Atheism feels shunned...

[Kyuuketsuki]

Show me. How can you measure a thought? Are you talking measuring the electrical activity? Translating the electrical activity into something else? This still isn't the thought itself, just the transport, facilitator or receiver. Without substantiation your point is outside reality and only in theory. It doesn't count.

More fully dealing with your earlier claims ...

---

1. Thought passes all tests for something that doesn't physically exist: you can't hear it, see it, touch it, smell it.

Thought uses physical medium as transport but thought isn't the transport. Thought uses air, electricity, paint, ink etc. Thought is the rider on that transport. It's never the transport. It is always separate. Thought is created by a physical process in the brain, which is physical. Thought is communicated through physical medium but remains non physical. Thought can be enacted upon to produce physical effect but then ceases to be thought.

2. Thought fails all tests for something that exists.

Evie asserts that there is such a thing as a physical thought. I call bogus as there's no such allowance in the term 'physical'. Again thought may be born out of physical process involving electrical impulses in the brain but thought is more than those impulses. The impulses are dumb facilitators of thought.

3. I assert that thought doesn't exist physically. It isn't possible then to physically prove a negative.

Evie holds that theoretically, thought is a physical substance yet unknown. On that presumption Evie feels justified in classifying thought as a physical entity because everything else in this physical universe is physical so thought must be too. My far from perfect analogy was that because a playground consisted of 99 girls and 1 boy, by his logic Evie would conclude that the playground contains 100 girls. He dismisses the boy because the boy has no other comparable examples so then can't be evidence of something which exists.

---

So I spoke to a friend about your claim that thoughts are in some way not "real"/"physical", I showed him your post, and his response was:

Firstly I'd want to see his evidence that thoughts are more than just dumb chemical activity in the brain. My understanding of the brain is that the chemical interactions are in fact thoughts. If so then thoughts are entirely physical.

Moreover, to be a physical state there is no need to be able to identify it using just the natural senses. We can't detect air that way but we don't doubt it exists. We can however feel wind so we can (if I may stretch the analogy) feel the activity as evidence of a physical presence that is undetectable by our senses. Thought is not a physical entity in the way air is but it is a manifestation of that entity just as with wind.

We even accept physical states that are only identifiable by their absence (such as vacuum) so I really don't understand this idea that thoughts are not physical.

We are lacking perfect understanding of the physical processes that lead to the experience of thoughts, however bear in mind that this is very complex stuff and it may take much longer before we fully grasp it. Not that long ago people had no idea that air and wind were essentially the same thing, even more recently people didn't know that air wasn't homogeneous but a mixture, more recently still people didn't know that the air inspired and expired by an animal has different composition. Just because we don't fully understand it yet doesn't mean we won't in the future.

So, as I have previously said, most workers in the neuroscience filed seem to accept that thought is a natural process even if we cant understand it as yet.

If we were to accept your rationale that we cannot detect thought in any way we (science) would be well and truly buggered because we infer thoughts are real in the same way as we infer evolution is real and the big bang occurred ... we don't have any truly direct evidence for any of them (I know there are examples of species evolving but the time involved still allows the wingnuts to claim it's still just adaptation and none of us, not a single one, has ever seen the big bang). There are many things in science that are inferred, yet entirely accepted, yet for which we do not have the kind of direct evidence small minded individuals like you appear to demand.

Even though we don't yet fully understand it, the available evidence infers that thought is a physical process; that thought is no more separate from the physical world it exists in (the brain) than mind is, that we are able to detect some aspects of thought both in terms of measuring it and in the beginnings of being able to translate it back, that thought/mind changes in the event of damage to the supporting infrastructure (brain/nerves) and that there is no validatable evidence that mind/thought can exist outside of the physical infrastructure within which it is currently understood to exist.

I accept that the nature of thought is not yet fully understood, what I don't accept is that we know nothing about it or that we have reached the limit of understanding. Nor do I accept that our current state of knowledge means we won't know much more in the future ... you and I know as much as we do because we stand on the shoulders of giants, I fervently hope we have more such giants and that the human race in a hundred years will know 10 times as much as it does now, that we develop techniques and technology that further explain the universe and make more things (including thought) more resolvable ... the steps made by the Japanese research group in translating thought back is a promising first step. But I am reasonably confident of one thing about thought and that is that our current lack of a full understanding of the nature of thought leaves, AT BEST, an open question and does not "elevate" thought to the status of pseudo mystical mumbo jumbo and to claim that it does, that thought is somehow separate from all the physical structures that support and nurture it, is just another example of special pleading.

IOW sorry, but you're full of [expletive deleted] ... as usual!

Kyu

[Edwardo Piet]

Your dislike of the immaterial seems laden with your disprove of the supernatural, but the existence of the immaterial I am speaking of is a plain fact of life: fantasy, abstract concepts, mathematics it all is there.

Where? Give me one reason to believe, give me any evidence that these concepts don't only exist entirely in our own heads. Give me one reason to believe that any of this exists and isn't made of phyiscal matter, is immaterial. I maintain that it's just undetected. I know of no reason or evidence to believe that any of this has to be immaterial, not made of matter, non-physical in that sense. Like I said if you are simply defining 'mental' as 'non-physical' you get what you wish in a single step.

I'm just arguing that I know of no evidence or reason to believe whatsoever - that thought, that any of the examples you listed above, etc - aren't made up of physical matter, aren't material. I know they aren't detected as physical at least yet. But they'd have to be detected as non-physical somehow to believe they aren't physical. They just aren't detected as physical yet as far as I'm concerned. There is evidence for the physical but not the non-physical so far, and the fact that thought hasn't been found to be physical doesn't in any way mean it isn't or that it's not made of physical matter! How the hell would it prove that?.

But I am not advocating the supernatural. I am not ascribing special powers over the physical to the immaterial, and I am not saying that it is indepent of the physical.

Ok, good.

I am saying that these things exist and that as of yet it is impossible to reduce them to physical properties.

And I'm fine with that too.

I am saying that there is another level of existence that supervenes the physical that for now is unexplained by the physical properties known to man.

How did you make that jump there? What evidence have you God that 'unexplained by physical properties known to man', gives credence to the notion of there being 'another level of existence that supervenes the physical?'

If there's no evidence that it is physical. Does that mean it's not physical? No. How does it? It's just undetected, as I have said. I still need a reason to make it an exception, so that whether it's capable of being detected or not - I need evidence before I'm going to believe that thoughts aren't made of physical matter, are immaterial, etc.

And...I ask: When you are talking about mathematics, and other information being immaterial - what are you talking about?.

Science is not about what is physically detectable but about what exists and enters our reality in some way.

I agree. So just because thought isn't as of yet physically detectable, I see no reason to believe that that means that thought is in any way immaterial/non-physical.

So, talking about existence - I still don't know of one single reason to believe that the immaterial exists at all.

EvF

[Purple Rabbit]

Your dislike of the immaterial seems laden with your disprove of the supernatural, but the existence of the immaterial I am speaking of is a plain fact of life: fantasy, abstract concepts, mathematics it all is there.

Where? Give me one reason to believe, give me any evidence that these concepts don't only exist entirely in our own heads. Give me one reason to believe that any of this exists and isn't made of phyiscal matter, is immaterial. I maintain that it's just undetected. I know of no reason or evidence to believe that any of this has to be immaterial, not made of matter, non-physical in that sense. Like I said if you are simply defining 'mental' as 'non-physical' you get what you wish in a single step.

I'm just arguing that I know of no evidence or reason to believe whatsoever - that thought, that any of the examples you listed above, etc - aren't made up of physical matter, aren't material. I know they aren't detected as physical at least yet. But they'd have to be detected as non-physical somehow to believe they aren't physical. They just aren't detected as physical yet as far as I'm concerned. There is evidence for the physical but not the non-physical so far, and the fact that thought hasn't been found to be physical doesn't in any way mean it isn't or that it's not made of physical matter! How the hell would it prove that?.

Is it so hard to listen to the arguments?

1. I haven't argued that it necessarily is not made of the physical. Only that there exist things that are unexplained by physical properties. Calling these things physical therefore is a leap of faith on your part. You claim what you are unable to sustain with evidence and that is a severe case of what you so often blame our theist friends here.

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?

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.

4. Immaterial is not synonymous with supernatural. The existence of the immaterial is not a plea for the supernatural and we shouldn't refrain from being clear on this out of some fear that it opens the door for theists and the like to obtain a foothold with belief in the supernatural. Immaterial just means 'not material', so if we can't explain something from physical properties it is fair to call it immaterial. It does not necessarily mean that it will always be unexplainable 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. 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.

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! It is an indication that the physical properties we build our devices for, don't add up to a measuring device that can measure abstract concepts like these.

6. I am not saying that abstract concepts, the perceivable immaterrial, is totally independent of the material. Obviously to perceive these concepts as human beings one needs a brain. There are no reliable accounts of dead people being able to perceive first-person experience at all. Or brainless people, although some have argued somewhat premturely that some of us who walk around with concepts alien to ours are brainless. And there is a vast and growing field of neurological research that shows that the brain houses all kinds of functionalities involved. So my philosophical stance is that of a physicalist: to be able to perceive abstract concepts like mathematics, a brain with all sorts of functions apparantly is needed. 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.

7. As explained in the above I do not assert that the immaterial I am speaking about is necessarily not made up from the material, as you seem to suggest. Mine is a non-reductive physicalistic viewpoint. Do you know what that means? I explicitly ask this because you keep on suggesting that I am asserting such a thing. Please take note of the fact that I am defending a physicalistic viewpoint.

But I am not advocating the supernatural. I am not ascribing special powers over the physical to the immaterial, and I am not saying that it is indepent of the physical.

Ok, good.

I am saying that these things exist and that as of yet it is impossible to reduce them to physical properties.

And I'm fine with that too.

I am saying that there is another level of existence that supervenes the physical that for now is unexplained by the physical properties known to man.

How did you make that jump there? What evidence have you God that 'unexplained by physical properties known to man', gives credence to the notion of there being 'another level of existence that supervenes the physical?'

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,

If there's no evidence that it is physical. Does that mean it's not physical? No.

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.

How does it? It's just undetected, as I have said. I still need a reason to make it an exception, so that whether it's capable of being detected or not - I need evidence before I'm going to believe that thoughts aren't made of physical matter, are immaterial, etc.

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.

b]And[/b]...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.

Science is not about what is physically detectable but about what exists and enters our reality in some way.

I agree. So just because thought isn't as of yet physically detectable, I see no reason to believe that that means that thought is in any way immaterial/non-physical.

You should be able to figure out by now, that I haven't asserted that what we call 'the immaterial' is totally independent from the physical. So please don't make such suggestions.

So, talking about existence - I still don't know of one single reason to believe that the immaterial exists at all.

You claim to be blind for the obvious. Every concept, even the concept of hard physicalism, is dependent on first-person experience, yet physical properties do not explain this. So it is evident from first-person experience that phenomena unexplained by the physical framework exist and it therefore is allowed to categorize these phenomena as 'immaterial' (i.e. not consisting of matter as we know it), not intending to encompass any supernatural claims therewith.

Acceptable evidence for a physicalistic claim on these phenomena lies only in its ability to explain the properties of these phenomena. When Newton proposed his invisible action between two masses at a distant we now call gravitation he provided a testable hypothesis for it (i.e. the force is inversely squared proportional to the distance of the objects, and proportional to the product of their masses). From this he could explain and predict the paths of heavenly bodies in the sky with greater accuracy than any other hypothesis around at the time. You provide no such testable hypothesis, only a claim from a proof of the negative.

[Kyuuketsuki]

1. I haven't argued that it necessarily is not made of the physical. Only that there exist things that are unexplained by physical properties. Calling these things physical therefore is a leap of faith on your part. You claim what you are unable to sustain with evidence and that is a severe case of what you so often blame our theist friends here.

Maybe this is a phraseology thing so I'll ask ... do you mean to say that there exist things that have no physical attributes? If so (and I'm by no means sure that is what you were saying) what?

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?

I disagree ... fields are matter (as in physical/material) because they can be detected and inferred from various evidences to be constructed of exactly the same kind of stuff other things are made of.

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.

Surely that is just thought, thought that it is passed on through various social constructs all of which are entirely explainable? That we don't understand the abstraction (which I think is what you might be saying) is not enough to claim it is non-physical, it's still thought.

4. Immaterial is not synonymous with supernatural. The existence of the immaterial is not a plea for the supernatural and we shouldn't refrain from being clear on this out of some fear that it opens the door for theists and the like to obtain a foothold with belief in the supernatural. Immaterial just means 'not material', so if we can't explain something from physical properties it is fair to call it immaterial. It does not necessarily mean that it will always be unexplainable 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. 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.

Concepts & abstractions are just thoughts, there is no need to elevate them to some special status especially if (as I suspect will occur) in a few decades we have decision making, emotive computers with the ability to think (even if they can't do it as well as at that point ... time will cure that).

I think it is and maybe you, me and Ev are just talking semantics here ... as far as I am concerned if it can be detected (potentially or actually, in part or whole) then it is part of the physical/material universe if it cannot then it is not and right now there is no evidence for any of the not.

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! It is an indication that the physical properties we build our devices for, don't add up to a measuring device that can measure abstract concepts like these.

So what if something is not detectable on a given instrument ... we can detect the phenomenon even if we can't fully explain it yet, Japanese researchers have begun to be able to read back aspects of the human brain ... what will you say if/when they are fully able to resolve thought?

Today we believe we understand many things that a thousand years would have been classified as equally immaterial or beyond explanation ... were they immaterial then? In a thousand years time (assuming we're still around) we will likely understand much, much more including (I have few doubts) explanations for many things some currently consider unexplainable. IOW we are slaves to our ability to resolve things ... the microscope and telescope allowed us finer resolution, the electron microscope and radio telescope allowed us to resolve some things finer still, the Hadron Collider and other things have allowed us even greater resolution ... what technologies will exist in a thousand years to resolve better still? Ultimately your argument doesn't raise things like math and concepts to the level of immaterial, all our current inability to explain does is leave us unanswered questions.

And I think that last pretty much says what I think of points 6 & 7 so I wont pursue it further except to say that these things may well be immaterial, may well be unexplainable I don't know but what I do know is that you have no better idea than I how to explain them and that my money is on science being able to shed greater light on these things x years, decades or centuries down the road.

I might be wrong but based on what we know now that we didn't know then I think it reasonable to assume that the time will come when our explanations for these things are more sure.

Kyu

[Purple Rabbit]

1. I haven't argued that it necessarily is not made of the physical. Only that there exist things that are unexplained by physical properties. Calling these things physical therefore is a leap of faith on your part. You claim what you are unable to sustain with evidence and that is a severe case of what you so often blame our theist friends here.

Maybe this is a phraseology thing so I'll ask ... do you mean to say that there exist things that have no physical attributes? If so (and I'm by no means sure that is what you were saying) what?

The truths of euclidean geometry (under asumption of its axiomas) for instance, have no physical properties.

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?

I disagree ... fields are matter (as in physical/material) because they can be detected and inferred from various evidences to be constructed of exactly the same kind of stuff other things are made of.

They are physical but not material in the sense that they have no tangible substance, i.e. mass. This distinction is why science itself prefers 'physical' over 'material':
" the term "physicalism" is preferable because it has evolved with the physical sciences to incorporate far more sophisticated notions of physicality than matter, for example wave/particle relationships and non-material forces produced by particles." (source Wikipedia on ' physicalism')
In common language the distinction is used less strict.

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.

Surely that is just thought, thought that it is passed on through various social constructs all of which are entirely explainable? That we don't understand the abstraction (which I think is what you might be saying) is not enough to claim it is non-physical, it's still thought.

I agree that thoughts on mathematics when thought of arise from the brain (althoughthe 'how' part defies any physical explanation), but not that the truths of mathematics vanish when no-one is thinking of them. They still exist. Or do you think euclidean geometry fails when no-one is thinking of them. That really is absurd. In fact such logic brings you well under way towards a deistic ontology.

4. Immaterial is not synonymous with supernatural. The existence of the immaterial is not a plea for the supernatural and we shouldn't refrain from being clear on this out of some fear that it opens the door for theists and the like to obtain a foothold with belief in the supernatural. Immaterial just means 'not material', so if we can't explain something from physical properties it is fair to call it immaterial. It does not necessarily mean that it will always be unexplainable 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. 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.

Concepts & abstractions are just thoughts, there is no need to elevate them to some special status especially if (as I suspect will occur) in a few decades we have decision making, emotive computers with the ability to think (even if they can't do it as well as at that point ... time will cure that).

The thoughts on concepts and abstractions are thought, the informational content of concepts and abstractions are true with or without a thought. Euclidean geometry holds whether one is thinking of it or not.

I think it is and maybe you, me and Ev are just talking semantics here ... as far as I am concerned if it can be detected (potentially or actually, in part or whole) then it is part of the physical/material universe if it cannot then it is not and right now there is no evidence for any of the not.

You cannot detect euclidean geometry with a physical device. One minor reason for that being that our reality does not even obey euclidean geometry.

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! It is an indication that the physical properties we build our devices for, don't add up to a measuring device that can measure abstract concepts like these.

So what if something is not detectable on a given instrument ... we can detect the phenomenon even if we can't fully explain it yet, Japanese researchers have begun to be able to read back aspects of the human brain ... what will you say if/when they are fully able to resolve thought? [/quote]
It would be one step more in the direction of sufficient evidence for physicalism, but it wouldn't distinguish between reductive and non-reductive physicalism. If you would be able to make a (The Matrix-like) device that you can plug yourself into (don't ask me wihich part of your body to use for that!) and that gives you full first-person experience, you have shown that first-person experience arises from the physical. The recipe for it would be in the construction of the device. But it would not necessarily prove that the truths of euclidean geometry are reducible to the physical.

Today we believe we understand many things that a thousand years would have been classified as equally immaterial or beyond explanation ... were they immaterial then?

Indeed that is the case. In the time that our understanding of the physical did not encompass force fields, i.e. gravitational force was not a property of mass, it was not clear what held the planets in orbit around the sun (assuming the point in time was reached where was established that the sun is central in the solar system) and the mechanism responsible was in every aspect non-material or immaterial in nature. It is only in hindsight that we can say that we understand gravitation is a (new) property of mass that obeys a certain verifiable law.

In a thousand years time (assuming we're still around) we will likely understand much, much more including (I have few doubts) explanations for many things some currently consider unexplainable. IOW we are slaves to our ability to resolve things ... the microscope and telescope allowed us finer resolution, the electron microscope and radio telescope allowed us to resolve some things finer still, the Hadron Collider and other things have allowed us even greater resolution ... what technologies will exist in a thousand years to resolve better still? Ultimately your argument doesn't raise things like math and concepts to the level of immaterial, all our current inability to explain does is leave us unanswered questions.

The point is, Kyu, that the claim that the phyiscal model can fill the left gaps is made by you and EvF now. It isn't relevant if you have any doubts about explainatory powers of physicalism or not, all that counts, when it comes to claiming from science that all that exists is physical, is verifiable and falsifiable formulated evidence. Btw, the Hadron Collider hasn't given any results yet. The truths of euclidean geometry do not need to be raised to the level of the immaterial, they are there already as a result of the inability of physical properties to add up to its truths. It is possible however that they might become part of the physical one day. Although without evidence it would be on the same level with speculation on some divine cause. Now you would not like to be on that level, would you?

Thanks for your reaction, you raise relevant questions and ideas, but what I really appreciate is that you have abstained from abusive rhetoric throughout.

[Edwardo Piet]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I do not see how I need faith, all I am saying is that I don't know of any evidence that thought is special and isn't physically part of this, what is known to be a, physical universe.

I don't care whether you call thought non-physical or not. Like I said, if you are calling the 'mental', 'non-physical' by definition, then you get what you want in a single step.

So no, calling thought physical is not, a leap of faith. Neither is calling it non-physical. There's no evidence that thought is physical, fine. But that doesn't mean it isn't physical. that means we don't know yet.

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.

If thought is made of the physical, you can call it non-physical if you want. But I personally would reserve the usage of such a term for what has shown not to be made out of physical properties, and not to be physically part of this, normally, physical universe. I require evidence for such an exception, I don't know of any yet.

You claim what you are unable to sustain with evidence and that is a severe case of what you so often blame our theist friends here.

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

2. I know of no evidence that thought isn't physical, only a lack of evidence that it is. 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.

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!

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??

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.

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.

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

I don't see why to make it an exception to the physical. So I see it highly unlikely that our thoughts and concepts such as mathematics aren't physically part of our physical brain - I need evidence for that.

If thoughts aren't shown to be physical, to claim that that means that they are probably not physically part of physical brain, I see to be bogus. Failure to explain physically doesn't mean it's not actually physical, it just means it hasn't been detected, at least yet.

And as I have said, on the other hand - if by thought being 'non-physical' you just mean 'not shown to be physical', fine. But if it hasn't been shown to be physical then that doesn't give evidence that it isn't physically part of the brain. And since everything else we know of is physical, I'd need evidence to make thought an exception to this.

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?

Physically undetected=just that, physically undetected. It doesn't imply that it's not physically part of the physical universe. I need 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![/quote] 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.

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!

7. As explained in the above I do not assert that the immaterial I am speaking about is necessarily not made up from the material, as you seem to suggest. Mine is a non-reductive physicalistic viewpoint. Do you know what that means? I explicitly ask this because you keep on suggesting that I am asserting such a thing. Please take note of the fact that I am defending a physicalistic viewpoint.

And as I have said many times, for you to take note, if by 'non-physical' you mean 'not physically detected' and you in fact mean that non-physical can be made from physical properties, fine!

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.

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.

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?

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. 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?

Negative evidence for the physical doesn't =positive evidence for something that somehow 'isn't physical', it could very easily be physical but simply (at least yet) be undetected physically, whether ever detected...or not.

You should be able to figure out by now, that I haven't asserted that what we call 'the immaterial' is totally independent from the physical. So please don't make such suggestions.

I could just as easily say 'you should have read by now that I have said many times that I am happy to accept any definition of 'non-physical' if you just mean "'not physically detected/detectable' however there's still no reason to believe it's an exception to the physical universe, not actually physically part of it, and actually non-physical. I/we just call it that because it's not physically detected/detectable."'

I am fine with non-physical if you are not saying there's actually positive evidence that it's not physical (unless you actually know of any?). And negative evidence of the failure to be detected to be physical, just means it's not detected physically. Since everything else in the known universe=physical, I don't see why it would actually be non-physical, it's just not detected to be. That's negative evidence, not positive evidence that it isn't physical, it probably is physical, I argue, because I know of zero evidence for anything non-physical, so why on earth would you make thought an exception? I need evidence for that.

You provide no such testable hypothesis, only a claim from a proof of the negative.

I am not claiming negative evidence for a positive. You however appear to be.

I am not the one suggesting that lack of evidence, negative evidence, for thought being physical =that it probably is non-physical, or probably isn't physical. That does not follow.

All I'm saying is:

1. There's evidence for the physical.

2. I know of no evidence to to the contrary.

3. A failure of evidence for the physical doesn't give credence to the notion of something existing, that isn't physical.

Therefore to claim that the non-physical exists is claiming an exception to the rest of the known universe, and without evidence , is special pleading.

EvF

[Purple Rabbit]

All I'm saying is:

1. There's evidence for the physical.

But there is not enough evidence for the statement that all there is, is physical. Suggesting this with the above sentence is plain false.

2. I know of no evidence to to the contrary.

If this is meant as an argument you of all should recognize it as a argumentam ad ignorantiam. Your ignorance cannot be evidence of anything.

3. A failure of evidence for the physical doesn't give credence to the notion of something existing, that isn't physical.

Mental states are accessible for everyone through first-person experience. Mental states exist. They are no failure of evidence for the physical, rather physical properties fail to explain these phenomena sufficiently according to scientific standards. You therefore cannot, at the moment, conclude that mental states are physical states. The only possible conclusion is that these phenomena are unexplained from the physical and that they are to our current understanding of the word non-physical, i.e. immaterial.

Therefore to claim that the non-physical exists is claiming an exception to the rest of the known universe, and without evidence , is special pleading.

Non-sequitur. Your conclusion does not follow from the premises. (1) is only suggestive for your conclusion but it fails to acknowledge that there are phenomena for which there is no explanation from physical properties, (2) is logically fallacious, (3) contains a twisted version of the fact that not all phenomena can be explained from the physical and concludes from this falsely that these phenomena necessarily are physical.

The existence of mental states is fact as is the fact that they are unexplained in the current physical model. The existence of mathematical truths is fact as is the fact that they are unexplained in the current physical model. Although there is sufficient evidence that mental states are dependent on the physical, there is not sufficient evidence that mental states are within physical explanation. There is sufficient evidence that mathematical truth are independent on the physical. The phenomena as such are therefore are (to our current understanding of the word 'physical') non-physical. Science should not claim what it cannot. Your caim that all that exists is physical is unsubstantiated and unscientific wishfull thinking.

So one question really:
Do you acknowledge that there are phenomena that the current scientific physical model of reality fails (to scientific standards) to explain, or not?

[fr0d0]

No one is saying that physical thought is a supernatural entity. As Rabbit stated, time isn't a physical entity.

Your assertion that everything we don't already know is physical is actually physical is a vast plastering job over subjects outside of the arena of existence.

[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?

[Edwardo Piet]

But there is not enough evidence for the statement that all there is, is physical. Suggesting this with the above sentence is plain false.

I'm not saying that there's evidence that everything is physical. I'm saying that I don't know of any evidence of anything but the physical. So I'm not going to believe thought isn't physical without evidence for such a (at least seemingly) one-off exception.

2. I know of no evidence to to the contrary.

If this is meant as an argument you of all should recognize it as a argumentam ad ignorantiam. Your ignorance cannot be evidence of anything.

No because as I have said many times. I am not saying that no evidence of the non-physical means that it 'must be physical', which would be the argumentum ad ignorantum. What I am saying is that no evidence for the non-physical=there's no reason to believe that there's anything non-physical. Untill there is any evidence for the non-physical. That's the reasonable stance.

You therefore cannot, at the moment, conclude that mental states are physical states.

Nor can you conclude that they're not, without evidence. There is evidnece for the physical in this universe however, and no evidence for the non-physical.

The fact there's no evidence it's specifically not physical, not made up of the physical, not physically part of the physical universe, indeed, as you rightly say - does not mean that it is physical. That would be the argumentum ad ignorantum - but I'm not claiming that.

I'm saying that failure to detect as physical doesn't mean it's not physical, and failure to detect as non physical doesn't mean it is physical either.

What I am arguing then, is taking all that aside, when it comes down to it...there at least is, positive evidence of the physical, and none of the non-physical. Just because there's no evidence that thought is physical doesn't mean that it's not physical, that would be the argument ad ignorantum on your part, just as to claim the other way specifically because of a failure to detect as non physical would be me making that very same fallacy.

All I'm arguing is that there is actually positive evidence for the phyiscal, and none to the countrary. So taking all the claims from ignorance aside, on both sides - when it comes down to it, why make thought an exception?

The only possible conclusion is that these phenomena are unexplained from the physical and that they are to our current understanding of the word non-physical, i.e. immaterial.

And as I have repeatedly said now, if that's how defining 'non-physical', fine! I accept that definiton.

But that definition does not mean they're not physically part of the physical universe, or not made of physical properties (as you rightly say now and then....and I have told you I accept that), not does it even mean they're necessarily physically undetectable, because the most we can know is that...at least, so far, we (humans) haven't been able to detect thought as physical.

So if 'not physically detected' =not physical, then fine. But that doesn't mean that thought is in any way different to the phyiscal, or in anyway not physical other than this fact that at least so far it hasn't been detected specifically as physical - it hasn't been shown to be not physical either.

As far as I know there's no reason to believe thought is in any way special or 'non-physical' other than the fact it hasn't been detected as physical, at least yet.

If you want to call 'not detected as physical yet', 'non-physical', fine. But not detected as phyiscal doesn't mean it's not physical, it just means it hasn't been detected as physical.

Therefore to claim that the non-physical exists is claiming an exception to the rest of the known universe, and without evidence , is special pleading.

Non-sequitur. Your conclusion does not follow from the premises. (1) is only suggestive for your conclusion but it fails to acknowledge that there are phenomena for which there is no explanation from physical properties,

The fact there's no explanation for it being physical at least yet, doesn't mean it's not physical. So there's still no reason to make an exception whatsoever. So that's a non-sequiter on your part.

(2) is logically fallacious,

I don't see how? Let me explain. If there was tons of evidence for the non-phyiscal then that would make the non-physical more commonplace and more probable in the universe. The fact there's zero evidence for the non-physical, means that to claim an exception without evidence is even more ludicrious.

(3) contains a twisted version of the fact that not all phenomena can be explained from the physical and concludes from this falsely that these phenomena necessarily are physical.

Which is another strawman again. Sorry, but please...when have I ever claimed that it's necessarily physical as you keep claimng I do? How many times have I said that I'm not claiming that?!

Your strawman= "The fact there's no evidence for the non-physical means that thought is necessarily physical."

What I'm actually saying is: "The fact there's no evidence for the non-physical means there's no reason to believe thought is non-physical. And burden of proof is on the claim for non physical because it's the non-physical that is the one-off exception to the rest of the known universe.."

And since the only alternative to 'non-physical' by definition is 'physical', that's why I believe it's physical. Because I can't believe neither, thought clearly exists, and the BoP is on the claim for it being non-physical in actuality.

The existence of mental states is fact as is the fact that they are unexplained in the current physical model.

Nor have they been explained to be not physical. I assume they are still part of the physical universe...still physically part of the physical universe. I would think that nonphysical as in, not physical....would be opposed to that. If it isn't...what is? What literally means 'not phyiscally part of the physical universe', if non-physical doesn't when non-physical means ...not physical?

If 'non-physical' just means 'not shown to be physical', as I have repeatedly said: Fine!

But then there's no reason to believe it is an exception to the physical universe, isn't physically part of it...or literally isn't physical. If 'non-physical' doesn't literally mean not physical then what the hell does? Has science canceled out the possibility for something that is literally not physical...or is the literally non-physical called something else besides 'non-physical'?? Or does 'non-physical' literally mean 'not physical', as in not physically part of the universe...not made of physical energy of any kind, etc?

The existence of mathematical truths is fact as is the fact that they are unexplained in the current physical model.

I'm sorry but I don't understand this whole 'maths' lark in this debate because...

Can you show me any evidence that the concepts of 'numbers' for instance, exist at all outside of physical brains?

In which case why believe they're non-physical (once again).

Come again?

1. Premise 1: There's no evidence that maths inside the brain that is physical.

2. Premise 2: There's no evidence of maths inside the brain that is non physcial.

3. Premise 3: Thre's no evidence at all that maths actually exist (literally, actually, exist) outside the brain.

So why do you conclude that maths is in any way non-physical, whether inside or outside the brain?

Although there is sufficient evidence that mental states are dependent on the physical

Where? Sorry...but that sounds like argumentum ignorantum to me.

1. There is no evidence that thoughts are physical.

2. There is no evidence that they are not physical.

3. There is merely a failure to detect them physically, there's still no reason to believe they aren't made of physical energy.

4. To claim that this is evidence that they positively are 'non physical' as in, not made of phyiscal energy...not actually physical just because it hasn't been physically detected that they are physical - is argumentum ignorantum on your part.

there is not sufficient evidence that mental states are within physical explanation.

So?

There is sufficient evidence that mathematical truth are independent on the physical.

Where? Are you speaking of negative evidence, per chance? Once again, this sounds like the argumentum of ignorantum that you excuse me of......

Where is the evidence that thoughts - or indeed mathetmatics - aren't made of physical energy and therefore are actually non-physical in reality?

Your caim that all that exists is physical is unsubstantiated and unscientific wishfull thinking.

My claim is that we know of no postiive energy for the non-physical for anything that positvely isn't made of physical energy. So I see no reason to believe thought is an exception just becasue it hasn't been physically detected. Because to use negative evidence ( a failure to detect to be physical) for its positive opposite of it being positively 'non physical' is the falacious argument of argumentum ignorantum, that you, accused me of.

So one question really:
Do you acknowledge that there are phenomena that the current scientific physical model of reality fails (to scientific standards) to explain, or not?

Yes. Of course I do. And as I have said, to claim that thought not being physically detected means it therefore literally isn't phyiscal, and is 'non-physical', is argumentum ignorantum on your part.

So the question is irrelevant unless you are defnining 'non-phyiscal' as 'so far not physically detected/maybe forever physically undetectable' - then you get what you want in a single step, I am happy to accept that definiton and I have said this several times now.

So which is it? Are you defining 'non-physical' as 'not shown to be physical', or are you defining it as literally non-phyiscal as in ...not physical...not made of physical energy....not physically part of the physical universe, etc?

EvF