The problem of dualism

He did not ask whether there is an interaction between spiritual phenomena and material phenomena. Of course there is. He asked how such an interaction works, given that these phenomena are the result of two substances that are different from each other, a material substance and a spiritual substance.

I ask how this is philosophically possible. If the difficulty is so severe, perhaps it is more reasonable to accept a materialist or idealist (or monist) explanation.
Let's say and spirit affects matter, when exactly does this happen? How is this even possible and is it acceptable?

I ask following a study of Richard Taylor's book, "Metaphysics," where he makes this argument and says that a dualist view is not necessarily more reasonable than the materialist one.

How does interaction between spirit and spirit work? Do you understand? We don't know how to describe the mechanisms of spiritual processes. It has nothing to do with the fact that these are different substances. Light and matter are also different substances and there is no problem understanding the interaction between them. These questions are a gibberish. People are looking for a scientific explanation, but science deals with matter and therefore cannot explain spirit. It has nothing to do with the question of whether this is an interaction between two substances or not.

It seems to me that the paradox is: if the spirit acts physically, then it is again physics and not spirit. If I decide in my mind to move my hand, then one of two things must happen: either my decision is a physical factor because it moved electrons, or my decision is spiritual and did not affect matter. There is no third option. If there was an influence on physics by a plane that is essentially non-physical, where was the physical cause of the influence? Or, in a more tangible resolution, who kicked the ball?

No paradox. Just the desired assumption. You assume that if it acts on a physical object then it is itself physics. But this is nothing more than the same assumption in other words, meaning you assume that there is no possible interaction between spirit and matter. I see no reason in the world to assume this. Don't assume and you won't have paradoxes.

My assumption is simply the laws of physics. An object does not move without a physical force being applied to it. Of course, there is no paradox if we simply accept an exception to the laws of physics, but we will have to note that for interactionist dualism we break physics as we know it.

Besides, I do not think the comparison of light and matter is correct. The difference here is more fundamental, because spirit is fundamentally a different plane from matter, just as you argue against emergentism from matter to spirit, so you will argue against emergentism of physics from spirit.

I will clarify: It seems that the argument against emergentism is also valid regarding the ability of matter to cause change in a foreign plane (spirit) even given its existence. Not just against the ability to cause the plane itself.

The laws of physics deal with interactions between physical entities. Not with the effect of spirit on matter. Beyond that, you talked about a paradox, which is a logical and not scientific concept. There is no paradox here, nor is there a difficulty. Just the desired assumption. Indeed, when you assume spirit acting on matter, it violates the laws of physics because it is not physics.
What is the problem with that?
And regarding the comparison of light and matter, you decided that it is the same thing because they act on each other. Again, the same desired assumption.
Emergentism is not related here, precisely because of the division you wrote. The identification that spirit is itself matter is nonsense. The claim that spirit acts on matter or vice versa has no problem with it. It is just a fact of life.
I think we have exhausted ourselves, because everything repeats itself in different words.