Atheism feels shunned...

[Edwardo Piet]

1. I haven't argued that it necessarily is not made of the physical.

And as I've said before: If by non-physical you just mean 'so far failed to be detected as the physical' then fine. I am talking about non-physical as in not physical as in proved to be not physical, or significant positive evidnece for the non-physical.

And I know of no such evidence, I'm happy with a definition of 'non-physical' if you are fine with it being made of physical as you say! I'm saying that I don't know of any evidence that thought isn't physical and therefore very probably is non-physical.

Only that there exist things that are unexplained by physical properties.

Which I have already said I am fine to accept. Non-physical I would think of as not physically part of the physical universe, if it doesn't mean that, what does mean that? I would think physically undetected just means physically undetected. That doesn't mean it isn't physical. Absence of evidence isn't necessarily evidence of absence.

Calling these things physical therefore is a leap of faith on your part.

Not if it's entirely a semantic thing. All I'm saying is I have no reason to believe that thoughts aren't phyiscally part of the physical universe. If you want to call them non-physical because they're not shown to be physical, fine. But they're not shown to be non-phyiscal either! They're just physically undetected.

I require evidence to believe they aren't phyiscally part of the phyiscal. Which is what I would have thought non-physical is? Otherwise it's just a semantic thing.

I do not see how I need faith, all I am saying is that I don't know of any evidence that thought is special and isn't physically part of this, what is known to be a, physical universe.

I don't care whether you call thought non-physical or not. Like I said, if you are calling the 'mental', 'non-physical' by definition, then you get what you want in a single step.

So no, calling thought physical is not, a leap of faith. Neither is calling it non-physical. There's no evidence that thought is physical, fine. But that doesn't mean it isn't physical. that means we don't know yet.

not physical would mean not physically part of the physical universe! Otherwise it's probably just physical and you're simply calling it non-physical because it hasn't been phyiscally detected. Doesn't matter what we call it, it's whether what we believ has evidence orr not. And I don't know of any evidence that thought isn't physical.

If thought is made of the physical, you can call it non-physical if you want. But I personally would reserve the usage of such a term for what has shown not to be made out of physical properties, and not to be physically part of this, normally, physical universe. I require evidence for such an exception, I don't know of any yet.

You claim what you are unable to sustain with evidence and that is a severe case of what you so often blame our theist friends here.

1. I say we have evidence for the physical. That's correct I take it?

2. I know of no evidence that thought isn't physical, only a lack of evidence that it is. I am yet to know of any evidence that thought is necessarily an exception and isn't made of the physical, isn't physical, isn't physically part of the physical universe (which is all I've been saying, I've said that I'll except 'non-physical' if you are just defining it as 'not shown to be physical', because it still probably is because that doesn't prove anything to the contrary). I require evidence for that.

2. You should distinguish between the material and the physical. Not everything in our physical model of the world is matter: fields are not matter, space is not matter, time is not matter, some forms of energy are not matter. That's why the term 'materialism' hasn't been around for some time in the philosophical discussion. It has been replaced by 'physcalism'. Have you really read up on the subject?

No I haven't. All I'm asking for is evidence for an exception to the physical universe, an evidence that thought is somehow not physical, not made up of physical properties, not physically a part of the physical universe. The fact it's so far physically undetectable doesn't prove that. There is still no evidence for the non-physical in that sense. As I have said - if you're defining non-physical as 'so far at least not shown to be physical' then fine!

3. Here's one reason: mathematical concepts are perceived via first-person experience, are sustained throughout many brains (~it supervenes many brains), and do not arise out of physical properties in the current scientific framework.

I don't see how any of that means that mathematical concepts actually exist, outside our brains??

Maybe we one day can show how abstract concepts like 'freedom' or 'mathematics' arise from physical properties. Claiming this now with a 'proof' from the negative is vastly overplaying your hand, premature and very unscientific.

But I'm not claiming that they've shown to be physical. And guess what? I never did. I never claimed that. In fact, I've also said a few times that I am just saying there's no evidence that it's not physical. I never said there's any evidence that it is.

All I'm saying is that I don't see any reason to make an exception. And as I have said, if by 'non-physical' you just mean 'not shown to be physical yet', fine.

Such concepts haven't been shown to be physical, sure. But they haven't been shown to be not physical either.

I don't see why to make it an exception to the physical. So I see it highly unlikely that our thoughts and concepts such as mathematics aren't physically part of our physical brain - I need evidence for that.

If thoughts aren't shown to be physical, to claim that that means that they are probably not physically part of physical brain, I see to be bogus. Failure to explain physically doesn't mean it's not actually physical, it just means it hasn't been detected, at least yet.

And as I have said, on the other hand - if by thought being 'non-physical' you just mean 'not shown to be physical', fine. But if it hasn't been shown to be physical then that doesn't give evidence that it isn't physically part of the brain. And since everything else we know of is physical, I'd need evidence to make thought an exception to this.

If 'not shown to be material'= fair to call immaterial Get this into your head: the current scientific model of our reality cannot explain the immaterial concepts we perceive on a daily basis by first-person experience.

So? That doesn't mean it's anything special, does it? If it does, can you give me some evidnece for that?

Physically undetected=just that, physically undetected. It doesn't imply that it's not physically part of the physical universe. I need evidence for that.

5. First-person experience is detectable for every living human being and every physical detection device depends on it! That it is not detectable with physical devices (how to measure mathematics?) is not an indication that it does not exist![/quote] I'm not arguing that anything positively doesn't exist here. I'm just saying I know of no evidence that thought isn't physically part of the physical universe. I obviously am not denying thought. I just assume it's very probably physically part of the physical brain, because I know of no evidence to the contrary of the physical universe. Undetected but phyiscal I see to be more probable, because there's actually evidence for the phyiscal. I know of no evidence that thought is in any way special. I don't see how 'not detected' as physical=special, an exception to the physical, etc.

6. I am not saying that abstract concepts, the perceivable immaterrial, is totally independent of the material.

The thing is that I am not claiming, is to have bridged the gap between third-person account on brain functionality and first-person experience, where you do. Where you position this as an unwanted shortcoming of physicalism in need for some camouflage by a proof from the negative, I see it as a very interesting challenge for contemporary science.

You seem to keep making a strawman out of me by saying that I "claim this" or "claim that" my only claim is that we have evidence for the physical. And that I know of no evidence for the non-physical. I am not claiming that thought is physical. I am not being absolute. I have said this repeatedly now. I believe it's physical for a probability reason, that being that I know of zero evidence for the non-physical, and evidence for the physical is basically, everything that I know of that there's evidence of to exist at all. So I think to single 'thought' out as non-physical as a total exception is utterly bizarre, not as an idea...but as a belief I mean! I find that to be very strange logic because:

The fact it hasn't been shown to be physical doesn't give evidence that it's not. It doesn't give evidence that it's not physically part of the physical universe. Physically undetected just means physically undetected!

7. As explained in the above I do not assert that the immaterial I am speaking about is necessarily not made up from the material, as you seem to suggest. Mine is a non-reductive physicalistic viewpoint. Do you know what that means? I explicitly ask this because you keep on suggesting that I am asserting such a thing. Please take note of the fact that I am defending a physicalistic viewpoint.

And as I have said many times, for you to take note, if by 'non-physical' you mean 'not physically detected' and you in fact mean that non-physical can be made from physical properties, fine!

From the multiple realizability argument. Do you need further explanation on that, I ask, since you haven't given any comment on that argument so far,

it would be a help thanks. Because what I read of the article on Wikipedia, I do not see of any evidnece for that which is necessarily not physical? That which isn't physically part of the physical universe? As opposed to merely not detected to be physical (at least yet).

I didn't see the bit when it cited evidence for such an exception, so yes, please elaborate.

Just look what I am saying. What you are claiming is that it IS physical. Is the evidence really sufficient to support your claim? Don't walk the proof-from-a-negative road that so many theists do, show that you are not made of this kind of fallacious reasoning.

Physical is the only alternative to non-physical by definition. So if I am claiming thought is 'physical' by merely believing that it is because I know of no evidence for an exception, and you don't believe it's physical, then you therefore must believe it's 'non-physical' because it's the only alternative (assuming you believe it exists at all of course); and since there is evidence for the physical, but zero known evidence for the non-physical (unless you can enlighten me?), only a failure to be shown to be physical, BoP is therefore on you for you are the one making the strange exception without evidence.

That you need an exception is your problem, not that of science. To the scientific model it just is one of the challenges that it is confronted with. And in my opinion science thrives on these challenges.

What I am referring to is that of special pleading. There is evidence for the physical, and as far as I know there's no evidence at all for the non-physical. So why believe thought isn't physical? If it's not physically detected that doesn't mean it's not physical as in not part of the physical universe. So why single out thought and say it's 'not physical' without any positive evidence for that?

And...I ask: When you are talking about mathematics, and other information being immaterial - what are you talking about?.

I am talking about one and one being equal to two, for instance.

Well show me the evidence that mathematics isn't material then. And, no, I don't mean tell me that "there's no evidnece that it is material, at least yet!", I mean show me that it isn't actually made out of the material. As far as I know mathematics would be stored as a concept in the brain. The brain is physical. And as i have said - I am yet to know of any evidence for the non-physical at all. So why would I believe anything is non-physical, until I know of any evidence that it necessarily isn't, as opposed to merely being thus far undetected to be physical?

Negative evidence for the physical doesn't =positive evidence for something that somehow 'isn't physical', it could very easily be physical but simply (at least yet) be undetected physically, whether ever detected...or not.

You should be able to figure out by now, that I haven't asserted that what we call 'the immaterial' is totally independent from the physical. So please don't make such suggestions.

I could just as easily say 'you should have read by now that I have said many times that I am happy to accept any definition of 'non-physical' if you just mean "'not physically detected/detectable' however there's still no reason to believe it's an exception to the physical universe, not actually physically part of it, and actually non-physical. I/we just call it that because it's not physically detected/detectable."'

I am fine with non-physical if you are not saying there's actually positive evidence that it's not physical (unless you actually know of any?). And negative evidence of the failure to be detected to be physical, just means it's not detected physically. Since everything else in the known universe=physical, I don't see why it would actually be non-physical, it's just not detected to be. That's negative evidence, not positive evidence that it isn't physical, it probably is physical, I argue, because I know of zero evidence for anything non-physical, so why on earth would you make thought an exception? I need evidence for that.

You provide no such testable hypothesis, only a claim from a proof of the negative.

I am not claiming negative evidence for a positive. You however appear to be.

I am not the one suggesting that lack of evidence, negative evidence, for thought being physical =that it probably is non-physical, or probably isn't physical. That does not follow.

All I'm saying is:

1. There's evidence for the physical.

2. I know of no evidence to to the contrary.

3. A failure of evidence for the physical doesn't give credence to the notion of something existing, that isn't physical.

Therefore to claim that the non-physical exists is claiming an exception to the rest of the known universe, and without evidence , is special pleading.

EvF