Atheism feels shunned...

[Purple Rabbit]

The claim that is being made (at least by EvF) is that science has shown that there is nothing beyond the physical, in other words that what we call mental states ARE in fact physical states.

I've read the whole post, but I need to cut you off right here PR.

I am not claiming that. I am not claiming that science has positively shown that there is nothing beyond the physical. I am just noting that - at least as far as I know - there is no valid evidence for anything non-physical, right? So why make an exception to the physical and say thought isn't physical?

Well I see that my wording of your stance was not accurate. I therefore will rephrase:
The claim that is being made (at least by EvF) is that science has shown that mental states are nothing beyond the physical, in other words that what we call mental states ARE in fact physical states.

All I mean by that I believe thought is physical in the sense that it's part of the physical universe and made of physical matter. I believe this because it's the only alternative to believing it's non physical - I can't not believe either because it's either one or the other and this isn't a 50/50 thing.

Well I agree it's not a 50/50 thing, and I am definitely not defending dualism or theism or a claim for the supernatural here. But there are alternatives to materialism. An immaterial version of a mind in a jar is one of them but also a much more feasible one than that, a non-reductive physicalism (the idea that while mental states are physical they are not reducible to physical properties) such as supervenience physicalism.

Your claim implies that it already is possible to discriminate between pure physicalism (the claim that mental states are physical states, i.e. a reductive physicalism) and, for instance, non-reductive physicalism. My position is that science has no evidence to discriminate between these stances and that there are clear indications that reductive physicalism is not the whole story: among them are multiple realizability, the instrinsic qualitative nature of experience that is unexplained by reductive physicalism and the inaccessibility from third-person perspective of first-person perspective.

Why isn't it a 50/50 thing? Because, as I said: So far - at least as far as I know - everything that there is evidence of is physical so why make an exception for thought without any reason to do so? To make such an exception, without evidence for such an exception, without valid reason - seems utterly bizarre and just special pleading to me.

You are too hasty with your jargon you mostly use in the theism/atheism debates. You fail to recognize that scientific models are incapable of explaining mental properties in terms of physical properties. That you are not capable of seeing other options is not an argument in favour of reductive physicalism. You haven't
responded to the clear indications of a gaping hole in reductive physicalism I have given you. Concluding reductive physicalism from neglect of these arguments is special pleading.

I am not claiming that science has shown thought is physical. I am just noting that: As far as I know, there is no valid evidence, scientific or otherwise - for anything non-physical (Unless you can enlighten me). So why make an exception and believe thought is somehow non-physical?

I have given you reasons, why not respond to them? Also I explicitly urge you to take note of the fact that your wording is such that it strongly suggests reductive physicalism, i.e. that mental states are reducible to physical properties.

Why would it be some sort of bizarre one-off exception in what is as far as we know an entirely physical universe, right? I need evidence for that! Why wouldn't it be made out of physical matter? - that's the sense of physical I'm talking about, not 'untouchable' or anything like that. Physically undetectable is not the same as something that isn't made out of physical matter. Physically undetectable could just be physical matter that we (at least) can't physically detect. How could it not still be made up of matter like the rest of the physical universe?

Your dislike of exceptions (quite contrary to scientific thinking) is not an argument at all. The greatest reason of all is right in front of you: physical properties don't add up to the components of personal experience such as mathematics, free will, freedom etc. What even makes you think that you can measure the quantity with which physicalism describes the total of existence. That is arrogance, not science, not critical thinking.

P.S: Ok, I'm going out now so I won't be able to respond till later on.

That's fine by me. I was busy doing other things yesterday and I can wait.

---

Of course I am talking about measuring the electro-chemical impulses but then I never claimed we could measure every aspect ...

OK, so you are only filling in some gaps in scientific evidence by yourself? I see.

my position all along has been that this is a technological limitation and that it is only a matter of time before we gain full visualisation of mental processes.

Is your last name Nostradamus? For most people cannot see into the future and in general in a debate concerning the question whether the evidence supports the claim it is unwise to claim capabilities to see into the future.

Presumably when they can display someone's thought in full 3D colour (on whatever is the medium for such things then) you will STILL claim they haven't measured thought?

The 'presumably' really says it all.

All you are doing is making a vacuous claim just like the metaphysical idea of separating mind from brain which is self-evident [expletive deleted]'s because whenever the physical brain is damaged there are accompanying mind changes (usually for the worse).

All you are doing is giving a a partly suppressed hormonal response to a valid question. Face the facts and show me how third-person representation adds up to first-person qualities of experience.