Atheism feels shunned...

[Edwardo Piet]

You want evidence of something that has no physical presence? You have plenty evidence of it's effects.. is that good enough?

There's no evidence that it's an exception and isn't physically part of this physical universe like everything else I know of it. For such an anomaly I need evidence. Whether it's physically detectable or not - there's no evidence that it is an exception to the physical universe and isn't part of it...in it. No evidence that it's 'on top' as you say. If it can't be detected physically I shall assume it's physical, just an undetected physical part of the physical universe, i.e. - it's nothing specially distinct from the rest of, physical, matter. Why would it be? How is it?

You're stating that thought physically exists without evidence,

No, the default is that it's part of the physical universe...because everything else is and you have provided zero evidence to make it an exception.

and because everything else we know about in the universe exists according to you, thought must also exist physically.

No, not must. It's just - why make it an exception?

If there are 99 girls in the playground and we know there's 1 boy.. (we have no doubt this is a boy - it's clearly provable to be a boy) ..you say that this boy must be a girl because there needs to be 2 boys for it not to be special pleading.

But this is all circular because you are saying we know it's a boy, which I assume is analogous to we know it's 'non physical'...so your explanation that it's non-physical is that it is! A bare assertion and an assumption.

Yes it would obviously be ridiculous to say it's not a boy when if it is one (duh), and likewise it obviously would be to do the same if we know that thoughts are non-physical. But we dont.

If by non-physical you mean not shown to be physical, fine. But it's not shown to be non-physical either! In the sense that it's not been demonstrated by you or anyone else (as far as I know??) that thoughts are in anyway different and separate to rest of this physical universe and are somehow not in it, but are extra or on-top of it, or specially different, in that sense, somehow.

I mean they're physical as in there's no reason to believe they're not made up of physical matter/energy like the rest of the universe, as far as I know, is. No reason to exclude thoughts. I don't give a shit if mental is often meant to mean "not physical" - my point is that I assume thoughts aren't special in the sense that they are made of matter and are part of this physical universe and in every real non-semantic way, they are physical, whether (at least as of yet) detected or not. And this assumption is not absolutist, it is merely going for what is currently the less complex hypothesis. I shall I assume thought is physical when there is any evidence that it is any way, somehow some sort of bizarre exception to the rest of the physical universe. That would be weird!

Isn't that an example of this:

Inductive Argument

Premise 1: Most American cats are domestic house cats.
Premise 2: Bill is an American cat.
Conclusion: Bill is a domestic house cat.


For a special pleading accusation to stick I'd have to be saying everything in the universe has to physically exist but not this. Thoughts can't physically (by all known tests) exist therefore the universe can't only contain things which physically exist.

And that's wrong. Because absence of evidence is not (at least always) evidence of absence. Because thoughts aren't physically detectable (at least as of yet), that doesn't mean they're not physical, only that (at least as of yet) they aren't physically detectable. Which you could also be wrong in, because when experiments are done that show thoughts you just say "that isn't thought" and that thought is somehow extra and 'on top of that'...like it's some sort of rider (as you've told me). I see no reason to make it an exception! Where's the evidence that it's 'on top'? If it hasn't been detected, that's just that - evidence that it hasn't been detected! Not that it isn't physical!

Before radiowaves were detected does that mean they weren't physical? Oops, no, it just meant we didn't know about them yet lol.

How do you test physical thought? How can you tell the difference between physically undetectable thought and physical thought that doesn't exist and therefore must be non-physical (somehow) by process of elimination? You can't can you?

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. If physical thought is undetected that just means it is undetected. I still see no reason to make it an exception and say "oops, we can't detect/haven't been able to detect it yet. It must be some sort of bizarre exception and non-physical! It can't be part of the physical universe, it must ride on top of it!".

Thought doesn't exist independantly.. it's an integral part, a product of a physical action/ reaction. Why do you need to label it the same as everything else when it isn't?

Why do you need to say it is different when there's no evidence that it's an exception and isn't made of physical matter, of energy, etc.

As I have said to you, if by "non-physical" you just mean "So far not proven to be physical and physically undetectable", fine. But it's extremely likely that it's not some sort of bizarre exception until otherwise demonstrated!

You can call it non-physical if you want, but untill there's evidence that it's an exception to being made of matter, energy, etc, in this physical and materialistic universe that we have evidence of - I'm going to assume "non-physical" is just a pet name for what is actually physical, just undetected physically! At least thus far. Although, actually - you could easily be wrong: When thought experiments are done you just say thought is extra to that, and - as you have said to me - "it rides on top". How do you actually justify[i/] that?

Unlike the inductive argument, our tests prove something. We put a cross in all the boxes establishing positively non physical existence... To the best of our current ability.

Are you defining non-physical as

1. Currently unable to be demonstrated to be physical.

Or

2. Not physically part of the physical universe, not materialistic, not made of matter, etc.

?

Because 1 doesn't equate to 2. Not physically demonstrated doesn't give evidence that thought is some weird exception and isn't made of matter! Just that it hasn't been physically demonstrated, yet! And maybe it has...but you merely say "that isn't thought". You keep saying that thought rides on top, is the rider. Got any evidence for that? Any evidence that thought is an exception to being physically part of the mechanics of the rest of the physical universe...that it isn't also, in a sense, [i]driven? Whether indeterministically or deterministically.

.We may be incorrect if something currently unknown were to become known that would change these facts. But at this moment in time it would be correct to conclude from our tests that thoughts do not in fact physically exist.

'1.' doesn't prove '2.' in any way shape or form. How doesit? You need to prove that for some bizarre reason thoughts aren't made of physical, material, matter. It does no good to say "Tests have failed to show it's physical, therefore it isn't." How are you expecting them to be shown, anyway?

EvF