Atheism feels shunned...

[Edwardo Piet]

That's still electrical impulses resulting from thought - it doesn't demonstrate the existence of thought itself. We have very many ways to prove thought having effect.

I'm not suggesting that thought isn't created, transported or received physically. I'm suggesting thought doesn't physically exist on it's own.

Yeah, you're saying that without evidence.

There's no reason to believe it's anything separate to the physical workings to the brain. Why do you need to add 'thought' on top of that...why can't thought simply be part of it...and part of the physical universe, like everything else we know of?

Why make an exception?

EvF

[fr0d0]

You want evidence of something that has no physical presence? You have plenty evidence of it's effects.. is that good enough?

You're stating that thought physically exists without evidence, and because everything else we know about in the universe exists according to you, thought must also exist physically.

If there are 99 girls in the playground and we know there's 1 boy.. (we have no doubt this is a boy - it's clearly provable to be a boy) ..you say that this boy must be a girl because there needs to be 2 boys for it not to be special pleading.

Isn't that an example of this:

Inductive Argument

Premise 1: Most American cats are domestic house cats.
Premise 2: Bill is an American cat.
Conclusion: Bill is a domestic house cat.


For a special pleading accusation to stick I'd have to be saying everything in the universe has to physically exist but not this. Thoughts can't physically (by all known tests) exist therefore the universe can't only contain things which physically exist.

Thought doesn't exist independantly.. it's an integral part, a product of a physical action/ reaction. Why do you need to label it the same as everything else when it isn't?

Unlike the inductive argument, our tests prove something. We put a cross in all the boxes establishing positively non physical existence... To the best of our current ability. We may be incorrect if something currently unknown were to become known that would change these facts. But at this moment in time it would be correct to conclude from our tests that thoughts do not in fact physically exist.

[Purple Rabbit]

One could say that all thought is is electrical impulses that are interpreted by the brain. Thought is just the concept we give to this interpretation.

Your assertion is that first person thought is physical/electrical, the proof of burden for this is on you.
First person thought is primary fact of existence, in the current scientific framework the relation between electrical impulses and first person thought is speculative. If you claim to have solved the mind-body problem, please provide the evidence for it.

The relation between electrical impulses and third person representation of brain activity in no way qualifies as evidence for the relation between electrical impulse and first person experience.

---

You can measure it and new work by Japanese researchers demonstrate the early stages of being able to read it.

You're mixing up third person representation of brain activity with first person experience. Please acknowledge that there is a difference. There is no way you can tell that my first person experience of the colour red is the same as yours or the presentation of brain activity.

---

What I'm saying is that as far as I know everything in the universe is physical, this is a physical universe that follows physical laws. And just because thought isn't something you can touch, etc, physically - doesn't mean it's not physical in the sense of separate to the physical universe, not made of matter and not entirely materialistic!

So you are a believer. Well, what else is new.

Your assertion is that first person thought is physical, the proof of burden for this is on you.

Escape from this by saying you have no proof that it is otherwise is not valid, for the same reason that it is not valid for a theist to assert that god exists because he has no proof that it is otherwise. Keep up to the same standard of reasoning you require from others so often here on the forum.

[Edwardo Piet]

You want evidence of something that has no physical presence? You have plenty evidence of it's effects.. is that good enough?

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. 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're stating that thought physically exists without evidence,

No, the default is that it's part of the physical universe...because everything else is and you have provided zero evidence to make it an exception.

and because everything else we know about in the universe exists according to you, thought must also exist physically.

No, not must. It's just - why make it an exception?

If there are 99 girls in the playground and we know there's 1 boy.. (we have no doubt this is a boy - it's clearly provable to be a boy) ..you say that this boy must be a girl because there needs to be 2 boys for it not to be special pleading.

But this is all circular because you are saying we know it's a boy, which I assume is analogous to we know it's 'non physical'...so your explanation that it's non-physical is that it is! A bare assertion and an assumption.

Yes it would obviously be ridiculous to say it's not a boy when if it is one (duh), and likewise it obviously would be to do the same if we know that thoughts are non-physical. But we dont.

If by non-physical you mean not shown to be physical, fine. But it's not shown to be non-physical either! In the sense that it's not been demonstrated by you or anyone else (as far as I know??) that thoughts are in anyway different and separate to rest of this physical universe and are somehow not in it, but are extra or on-top of it, or specially different, in that sense, somehow.

I mean they're physical as in there's no reason to believe they're not made up of physical matter/energy like the rest of the universe, as far as I know, is. No reason to exclude thoughts. I don't give a shit if mental is often meant to mean "not physical" - my point is that I assume thoughts aren't special in the sense that they are made of matter and are part of this physical universe and in every real non-semantic way, they are physical, whether (at least as of yet) detected or not. And this assumption is not absolutist, it is merely going for what is currently the less complex hypothesis. I shall I assume thought is physical when there is any evidence that it is any way, somehow some sort of bizarre exception to the rest of the physical universe. That would be weird!

Isn't that an example of this:

Inductive Argument

Premise 1: Most American cats are domestic house cats.
Premise 2: Bill is an American cat.
Conclusion: Bill is a domestic house cat.


For a special pleading accusation to stick I'd have to be saying everything in the universe has to physically exist but not this. Thoughts can't physically (by all known tests) exist therefore the universe can't only contain things which physically exist.

And that's wrong. Because absence of evidence is not (at least always) evidence of absence. Because thoughts aren't physically detectable (at least as of yet), that doesn't mean they're not physical, only that (at least as of yet) they aren't physically detectable. Which you could also be wrong in, because when experiments are done that show thoughts you just say "that isn't thought" and that thought is somehow extra and 'on top of that'...like it's some sort of rider (as you've told me). I see no reason to make it an exception! Where's the evidence that it's 'on top'? If it hasn't been detected, that's just that - evidence that it hasn't been detected! Not that it isn't physical!

Before radiowaves were detected does that mean they weren't physical? Oops, no, it just meant we didn't know about them yet lol.

How do you test physical thought? How can you tell the difference between physically undetectable thought and physical thought that doesn't exist and therefore must be non-physical (somehow) by process of elimination? You can't can you?

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. If physical thought is undetected that just means it is undetected. I still see no reason to make it an exception and say "oops, we can't detect/haven't been able to detect it yet. It must be some sort of bizarre exception and non-physical! It can't be part of the physical universe, it must ride on top of it!".

Thought doesn't exist independantly.. it's an integral part, a product of a physical action/ reaction. Why do you need to label it the same as everything else when it isn't?

Why do you need to say it is different when there's no evidence that it's an exception and isn't made of physical matter, of energy, etc.

As I have said to you, if by "non-physical" you just mean "So far not proven to be physical and physically undetectable", fine. But it's extremely likely that it's not some sort of bizarre exception until otherwise demonstrated!

You can call it non-physical if you want, but untill there's evidence that it's an exception to being made of matter, energy, etc, in this physical and materialistic universe that we have evidence of - I'm going to assume "non-physical" is just a pet name for what is actually physical, just undetected physically! At least thus far. Although, actually - you could easily be wrong: When thought experiments are done you just say thought is extra to that, and - as you have said to me - "it rides on top". How do you actually justify[i/] that?

Unlike the inductive argument, our tests prove something. We put a cross in all the boxes establishing positively non physical existence... To the best of our current ability.

Are you defining non-physical as

1. Currently unable to be demonstrated to be physical.

Or

2. Not physically part of the physical universe, not materialistic, not made of matter, etc.

?

Because 1 doesn't equate to 2. Not physically demonstrated doesn't give evidence that thought is some weird exception and isn't made of matter! Just that it hasn't been physically demonstrated, yet! And maybe it has...but you merely say "that isn't thought". You keep saying that thought rides on top, is the rider. Got any evidence for that? Any evidence that thought is an exception to being physically part of the mechanics of the rest of the physical universe...that it isn't also, in a sense, [i]driven? Whether indeterministically or deterministically.

.We may be incorrect if something currently unknown were to become known that would change these facts. But at this moment in time it would be correct to conclude from our tests that thoughts do not in fact physically exist.

'1.' doesn't prove '2.' in any way shape or form. How doesit? You need to prove that for some bizarre reason thoughts aren't made of physical, material, matter. It does no good to say "Tests have failed to show it's physical, therefore it isn't." How are you expecting them to be shown, anyway?

EvF

[Purple Rabbit]

You want evidence of something that has no physical presence? You have plenty evidence of it's effects.. is that good enough?

This is reversal of the burden of proof. Primary fact of existence is first person experience. The mental is what undeniable defines existence. "I think therefore I am" is deductive proof. There is no deductive proof for the physical model of the world, only indirect empirical proof.

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. You do not seem to understand what your claim really is. Fro is totally right to question it. You cannot show me here that you understand anything of such a simple thing as what I perceive as red. Your claim is however that it is produced by the material world. 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.

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. IOW, physicalism is a model that tries to explain reality, it hasn't succeded in explaining first person experience yet. Read up on the mind-body problem. 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. Well, his is not the claim that the material view explains first person experience.

You're stating that thought physically exists without evidence,

No, the default is that it's part of the physical universe...because everything else is and you have provided zero evidence to make it an exception.

and because everything else we know about in the universe exists according to you, thought must also exist physically.

No, not must. It's just - why make it an exception?

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.

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.

[Tiberius]

Your assertion is that first person thought is physical/electrical, the proof of burden for this is on you.
First person thought is primary fact of existence, in the current scientific framework the relation between electrical impulses and first person thought is speculative. If you claim to have solved the mind-body problem, please provide the evidence for it.

The relation between electrical impulses and third person representation of brain activity in no way qualifies as evidence for the relation between electrical impulse and first person experience.

The current scientific explanation (to my knowledge) is that thought it electrical signals being interpreted by the brain. These signals can be recorded (that is how the Japanese wheelchair works). The user thinks "right" and the wheelchair moves right.

[Purple Rabbit]

This proves that the electrical pulses associated with thought can be measured, not that these electrical pulses ARE identical to the first person thought itself. That the physical produces the mental is no proof that the electric currents ARE the mental, merely that the physical produces the mental. In other persons other currents can produce the same mental state.

[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

[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. Although I philosophically speaking am a proponent of the stance that the mental is a product of the physical, a view in which I expect to differ with theists like Fro, the japanese wheelchair example has shown nothing that comes close to that claim. And I am flatly against the claim that science has sufficient evidence for this. The japanese wheelchair recognizes EEG patterns that are trained by the subjects in advance. EEG-patterns are not equal to mental states. Moving electrons are not by definition equal to first-person mental states. Why is the wheelchair example insufficient? For one thing it isn't sufficient evidence to distinguish between the following working hypotheses: a) mental states trigger neuronal states and b) neuronal states trigger mental states. Indeed the japanese wheelchair prima facie indeed seems to favour the stance that the mental triggers the physical than vice versa. Secondly with the wheelchair experiment there is no falsifiable claim made by science HOW the physical constitutes first-person mental states. Making the distinction between philosophical suggestions and scientific evidence is essential here. Not all gaps in our knowledge are closed by science yet, and it is not clear whether this ever will be the case. Another essential aspect that is as of yet unexplained by science is how mental concepts seem to supervene the phyiscal. Concepts like 'left' or 'right' seem independent of specific material configurations (the multiple realizability argument). Added to that all is the problem that the idea of qualia (the qualitive character of first-person experience) poses. There is a fundamental inability to establish reliability of third-person account of first-person experience, which can be demonstrated with a red-blue inversion thought experiment. Ask yourself the following question: how do I know for certain that what I call red is the same what other persons experience when they see red (I am not referring to colour blindness here!)? Is it possible that where I see red another person sees blue? The answer is that you have no way of knowing, you cannot experience first-person qualities from a third-person perspective.

All this shows that we are far off from claiming evidence for the fact that the physical is the mental in some way. It is a philosophical stance (and a quite reasonable one really) but it has no sufficient scientific evidence to distinguish it from the claim that the mental has features that evade current understanding of the physical.

[Edwardo Piet]

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?

If by non-physical you by definition mean mental then you get what you want in a single step! 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.

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.

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?

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?

Why such an odd exception? without any reason?

EvF

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