Atheism feels shunned...

[Edwardo Piet]

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.

This is a totally unacceptable way of reasoning. You are asserting that the material worldview can explain first person experience. This claim means you have solved the mind-body problem.

No it doesn't. How many times have I said that I'm not claming to know it's material? I'm only saying that there's no reason to believe it isn't! No reason to make an exception.

You do not seem to understand what your claim really is.

Yes I do, and I do fully. I thought about it a lot for a while. All I am saying is there's no reason to believe thought is anything extra to what goes on in our brains, and in all probability that's all it is, because - at least currently - there's no evidence to the contrary. So it's more simple and parsimonious to go with the hypothesis that thought isn't anything extra or "special." As Daniel Dennett also argues.

Fro is totally right to question it.

Indeed, questioning is good.

You cannot show me here that you understand anything of such a simple thing as what I perceive as red.

So? Who says it has to be intuitively understood? The point is there's no reason to believe it's an exception to the rest of the material universe. Why on earth would it be? I need evidence for that.

Your claim is however that it is produced by the material world.

Only because by process of elimination if it's not non-material then it's material, just as if it's not non-mechanical - by process of elimination. And there's evidence for the mechanics of things, and for the material, but not for anyhting that is ultimately non-mechanical, and not for anything that isn't material (and how would that even be achieved? Non-material (at least currently) seems kind of unfalsifiable to me! How would it be detected?) - so why make a special exception and say thought and the mind, the 'I' is not mechanical or material? Why on earth make an exception to that? To do so is an assumption. I am not claiming to solve the mind-body problem, the whole thing at least seems kind of impossible to do anyway. The point is there's no reason to believe that the mind is an exception to the mechanical and is anything other than the brain. I'm not trying to solve a philosophical problem, just saying that why on earth would it be non-mechanical and immaterial when as far as we know, nothing else is?

This claim is unsubstantiated for first person experience and this discrepency is acknowledged by contemporary science. You should require the same standard of evidence for such claims that you require from others.

The 'claim' would be that thought is immaterial and/or non-mechanical. I'm only claiming it's probably mechanical because it's the only alternative by process of elimination, to non mechanical...and there's no reason to believe it's an exception and is non-mechanical.

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 claim the relation between the material world and first person experience, you provide the evidence. All empirical evidence is inductive evidence, not logical proof.[/quote]

I never claimed proof? And I have said repeatedly that I'm not being absolute and am merely believing in the least complex hypothesis? I'm only believing it's mechanical because it's the only atlernative to non-mechanical and there's no reason to believe it's an exception to the mechanical!

IOW, physicalism is a model that tries to explain reality, it hasn't succeded in explaining first person experience yet.

I'm not saying it has to?

Your reasoning is a skyhook, you assert that there is a material explanation and ask your opponent to show you how it can be otherwise.

It's not a skyhook because there's no evidence for anything IMmaterial. And so it's more reasonable top believe it [i]isn't immaterial, and by process of elimination not immaterial=material. I am not being absolutist. I am saying there is no evidence for anything immaterail whatsoever (as far as I know?) - and I don't see any reason whatsoever to make 'mind' an exception. How many times have I said that but you haven't addresed it? You keep saying I am making a claim, but I'm merely going with what there's actually evidence of - the material. Why would mind be an exception to the material? if you claim it is, you need the evidence. I don't. Material is the default untill there's evidence for anything immaterial!

If there's no reason to believe it's immaterial because there's no evidence, then by process of elimination the current rational stance is that it's material. Because if you don't beleieve it's immaterial, you must believe it's material (if you're at all irrational) - because it's the only alternative. It can't be neither...can it? And if it could, how? You'd need evidence for that too obviously!!

Well, his is not the claim that the material view explains first person experience.

He isn't. And if he claims otherwise, that it's immaterial, the burden of proof is on him....because he's the one making the special exception to the material without evidence.

That first person experience would be an exception to materialism is not proof for materialism. It can in fact be a vaild reason to disprove the claim.

How does it remotely prove it's not material? Just because it isn't detected to be material doesn't mean it isn't. There's no reason to believe it isn't material, it just isn't detected. You need evidence that thought isn't made of matter like the rest of the universe before you believe that rationally! If you can't find evidence that it isn't made of matter, that doesn't prove that it isn't, that's bogus. That just proves no one can detect it as matter! You still need evidence for making such an exception.

You keep on circling in this reasoning that first asserts that the material world is all there is and from that assertion concludes that there can be no other existence, notwithstanding the gap between first person experience and the physicalism you propose. When you are really critical in your thinking you would be alarmed by this inconsistency. Personally I think critical thinkers should be keen on not being drawn into claims that are unsubstantiated by evidence. Science is not making this claim at the moment. It is currently researching physicalistic models for explanation of THIRD person experience.

As I think Dan Dennet has said, 1st person science is not science, because it can be biased. Consciousness needs to be dealt with from a 3rd person. There's no reason to believe thoughts aren't material.

You're beginning to sound like a solipsist. But even if I am all that exists, I know of my workings - IOW my mechanics. I don't know of anything else...so even if I am all that exists - I don't know of any part of me that isn't mechanical! I could claim that I'm not mechanical, but I'd lack evidence for that. Since merely the fact I operate, is evidnece for the mechanics. There is no evidence that I operate in any non-mechanical means, regardless of what I believe. I need evidence.

EvF