You want evidence of something that has no physical presence? You have plenty evidence of it's effects.. is that good enough?
You're stating that thought physically exists without evidence, and because everything else we know about in the universe exists according to you, thought must also exist physically.
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.
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.
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?
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. 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.
You're stating that thought physically exists without evidence, and because everything else we know about in the universe exists according to you, thought must also exist physically.
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.
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.
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?
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. 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.
