Evidence of the Non-Physical

[Nakosis]

What is your evidence of the existence of the non-physical?

Physical:
2a: having material existence : perceptible especially through the senses and subject to the laws of nature
everything physical is measurable by weight, motion, and resistance
— Thomas De Quincey
b: of or relating to material things

As a "materialist", evidence requires some physicality. If it is not physical, it is not usable to justify belief.

Is that position wrong?

 

[ChristineM]

As a "materialist", evidence requires some physicality. If it is not physical, it is not usable to justify belief.

Is that position wrong?

I don't believe it's wrong. Its certainly how i consider what is evidence

 

[Unveiled Artist]

What is your evidence of the existence of the non-physical?

Physical:
2a: having material existence : perceptible especially through the senses and subject to the laws of nature
everything physical is measurable by weight, motion, and resistance
— Thomas De Quincey
b: of or relating to material things

As a "materialist", evidence requires some physicality. If it is not physical, it is not usable to justify belief.

Is that position wrong?

How do you measure the criteria and determine the evidence for abstract thought, emotion, idea, or belief?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

What is your evidence of the existence of the non-physical?

Physical:
2a: having material existence : perceptible especially through the senses and subject to the laws of nature
everything physical is measurable by weight, motion, and resistance
— Thomas De Quincey
b: of or relating to material things

As a "materialist", evidence requires some physicality. If it is not physical, it is not usable to justify belief.

Is that position wrong?

The problem is that the following words in your post don't have physical evidence:

• evidence as it is a rule about experiences in the mind.
• requires as that is about rules in the mind.
• not as that is a process in the mind.
• not usable to justify belief is also only in the mind.

The problem is that you in effect use a non-physical rule to declare that only the physical is relevant, but your rule is not itself relevant according to itself.

BTW wrong is also such a word.

From this doesn't follow that the non-physical is supernatural. It only ends here:
https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_12

In effect there are at least more than 2 positions:

• I am a materialist.
• I am an idealist.
• I am a dualist.
• I am a natural monist.
• I don't do positive philosophical metaphysics or ontology.
• I don't have any interest in such things.
• I don't understand what is discussed.
• Probably more.

In practice the world is not right or wrong, unless you believe in right or wrong. Both are non-physical in effect.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I don't believe it's wrong. Its certainly how i consider what is evidence

That you consider, is only in your brain and not in objective reality.

 

[epronovost]

The problem is that the following words in your post don't have physical evidence:

• evidence as it is a rule about experiences in the mind.
• requires as that is about rules in the mind.
• not as that is a process in the mind.
• not usable to justify belief is also only in the mind.

The mind is physical. It's called the brain. The rules are thus physical because they are thoughts and behaviors that exist and can be observed and analyzed like anything else. You are assuming a premise by saying that the mind and thoughts are non-material and have no physical traces which is obviously wrong since both throughts and behavior (as well as minds in general) can be observed in the physical world since they are part of it.

 

[Daemon Sophic]

What is your evidence of the existence of the non-physical?

Physical:
2a: having material existence : perceptible especially through the senses and subject to the laws of nature
everything physical is measurable by weight, motion, and resistance
— Thomas De Quincey
b: of or relating to material things

As a "materialist", evidence requires some physicality. If it is not physical, it is not usable to justify belief.

Is that position wrong?

Would this qualify? The beam has no discernable mass.

.



.



.
Just kidding.



.



.
…or am I.

 

[Nakosis]

How do you measure the criteria and determine the evidence for abstract thought, emotion, idea, or belief?

Your thought can be read with an MRI scan which means they are measurable/physical.
Scientists Can Now Read Your Thoughts With a Brain Scan

Emotions you can feel/sense with also means physical.

ideas and beliefs are just specific groups of thought so I'll refer you back to the MRI scan.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The mind is physical. It's called the brain. The rules are thus physical because they are thoughts and behaviors that exist and can be observed and analyzed like anything else. You are assuming a premise by saying that the mind and thoughts are non-material and have no physical traces which is obviously wrong since both throughts and behavior (as well as minds in general) can be observed in the physical world since they are part of it.

No, I am saying that show me the cat and show me that 2+2=4 are not the same experiences and some people don't understand when they are subjective and not objective in how they understand the world.

Now for your claim, you run into to the following problem:
If everything is physical, then this sentence is also physical: Everything is not physical. So please describe in only physical terms "Everything is not physical."

 

[Lain]

What is your evidence of the existence of the non-physical?

Physical:
2a: having material existence : perceptible especially through the senses and subject to the laws of nature
everything physical is measurable by weight, motion, and resistance
— Thomas De Quincey
b: of or relating to material things

As a "materialist", evidence requires some physicality. If it is not physical, it is not usable to justify belief.

Is that position wrong?

How does one judge one position over the other with this according to you? From what I know of the soul evidence for the non-physical would be being able to reason at all, being able to make a definition, knowing what a law of nature and measurement is, and so on. Those who are "materialists" (I have a bare grasp on what "matter" even is beyond the most basic definition of "from which something is made" like "material for a house" or "study materials," so I am not quite sure what materialists even believe except that they go against what I believe) would just say that is material, those who aren't would say it isn't. What is the standard by which both are to be subject to?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Your thought can be read with an MRI scan which means they are measurable/physical.
Scientists Can Now Read Your Thoughts With a Brain Scan

Emotions you can feel/sense with also means physical.

ideas and beliefs are just specific groups of thought so I'll refer you back to the MRI scan.

No, they can't. They correlate. You can't see an abstract as a concrete. You can only assume they are correlated.

You are doing an over-reductive behavior in that you believe the meaning of this "No" is measurable by weight, motion, and resistance. Not all words are measurable by weight, motion, and resistance.

Further if everything is physical, then religion is physical. So what is the problem?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Your thought can be read with an MRI scan which means they are measurable/physical.
Scientists Can Now Read Your Thoughts With a Brain Scan

Emotions you can feel/sense with also means physical.

ideas and beliefs are just specific groups of thought so I'll refer you back to the MRI scan.

Without context of what you're seeing it's just colors on a screen. How would you tell if it is emotions that you're seeing? For example, if a person had a panic attack and another a seizure, since they both occur via nerves how do you know if the MRI is the criteria for evidence? (I'd say the MRI shows an idea of emotions but in itself it doesn't show it). Another example someone can have a pseudo seizure and sometimes its misinterpreted as a mental health condition rather than a neurological one.

 

[Nakosis]

The problem is that the following words in your post don't have physical evidence:

• evidence as it is a rule about experiences in the mind.
• requires as that is about rules in the mind.
• not as that is a process in the mind.
• not usable to justify belief is also only in the mind.

The problem is that you in effect use a non-physical rule to declare that only the physical is relevant, but your rule is not itself relevant according to itself.

The rule for physical is that it is detectible by the senses. Sight, sound, taste, touch, hearing, smell or detectible by medical equipment as in the case of an MRI scan.

BTW wrong is also such a word.

Ok, mistaken, misinformed? It's not going to hurt my feelings whichever word you feel appropriate to use.

From this doesn't follow that the non-physical is supernatural. It only ends here:
https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_12

In effect there are at least more than 2 positions:

• I am a materialist.
• I am an idealist.
• I am a dualist.
• I am a natural monist.
• I don't do positive philosophical metaphysics or ontology.
• I don't have any interest in such things.
• I don't understand what is discussed.
• Probably more.

In practice the world is not right or wrong, unless you believe in right or wrong. Both are non-physical in effect.

Certainly, I'm only asking what non-physical evidence would people find acceptable to support whatever they happen to believe.

 

[epronovost]

If everything is physical, then this sentence is also physical: Everything is not physical. So please describe in only physical terms "Everything is not physical."

It's a phrase in the english language made of words transmitted through electical current and coding that can be read by people on a digital screeen. Is that what you wanted, or was it an failed attempt at a paradox?

 

[Nakosis]

Would this qualify? The beam has no discernable mass.

.



.



.
Just kidding.



.



.
…or am I.

If you can see it, means it is physical.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The rule for physical is that it is detectible by the senses. Sight, sound, taste, touch, hearing, smell or detectible by medical equipment as in the case of an MRI scan.


Ok, mistaken, misinformed? It's not going to hurt my feelings whichever word you feel appropriate to use.



Certainly, I'm only asking what non-physical evidence would people find acceptable to support whatever they happen to believe.

Okay, that I can do something which is without external experience. And indeed I am doing that right now. I am doing something in my brain, which is not based on sight, sound, taste, touch, hearing, smell or detectible by medical equipment as in the case of an MRI scan. The only reason that you know I can do this, is that you can replicate the thought, but you can't see it. You understand it, but it is for its meaning without any direct external experience.

We are playing philosophy and you believe everything can be explained by observation. But you can't explain explain by observation.
Now you are in effect doing the fallacy of reification.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It's a phrase in the english language made of words transmitted through electical current and coding that can be read by people on a digital screeen. Is that what you wanted, or was it an failed attempt at a paradox?

You can't see meaning or any other abstract. Read up on the fallacy of reification.

 

[Nakosis]

No, they can't. They correlate. You can't see an abstract as a concrete. You can only assume they are correlated.

You are doing an over-reductive behavior in that you believe the meaning of this "No" is measurable by weight, motion, and resistance. Not all words are measurable by weight, motion, and resistance.

Words are audio, well I'll assume you mean the words in your head.
Hear is a study which explains how you are able to hear words in your head.
It's really the same as how audio works in that your brain can use the same physical process to recreate external sound.

Further if everything is physical, then religion is physical. So what is the problem?

Yes, thoughts are a physical process of the brain. This includes thoughts about religion.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...



Yes, thoughts are a physical process of the brain. This includes thoughts about religion.

Good, we agree. Both right and wrong are physical so if I claim something wrong, it is physical. You have nothing to complain about because it is all physical, natural, real, exists and happen in the real, objective reality.
What is your problem? Religion is apart of the world and as real as gravity, since everything is physical. Even imagination, nonsense, unreal and all those other negatives are nothing but physical. So what is your complaint? According to your model everything is physical including the denial that everything is physical.

Yes, I am doing a variant of reductio ad absurdum on you, but that is also physical, so you should have no problem with that.

 

[Nakosis]

Without context of what you're seeing it's just colors on a screen. How would you tell if it is emotions that you're seeing? For example, if a person had a panic attack and another a seizure, since they both occur via nerves how do you know if the MRI is the criteria for evidence? (I'd say the MRI shows an idea of emotions but in itself it doesn't show it). Another example someone can have a pseudo seizure and sometimes its misinterpreted as a mental health condition rather than a neurological one.

Emotions/feelings are created by chemicals in the brain, like dopamine, adrenalin, serotonin etc...
Understanding the chemicals controlling your mood

Nerves are physical and use electrical signals. Which is measurable which means physical. What we consciously experience is the result of an electrochemical process. There's no need for a non-physical component for any of this. I understand we are not usually aware of the physical process of conscious awareness but so far, as people have gone looking for it we can find the cause and effect.