A question regarding proof

[Ryft]

I dismiss arguments for which there is insufficient evidence.

What about arguments for which there is zero evidence? You likewise dismiss those, right?

Well, apparently not. It seems you are willing to accept things for which there is either insufficient or zero evidence. Unless they are theistic arguments, of course. You consistently dismiss those. But if they are atheistic, then you would just as soon accept them as dismiss them; what the criteria might be for acceptance or dismissal is anyone's guess, but there it is. On what basis do I say this? The fact that you accept any number of things for which there is insufficient evidence (e.g., that induction is a valid epistemic principle) or zero evidence (e.g., that mind states are a product of brain states).

Yes, there is a clear relationship between brain and mind states. But what is that relationship? Causal, you say. Moreover, you even specify the direction of that cause-and-effect relationship, that it is brain states which cause mind states. On what evidence do you draw this conclusion? The embarrassing answer: "none." You base it on the fact that we consistently observe brain states occurring in correlation with mind states. The critical skeptic should recognize that immediately as the fallacy of cum hoc ergo propter hoc, which frankly does not qualify as evidence. (While causation obviously implies correlation necessarily, correlation does not necessarily imply causation. One can think of a hundred examples of A occurring in correlation to B but having no causal relationship.) The fact that it is a fallacy is not the only reason it does not qualify as evidence. There is an even clearer reason still. Even cases where correlation might be said to imply causation (such as our present case), such a conclusion is drawn from inference, not observation. It is the correlation that is observed empirically, while the causal relationship is inferred inductively. Causation requires not only correlation but counterfactual dependence—which is empirically impossible (since we do not have time machines). So not only is there no evidence for this causal relationship, there cannot even be any. What we have evidence for, and lots of it, is correlation. Worse still, since induction suffers from vicious circularity—for induction cannot be justified except inductively—even your inferred causal relationship stands on rather questionable ground.

First, it fails the test of logic. Second, it is a product of inference, not observation. Third, that inference itself is based on a viciously circular epistemic principle. Despite all of this, you accept the argument. (I am ignoring the fact that metaphysical naturalism being true is a self-referentially incoherent position.)

That the mind (and the effects thereof) is directly related to the brain has been demonstrated as much as anything could be demonstrated.

Indeed, the correlation is amply attested by empirical observations. But that is not the question.

That thought is "simply" electrical impulse ... is perhaps a very narrow way of describing it, but what other evidence do we have?

You do not even have evidence for that.

I'm going to side with whatever currently accepted theory science has to offer.

The causal relationship is not falsifiable even in principle, so it fails the science test. This is philosophy, Rhythm, not science.

I'm here more to repeat ... to Fred that if he wishes to state something as existing, or being a part of reality, he's going to have to show some sort of evidence for it.

Why must he do that? If no evidence for the existence of X is provided, then X does not exist? Surely you would not posit something that naive. If no evidence for the existence of X is provided, then you will have no reason to believe X exists? Surely you are not a solipsist; that is, what relevance does your intellectual assent have to the existence of X? Perhaps you have presumed that Fred is supposed to care whether or not you happen to give your intellectual assent to the existence of X. Is that it? These are rhetorical questions, of course, intended to make you stop and think for a brief moment. You really need to set aside your self-stultifying scientism and its handy tropes just long enough to genuinely hear what Fred is underscoring.