It's scientific to do so. I'll leave whether it's "better" to the eyes of the beholder — Kenosha Kid

You're contradicting yourself. If it's scientific, it's better in the eyes of "someone". Anyway, I don't mind that it's scientific. In fact, my whole argument depends on it being scientific.

No, they don't define non-physical at all. It's not on their radar; if it is, they're not doing so as physicists but as metaphysicists. — Kenosha Kid

The argument from physics is closely related to the argument from causal interaction. Many physicists and consciousness researchers have argued that any action of a nonphysical mind on the brain would entail the violation of physical laws, such as the conservation of energy. — Wikipedia

:brow:

What do scientists do when they hear the word "nonphysical"?

Whether physical laws are apparently violated, yes. They see a physical effect, they seek a physical cause. Why so narrow-minded? Because it's proven a successful strategy for 500 years or so, no other reason. When undetected physical causes are hypothesised, they are then sought and typically found (neutrino, antimatter, Higgs boson, etc.) No more unreasonable than supposing every nail is amenable to a hammer (which is what physics is: a tool). It would be so rare to not find a physical cause that one would be justified in concluding that it's difficult to find rather than that an entirely new, entirely different, non-physical thing is at play, a pointless conjecture that cannot hope to be verified or falsified. — Kenosha Kid

I'm not interested in the merits of science.

You're contradicting yourself. If it's scientific, it's better in the eyes of "someone". — TheMadFool

Yes, it's better in my eyes, but I'll leave it to you as it whether you think it's better. No contradiction, just not being arrogant about it.

I'm not interested in the merits of science. — TheMadFool

If you're not interested in why physicists do what they do, don't ask about them, or make ill-founded claims about them. Perfectly simple! :)

Where everyone is making a mistake here, is in looking for 'the non-physical' as an object or a cause in the physical sense. Where you look for it, is in the reason that you act as you do. Say you decide to disagree with what another poster is saying - that assessment, that weighing up, is the aspect of your activites that is not physical, even if there's some neural activity that is triggered by it.

The whole history of scientific development could be summed up as the refinement and expansion of what is physically possible. We routinely do many things every day that anyone a century ago would find mind-boggling. Arthur C Clarke said that 'any sufficiently highly developed technology is indistinguishable from magic'. That is because humans alone can 'peer into the possible' and realise things from it. Not anything, there are limits, some things remain impossible, but the horizon keeps changing.

So looking at for a mental substance or thing or cause, in that sense, is misplaced.

Where everyone is making a mistake here, is in looking for 'the non-physical' as an object or a cause in the physical sense. Where you look for it, is in the reason that you act as you do. Say you decide to disagree with what another poster is saying - that assessment, that weighing up, is the aspect of your activites that is not physical, even if there's some neural activity that is triggered by it. — Wayfarer

If it has any impact on physical outcome, it is a cause of physical effects. If I wish to raise my right arm and do so because of it, ultimately somewhere along the line that wish caused a physical event. Therefore ascribing physical causation to mind is perfectly accurate.

If it has any impact on physical outcome, it is a cause of physical effects. If I wish to raise my right arm and do so because of it, ultimately somewhere along the line that wish caused a physical event. Therefore ascribing physical causation to mind is perfectly accurate. — Kenosha Kid

The alternative to this is that the mind is a trapped, impotent spectator. Or perhaps telepathic but otherwise impotent. We'd not know if we were telepathic though, since no one can demonstrate any sign of it if mind does not have physical effects.

If it has any impact on physical outcome, it is a cause of physical effects. — Kenosha Kid

But from that it doesn’t follow that the cause is physical or determinable in terms of physics. Precisely what is the nature of intentional action is what is at issue. What about the insights of mathematicians who solve conjectures and so on? What has physically transpired in those cases?

But from that it doesn’t follow that the cause is physical or determinable in terms of physics. — Wayfarer

If the cause is non-physical, it won't be determinable in terms of physics by definition. What we'd see would be indistinguishable from an undiscovered physical cause minus human curiosity.

Precisely what is the nature of intentional action is what is at issue. What about the insights of mathematicians who solve conjectures and so on? What has physically transpired in those cases? — Wayfarer

I was merely treating:

Where everyone is making a mistake here, is in looking for 'the non-physical' as an object or a cause in the physical sense... So looking at for a mental substance or thing or cause, in that sense, is misplaced. — Wayfarer

A non-physical thing either gives rise to physically inexplicable behaviour, which is what the non-physical mind is supposed to do, or it gives rise to nothing, does nothing except insists upon itself to itself. I don't think anyone is arguing for the latter (except maybe Samuel Beckett), so we're very much in the area of non-physical causes of effects in physical stuff (I want to raise my arm --> arm is raised).

The fact that humans are physically embodied is not at issue, and ‘the fact of raising your arm’ is also not at issue. The question is concerning the nature of mind. To re-iterate, a recurring theme in this thread is how to conceive of a non-physical entity such as a mind. I’m saying, the question is misguided, because the mind is not an entity or object of any such analysis. It is the source of reason, meaning, intentionality and so on, but from the perspective of the objective sciences, that can only be inferred, for the obvious reason that the mind is not amenable to objective scrutiny. (Which is also why 'eliminative materialists' seek to deny that it is real.)

The fact that humans are physically embodied is not at issue, and ‘the fact of raising your arm’ is also not at issue. — Wayfarer

This is the sort of thing we were discussing when you interjected with the post I originally responded to. It might be that the timing, wording and lack of reference in your post made it sound like you were joining in the contemporaneous discussion. If not, ignore me since my response was in the context of that discussion.

I agree, the OP was misguided but I believe TMF has moved on somewhat.

Yes, it's better in my eyes, but I'll leave it to you as it whether you think it's better. No contradiction, just not being arrogant about it. — Kenosha Kid

Ok! Great! Anyway, it doesn't matter to my argument. I don't know why I brought it up! Was it you?

If you're not interested in why physicists do what they do, don't ask about them, or make ill-founded claims about them. Perfectly simple! — Kenosha Kid

You misunderstand me. The achievements of physicists are irrelevant to my argument. That's all. Do you mean to argue that just because physicists have made so many contributions that they're right about their take on nonphysicalism? Shouldn't it be the exact opposite? :chin:

Also, you didn't answer my question. I'll repeat it here for your attention. What is a physicist's stand on the nonphysical?

The problem is simple:

Dark energy you say is physical. Ergo the physical violates physical laws ( :chin: ). It's the "scientific" way.

The physical also obey i.e. don't violate physical laws. The usual.

Ergo,

1. If x is physical then either x violates physical laws or x doesn't violate physical laws.

Suppose now that my scientific hypothesis is the mind is physical i.e. x = mind. From 1, my predictions would be either the mind will violate physical laws or the mind won't violate physical laws. In other words, my hypothesis is unfalsifiable. Whether the prediction (violation of physical laws) is true/false, my hypothesis that mind is physical isn't affected in any way at all. This is bad science and you know it. Undermines the whole edifice of physicalism I must say!

You misunderstand me. The achievements of physicists are irrelevan to my argument. That's all. Do you mean to argue that just because physicists have made so many contributions that they're right about their take on nonphysicalism? Shouldn't it be the exact opposite? :chin: — TheMadFool

No, I was treating the point:

scientists and physicalists always maintain something physical is going on whether physical laws are being violated or not — TheMadFool

nothing else. This meme of physical hypotheses for physical behaviour is based solely on its merits, its fitness: if it didn't work, we'd be doing something else instead of science. I wasn't patting science on the back, just illustrating that science is principally a _practical_ method.

One could break it down and say it's induction, but that doesn't really say anything as to why, just postpones the question. The why is: it works, so that meme propagates! :)

What is a physicist's stand on the nonphysical? — TheMadFool

No, they don't define non-physical at all. It's not on their radar; if it is, they're not doing so as physicists but as metaphysicists. — Kenosha Kid

Many physicists and consciousness researchers have argued that any action of a nonphysical mind on the brain would entail the violation of physical laws, such as the conservation of energy. — Wikipedia

This is refuting, not defining. I'd also argue dualists also fail to define non-physical. Anyway, physicists are in the business of physics, not non-physics. I'd say the overwhelming consensus is that everything is physical, therefore there's nothing non-physical to talk about.

Dark energy you say is physical. Ergo the physical violates physical laws ( :chin: ). It's the "scientific" way. — TheMadFool

This doesn't make sense. An uncaused expansion of the universe would violate physical law. Dark energy is a physical hypothesis in which no physical law would be violated.

No, I was treating the point: — Kenosha Kid

What does that mean?

This is refuting, not defining. — Kenosha Kid

You need to get your basics right. How could one refute sans a definition?

This doesn't make sense. An uncaused expansion of the universe would violate physical law. Dark energy is a physical hypothesis in which no physical law would be violated. — Kenosha Kid

Your befuddlement is understandable. I too am equally if not more confused.

We have to go back to the beginning whenever that was. Physical laws are being violated (the expansion of the universe can't be explained with available data on matter & energy and the physical laws duely applied).

Now, according to the physicalist,

1. If x is nonphysical then x violates physical laws

The expansion of the universe has already and is, as we speak, violating physical laws. The physicalist should, because 1 is his position on nonphysicalism, take this as confirmation of the nonphysical (abductive reasoning/affirming the consequent "fallacy"?! the scientific method).

However, they say, towing the line of physicists, "no!" This is what you're talking about viz. that dark energy, the physicalist "explanation" for the expanding universe, is physical. You seem to be under the impression that if dark energy is physical, physical laws aren't violated! I urge you to read the article again - physical laws are violated by the expansion of the universe.

See: Violation of energy conservation in the early universe may explain dark energy

Ergo, following your lead,

2. If x is physical then either x violates physical laws or x doesn't violate physical laws

The rest is as I wrote in my last post (follows from 2).

1. If x is nonphysical then x violates physical laws — TheMadFool

But we haven't seen those laws violated so maybe x is not nonphysical. OR x is nonphysical and also completely useless (can't bring about any movement)

What dark energy and its implication on the conservation physical laws does is it makes statement 2 above false i.e. it's true that that x violates physical laws & x is physical. — TheMadFool

Which isn't helping your case. Beforehand, if we see physical laws getting violated, we can more easily assume the thing violating them is nonphysical. Now, even when physical laws are violated, the thing violating them can be physical or nonphysical. Which only makes this:

Considering thoughts aren't physical, how are you ever going to detect that this event has occurred? What do you expect to see when a thought does something? — khaled

Even worse. Now even if we DO find the fabled "seemingly uncaused neurological event" which was caused by your thirst rather than any physical process, we can't attribute the thing causing it to thirst. Well, we couldn't already but it's an even bigger leap to do so now.

10. If x is nonphysical then either x doesn't violate physical laws or x violates physical laws [7 - 9 conditional proof] — TheMadFool

This is the entire problem. If x is nonphysical and it violates physical laws, then x doesn't exist, as we haven't seen those laws violated. If x is nonphysical and it doesn't violate physical laws, then x is completely useless and posing its existence is thus also useless.

The problem is dualists want to propose a mental substance, that actually does work. An X that violates physical laws, that actually exists. You can't have that. Either you can propose a mental substance, and find out it doesn't do work (epiphenomenalism). Or you can insist that the mental substance does work, in which case it violates the conservation laws, in which case, you have to admit it doesn't exist because we haven't seen those laws violated yet.

Closest you'll get is quantum consciousness but again, it's highly speculative.

To re-iterate, a recurring theme in this thread is how to conceive of a non-physical entity such as a mind. I’m saying, the question is misguided, because the mind is not an entity or object of any such analysis. — Wayfarer

Then you're not a substance dualist.....

Say you decide to disagree with what another poster is saying - that assessment, that weighing up, is the aspect of your activites that is not physical, even if there's some neural activity that is triggered by it. — Wayfarer

So if I look at your brain, and take note of every neural event, and the neural event that caused it, will I find some neural event which was seemingly caused by nothing? Since that would be the neural event that was "triggered by your mind"?

So looking at for a mental substance or thing or cause, in that sense, is misplaced. — Wayfarer

Yea, definitely not a substance dualist....

So what exactly are you saying? You propose a mental substance that triggers neurological events. But also insist that looking for a mental substance is misguided.

What about the insights of mathematicians who solve conjectures and so on? What has physically transpired in those cases? — Wayfarer

What do you think happened in those cases? Do you think if we scan their brains we'll find some unexplained energy anomaly we can attribute to a mind causing something?

1. If x is nonphysical then x violates physical laws — TheMadFool

This is a mere assumption not any kind of absolute logical entailment or truth. Physical laws (if they exist), by definition, govern the physical, and have no necessary relation to the non-physical (however that is defined). A simple category error is giving rise to the illusion that these "principles" you are asserting are sound.

How could one refute sans a definition? — TheMadFool

Something being ill-defined is a good reason to refute it. As I've already said, non-physical doesn't make sense as a concept: either it interacts with the physical, in which case it's physical, or it does not, in which case it cannot make itself known. This is the refutation of non-physical mind you refer to. It doesn't need further elaboration: it is simply that which does not supervene on or is not supervened on by physical reality.

Your befuddlement is understandable. I too am equally if not more confused. — TheMadFool

And you wrote it! :rofl:

See: Violation of energy conservation in the early universe may explain dark energy

Ergo, following your lead,

2. If x is physical then either x violates physical laws or x doesn't violate physical laws — TheMadFool

Let's be explicit. Denotatively a physical law is epistemological: it is a statement about our knowledge of the universe. Colloquially, it also refers to the referent of the former: the ontological truth about the universe. So the law of conservation of energy is precisely a statement about human knowledge, and imprecisely a property of the actual universe that we think is true.

When we say that a physical law is violated, we mean one of three things:
1. our well-tested knowledge about physical reality (physical law) is nonetheless wrong or at least inaccurate;
2. our physical laws are fine (or good enough) but our description of nature or an observation is incomplete;
3. something non-physical is happening.

Your reference to conservation laws maybe changing with time is an example of the first, as is the orbit of Mercury which led to Newtonian gravity to be usurped by Einstein's general relativity. But be clear, this is epistemological. We're not saying that the actual ontological rules governing the universe have been violated, rather that our knowledge has been upended.

The expansion of the universe may be (1) or (2). The laws we have to describe what should happen may be perfectly accurate, but not enough (2). But again, discovering the explanation today doesn't mean that it didn't hold yesterday. Nothing ontological has been violated, we have simply revised our opinions in the face of more facts.

Now it may be that the cause of apparent violation of physical law is never found within the physical. Is this good reason to assume a non-physical explanation, putting aside how little sense that makes in and of itself?

This is a mere assumption not any kind of absolute logical entailment or truth. Physical laws (if they exist), by definition, govern the physical, and have no necessary relation to the non-physical (however that is defined). A simple category error is giving rise to the illusion that these "principles" you are asserting are sound. — Janus

You're contradicting yourself! No harm though! I do that often and look at me - I'm still alive! Survival of the fittest! or as I prefer it, survival of the luckiest! :rofl: Nevertheless, things could've been better. :rofl:

Something being ill-defined is a good reason to refute it. — Kenosha Kid

What's ill-defined?

As I've already said, non-physical doesn't make sense as a concept: either it interacts with the physical, in which case it's physical, or it does not, in which case it cannot make itself known — Kenosha Kid

You should read the conversation I had with Khaled. We discussed this thoroughly. I have no desire to repeat myself here. Nevertheless, the problem is not with how nonphysicalism/physicalism are defined but with how existence is defined.

And you wrote it! :rofl: — Kenosha Kid

Yes, I know :smile: I felt like I had to confess. Are you a priest? :rofl:

Let's be explicit. Denotatively a physical law is epistemological: it is a statement about our knowledge of the universe. Colloquially, it also refers to the referent of the former: the ontological truth about the universe. So the law of conservation of energy is precisely a statement about human knowledge, and imprecisely a property of the actual universe that we think is true. — Kenosha Kid

There's got to be a correspondence (a 1-to-1 correspondence) in terms of logical implications between epistemology and ontology. You speak as is they're completely independent of each other. They're different I agree but not independent in the sense and to the degree necessary for the above paragraph to be relevant to the discussion.

When we say that a physical law is violated, we mean one of three things:
1. our well-tested knowledge about physical reality (physical law) is nonetheless wrong or at least inaccurate;
2. our physical laws are fine (or good enough) but our description of nature or an observation is incomplete;
3. something non-physical is happening. — Kenosha Kid

At least you had to intellectual honesty to consider option 3. something nonphysical is happening. :up:

Your reference to conservation laws maybe changing with time is an example of the first, as is the orbit of Mercury which led to Newtonian gravity to be usurped by Einstein's general relativity. But be clear, this is epistemological. We're not saying that the actual ontological rules governing the universe have been violated, rather that our knowledge has been upended. — Kenosha Kid

Agreed, conservation "laws" maybe changing.

That's exactly the issue here. If "laws" can change science is reduced to nonsense! Look below,

1. If x is physical then x violates physical laws (the usual deal) or x doesn't violate physical laws (change in the laws)

In other words, the hypothesis x is physical can't be falsified because it doesn't matter if physical laws are violated or not!

Falsifiability is what science is all about. Science makes big claims for itself and dismisses many alternatives to science out of hand by labelling them pseudoscience. Google why? It itself, however, fails to meet the stringent criteria it sets for others, and shockingly, precisely on what physical means vis-à-vis the physical laws. That's like a mechanical engineer not being able to define "machine".

Again, your distinction ontological-epistemological is irrelevant. Change in one must be reflected in the other - that's how it works, no? You seem to be under the impression that ontology can contradict epistemology and it wouldn't matter but, as you know, such events signal scientists to, well, scurry back to the drawing board as it were. The idea is to map the territory (construct a theory - epistemology - that can be tested empirically- ontology) The two interact but, mind you ontology (reality) is untouchable so to speak, modify the epistemology (the theory). Everyone knows that!

You're contradicting yourself! No harm though! — TheMadFool

Not much point saying that unless you (can) point to the contradiction.

Not much point saying that unless you (can) point to the contradiction. — Janus

It's our little secret! G'day

non-physical doesn't make sense as a concept — Kenosha Kid

......but rather, makes sense as that which.....

either interacts with the physical, in which case it's physical, or it does not, in which case it cannot make itself known. — Kenosha Kid

....exemplified by....

it is simply that which does not supervene on or is not supervened on by physical reality. — Kenosha Kid

How can it be said something doesn’t interact with the physical, if that something hasn’t made sense as a concept? That the mind is a valid concept is given merely from the thought of it, and all valid concepts make sense in relation to something, which we can see in the construction of syllogisms including it in a premise. Which is, of course, the only possible way to even talk about it in the first place. But this still leaves the question of whether or not the mind and other non-physical conceptions make themselves known, an admirable subtlety on your part, I must say.

Supervenience is a post-modern analytic construct, which is irrelevant in epistemic methodologies in which “mind” doesn’t hold any power. In such methodologies, there are pure conceptions that make themselves known, represented as “the categories”, not of mind, but of reason alone. And to substitute reason for mind, as equally non-physical entities is absurd, in that pure practical reason can indeed supervene on physical reality, re: morality.

I submit to you, Good Sir, that you have already imbued your comments with a conception that has made itself known to your thinking, if not to your words. You have attributed “quality” to the concept of mind, as the only possible means for you to state what it is or is not, and what it can or cannot do. How would you suppose, guess, want, need or just think any of that, without some ground by which to make those judgements, when experience offers no help?

So....it is at least logically consistent, that “quality” is a concept that makes sense (the absence of which is impossible), is not itself physical (the objects to which it relates, are), does not interact with the physical (only attributes relative degree), and most certainly makes itself known (as a necessary condition pursuant to a given methodology).

But ya know what? The physicalist doesn’t have to show such non-physical conceptions make no sense, or don’t exist, or anything else. All he has to do, is show how the human cognitive system can operate in its historically recorded functionality, without them. Which is impossible, because it is the case that he must necessarily employ the very things he is attempting to revoke. He must, then, rely on knowledge he doesn’t have, with respect to a kind of technology he wouldn’t know how to use, for experiments he doesn’t know how to formulate, culminating in results he wouldn’t understand.

In other words, he can explain nothing the metaphysician hasn’t already.

(Mic drop....exit stage right)

What's ill-defined? — TheMadFool

Non-physicalism.

Are you a priest? :rofl: — TheMadFool

Jesus, dude, it's just chat, don't be so offensive ;)

There's got to be a correspondence (a 1-to-1 correspondence) in terms of logical implications between epistemology and ontology. — TheMadFool

Well that's easily dismissed. There are too many theories for the same thing.

You speak as is they're completely independent of each other. — TheMadFool

I don't think that can be inferred. I am a scientist after all. But reality is completely unaffected by our theories about it. And rightly so.

At least you had to intellectual honesty to consider option 3. something nonphysical is happening. :up: — TheMadFool

:( Apropos of nothing, I'm on a train and the most beautiful sunset I've ever seen is going by. Anyhoo, option 3 is there for completion. It is the "I don't want to find out, I just want an answer" option.

That's exactly the issue here. If "laws" can change science is reduced to nonsense! — TheMadFool

Quite the contrary. It is the self-correcting nature of science that makes it superior. The "laws" in this case are our knowledge which may be ever refined to be more complete, more accurate, more integrated, precisely *because* they can be disproven, unlike any claim to non-physicality.

Change in one must be reflected in the other - that's how it works, no? — TheMadFool

No. Absolutely not.

How can it be said something doesn’t interact with the physical, if that something hasn’t made sense as a concept? — Mww

Because being completely unknown makes it illogical to assertm

That the mind is a valid concept is given merely from the thought of it, — Mww

The mind is not contended. For the record, I am pro-mind. Non-physicalism is contended.

Supervenience is a post-modern analytic construct, which is irrelevant in epistemic methodologies in which “mind” doesn’t hold any power. — Mww

Intrigued, but pretty sure this is entirely untrue. But still intrigued.

I submit to you, Good Sir, that you have already imbued your comments with a conception that has made itself known to your thinking, if not to your words. You have attributed “quality” to the concept of mind, as the only possible means for you to state what it is or is not, and what it can or cannot do. How would you suppose, guess, want, need or just think any of that, without some ground by which to make those judgements, when experience offers no help? — Mww

Easy peasy! This itself assumes that experience is some separable thing that, being of the mind, can be of no use in physical considerations. But precisely because the mind is physical, I can be more sure that experience does illuminate.

Which is impossible, because it is the case that he must necessarily employ the very things he is attempting to revoke. — Mww

This assumes what it seeks to prove.

Btw I shouldn't be writing any of this, I'm hammered. Out of interest, how am I holding up? Am I going to be embarrassed in the morning (more like lunchtime) and will you forgive me?

*Adopts Elvis voice*: Always liked you Mww. Always have. Always will. One day we shall arm wrestle.

Something being ill-defined is a good reason to refute it. As I've already said, non-physical doesn't make sense as a concept: either it interacts with the physical, in which case it's physical, or it does not, in which case it cannot make itself known. This is the refutation of non-physical mind you refer to. It doesn't need further elaboration: it is simply that which does not supervene on or is not supervened on by physical reality. — Kenosha Kid

I think this probably crystalizes this entire debate (and many others). How would one define or identify the non-physical?

Not much point saying that unless you (can) point to the contradiction. — Janus


It's our little secret! G'day — TheMadFool

No, Master Fool, it's your little secret; I have no idea what you think the contradiction is.

:cool: But if I was R, my brain would have said instead: "Fine. But M is buying."

:up:

:100:

No, Master Fool, it's your little secret; I have no idea what you think the contradiction is. — Janus

Shhh! :zip: :smile: I hope I didn't offend you!

What's ill-defined?
— TheMadFool

Non-physicalism. — Kenosha Kid

I beg to differ. Existence is poorly defined. Either that or physicalism is under the (false) impression that everything detectable is matter & energy.

Jesus, dude, it's just chat, don't be so offensive ;) — Kenosha Kid

:smile: Georges Lemaître (Expansion Of The Universe) was a priest! Coincidence or...???

Well that's easily dismissed. There are too many theories for the same thing. — Kenosha Kid

The best theory, in terms of explanatory power, is chosen, the rest consigned to the scrap heap. What's explanatory power but a good fit between a hypothesis and experiment. Too many theories, yes but only one, maybe two, are shortlisted based on 1-to-1 correspondence between predictions and confirmation of those predictions.

I am a scientist after all. — Kenosha Kid

Great! Fortune has smile upon me. Something's wrong!

I don't think that can be inferred. — Kenosha Kid

Precisely!

Apropos of nothing, I'm on a train and the most beautiful sunset I've ever seen is going by. Anyhoo, option 3 is there for completion. It is the "I don't want to find out, I just want an answer" option. — Kenosha Kid

Closed-minded scientist! Oxymoron.

It is the self-correcting nature of science — Kenosha Kid

Yes, exactly, that's it! The time has come, scientist, to correct your stand on nonphysicalism.

:fire:

Yes, exactly, that's it! The time has come, scientist, to correct your stand on nonphysicalism. — TheMadFool

It's weird that you take the discussion -- on your thread, no less -- less seriously than the drunk guy on the train :rofl: Amusing as it may be, word association doesn't quite have the same heft as an actual argument.

How would one define or identify the non-physical? — Tom Storm

I've been trying to get an answer to this for years.

Existence is poorly defined. — TheMadFool

What's wrong with

1 The world is all that is the case.
1.1 The world is the totality of facts, not of things. — TLP

as a working definition for existence? This implies that 'whatever exists' is a fact – a contingent entity causally related to other facts; therefore, 'whatever does not exist' is a non-contingent entity not causally related to any facts. So abstract objects e.g. numbers do not exist but rather, as Meinong designated, they only subsist...

So abstract objects e.g. numbers do not exist but rather, as Meinong designated, they only subsist... — 180 Proof

The problem I see with that is that us human minds live in a mental world, in ideas. Each and everyone of our thoughts is abstract. So by this Meaning ontology, our mind only subsists, it does not fully exist. But then, any evidence we have of the existence of matter is based on thoughts and observations by some mind or another, something that does not exist but only subsists...

Therefore matter cannot be said to exist either.

I say: we can be absolutely certain that thoughts exist, but anything beyond that is mere hypothesis. Matter may only subsist, for all we know. :-)