its notes confuses description with a separate force. If instead intention is proposed as an additional variable that changes bodily outcomes, the theory needs a causal law. Both positions can be formulated, but their explanatory obligations differ. DTT should state which relation its psychical and physical sectors realize.

04What temporal generation can explain

A source model can generate an event’s public record and the observer capacities that give it significance. Retained memory explains why significance depends on history, while completion determines when the record becomes available for later action. This gives dual-aspect language a more articulated temporal structure. It does not yet explain why that organization feels like anything. The six nested levels are not a psychophysical identity theorem. A consciousness bridge must identify the relevant organization and explain why its experiential boundary matches the proposed physical one.

05A coherent programme

SMM/DTT can contribute by deriving a common organization whose physical and experiential descriptions remain systematically related. The physical model should recover behavior and interventions; the philosophical account should explain the character and ownership of experience. If the latter changes no physical prediction, it is an interpretation rather than an additional force. If it changes predictions, the variables and likelihoods must be specified. This comparison permits a rich account of mind and cosmos without inferring cosmic consciousness from source unity or phenomenal awareness from quantum correlation alone.

06A further conceptual benchmark

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.

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.