[split] t-shirt to soul topic

[fr0d0]

Actually, belief in a soul or mind posits a "something", ergo a positive claim. You must have evidence to support either claim if you are going to defend them properly.

My discussion with Kyu here is not over the Soul. It stems from a previous discussion that thought is physical - his (and EvF's) assertion.

I'm not defending the mind's existence as anything other than it seems.

Kyu, on the other hand, claims that thought (& possibly the mind too) are actually physically existent. I'm interested in that, and as they make such a claim would like evidence from them. Neither of them seem to be able to provide it so I wonder how they can make such a claim. I believe the burden of proof lies with them. If they can't 'prove', then they should retract.

---

Actually, the burden of proof rests on the one making any claim. You are not claiming that thought doesn't exist physically, you are claiming that thought exists non-physically.

Physical existence is the default position given it is the observable and testable position. To say something exists but non-physically is to make the positive claim, since non-physical things are not observable / testable.

I made no claim - I come from the default position.. that thought isn't something physical. I don't see how, without making assumptions, that you can summise that thought is physical.

To me what you're saying is arse about face. It is your worldview that "Physical existence is the default position given it is the observable and testable position".

You're straining the logic bus by saying now I have to prove that something doesn't exist. This is saying that suddenly you're allowed to assert something without proof. I don't see why you can't follow convention and reserve judgement. Your side has so far failed to provide the proof that they claim exists.