Dualism vs. Monism

Ray,

It might be better to think of "dualism versus non-dualism" rather than "monism" because the latter term has specific associations with particular philosophers. E.g. the dualism of Descartes in which "brain" and "mind" are considered to be of different "substances" is contrasted with the monism of Spinoza, who advocated a single form of "panthestic reality."

For many non-dualists the brain-mind dichotomy is not the central issue since they could be different levels of description of "mental phenomena". The main issue is the co-existence of "observer" and "observed". At any instant the "world" is segmented according to the selective perception of "the observer" and the ensuing interaction changes the "state" of each. This ultimately leads to the view that all we call "reality" is interconnected and nothing can be independently "defined" or granted "independent existence".

I see. Thanks for the info Fresco.
I was confused earlier because people tend to use dualism in a bunch of different ways.

I'm on the side of non-dualism then.

"observer" and "observed" has always bothered me.
It seems like simply a deeper level of dualism. There is still the split between "me" and "what is observed".
There is a seperation.

Sure, I can think of it like specific moment of change. Ping. It's difficult to describe it.

I guess this gets to my main beef with science (even though I am less than highly educated in those regards).

Sorry Ray. Just thoughts your question generated. Good question, I'm glad you asked and clarified. Thanks.