Atheism feels shunned...

[Purple Rabbit]

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.

You hereby in essence tell me that you won't except any proof for the non-physical because non-physical can only mean not detected as the physical. What you fail to see is that you are stretching the meaning of 'physical' beyond its current definition in the scientific physical model. Science does not claim that phenomena that cannot physically e detected are 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.

'Non-physical' is a term I could contend with as it has the same connotation (for me) as 'immaterial', but it would be strange to ask from me to call it the 'non-physical physical' as you suggest. I've stated that mental states are dependent on the physical, but I have no evidence that mathematical truths are dependent on the physical. I would be claiming that without evidence, wouldn't I?

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.

I am not claiming evidence of absence. You are! Your claim is that in the end all there exists is physical. For this you stretch the meaning of 'physical' beyond its current scientific meaning and you claim that there is no evidence against your claim.

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.

They are not only physically undetected, that is a complete understatement with which you suggest that any day now it can physically be detected (as is the case with detection of gravity waves). However, it's not detection that this is about, it is about the total lack of physical proprties that add up to these phenomena. In the case of gravity waves we expect these to exist on the basis of our understanding of physical properties of matter. In the current scientific modeI it is completely unknown HOW to bring about ANY relation between physical properties and first-person experience.

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.

Iit seems to me, correct me if I'm wrong, that what you really are saying is this: you want evidence to believe they ultimately aren't within the scientific physical framework, and I agree with that, but striving a thing does not make it fact right now.

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.

Gravity waves are physically undetected, the truths of euclidean geometry are part of what exists and cience has no clue whatsoever to connect the physical with these phenomena of existence.

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

It's too fuzzy to give it any label like that. Do you mean you have evidence that all phenomena of eistence are physical, or that just some are?

2. I know of no evidence that thought isn't physical,..

Argumentam ad ignorantiam, a fallacy, not a valid argument for the claim that all is physical.

..only a lack of evidence that it is.

There you say it, the evidence to call it physical in any meaningful way is lacking.

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.

You haven't supplied any evidence yet, that thought is necessarily NO exception and is only physical in its current meaning of the word, is physically part of the physical universe in its current meaning of the word. Still you make the claim that all that exists is physical while I make no such claim. And I do not claim to have evidence that these phenomena are shown to be forever not within reach of scientific explanation, only that in the current scientific framework these phenomena lack physicalistic explanation and that at the moment it is not clear how 'physical' should be redefined to encompass such phenomena and that in the light of this these phenomena at this stage correctly classify under the term 'non-physical' or 'immaterial' because they cannot be disinguished in any way from what one would call immaterial. Meanwhile in this quote your earlier 'undetectable' has now been replaced by 'not shown to be physical' and you add to that a rather devaluating "because it still probably is". I will except the term 'non-phyiscal' only when we agree it to mean 'not shown to be physical' period. But be sure to acknowledge beforehand that acception of this would mean that the statement that all there exists is physical, does not hold.

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!

Please register that I have given you two examples of existence of immaterial phenomena: first-person experience (loosely referred to as 'thought' here, though this does not credit the intangibilty of first-person experience) and existence of logical truths (more specifically the example of truths of euclidean geometry). While I affirm the statement that a physical brain is needed to have thought, I do not affirm the statement that logical truths are dependent on the physical, because I have no evidence for such a statement. Every phenomenon that is unexplained from the physical framework is an exception from that physical framework. It is essential that you grasp the logic of this. Otherwise I could state that all there is, is thought, and I could easily refute any evidence of something physical with the statement that it has not been shown to be really only thought yet. This is not what I am after however. What I am after is to claim only that for which there is sufficient evidence.

Here you are talking about 'physically undetectable' again. Please make up your mind what definition to use. The term 'physically undetectable' is not quite the same as 'not shown to be physical' for gravity waves are still physically undetectable yet they follow from properties defined in the physicalistic framework. If they are detected, they are within the physicalistic framework already, as for logical truths they are detected from first-person experience yet they are outside the explanatory possibilities of the physicalistic framework. Also observe that the existence of electrons is not observable directly from first-person experience. So although 'physically undetectable' is an important standard for existence (due mostly to the established predictive power of the scientific framework) of something it is not logically conclusive a priori, it still is a relative standard of knowledge.

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??

Location is irrelevant. What makes you think that the content of thought has location at all? What counts is the existence of the phenomenon and the lack of any explanation from physical properties.

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.

So you do not claim that all there is, is physical, do you?

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.

You don't have to make an exception, these phenomena are by their verifiable existence exceptions to the physical framework.

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

I agree. And you know what? I'd like 'm to be in the naturalistic framework someday also, but alas, the claim cannot be made right now! And it is unscientific to fuzz up the statement "there is physical and there is non-physical" with the addition of "but I don't see any reason to make an exception to the physical" meaning ''I deny the existence of non-physical phenomena".

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?

Define 'special' for me and I can perhaps answer your question. When 'special' means 'not within the explanatory scope of physicalism' I would say that's special. If you mean 'equiped with supernatural powers' I would say that there's no 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!

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.[/quote]
How can you use 'very probable' without any evidence? That's indistinguishable from wishful thinking. You already have acknowledged to know of phenomena that are not within the physical framework, so really what is your problem?

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!

I am not making a straw man out of you, but I need to know what you mean and in order to get that clear I sometimes rephrase your words to test its meaning and intended scope. I need your correction to get clear what you mean. This is normal procedure in most debates. I value you as an opponent in debate and I really have no intentions to sabotage your arguments. If we leave this debate without agreement that's fine by me. In fact, there are not that many places to test my own arguments and ideas and this debate has really forced me to accuratly formulate my point of view. My experience tells me that's the best I can expect to gain from these debates.

I agree with: "that we have evidence for the physical" and I observe that it leaves room for the non-physical
But I do not agree with: "I know of no evidence for the non-physical" because I've given you, at your explicit request, phenomena that cannot be explained within the current physical framework. You simply deny the fact that this means that the current understanding of 'physical' does not encompass these phenomena but you opt for a ray check on that: "but I don't see any reason to make an exception to the physical". You may say that of course, as a philosophical stance it is legit, but it is not an evidence based scientific statement.

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.

OK, I will elaborate, but let's agree on this first: you haven't given any evidence that first-person experience is physical at all.

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.

Belief is for the religious, I am talking about what can be claimed from evidence. When you say "merely believing that it is because I know of no evidence for an exception" while given the exceptions to the phyiscal framework, you are very clearly arguing from ignorance. I have given you phenomena that are unexplainable from the current physical framework. You simply deny what you cannot claim to deny: first-person experience and logical truths. The former is detectable for every living human being. There is no explanation for these phenomena from the current physical framework. The burden of proof that these are physical phenomena is on you. I do not make that claim. You only seem to accept as evidence of existence that what is physically detectable, but surely you can see that's circular reasoning.

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?

If it hasn't physical properties but still exists it is by definition non-physical. I have given you two existing phenomena without any known physical properties (first-person experience and logical truths). You simply deny this as evidence ("no evidence at all") and persist in your claim that all is physical. In some places in this posting you leave room for the non-physical to which you hastily add "but I don't see any reason to make an exception to the physical" meaning ''I deny the existence of the non-physical phenomena you've handed to me". So exactly what does constitute evidence for you?

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.

Make up your mind. Do you claim that mathematics is physical or not?

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?

Logical truths are truths whether they have been conceived in the human mind or not. Does the univere collopase when no-one is around to conceive of the natural laws ruling its working?